Ętes-vous bon en civi US? Faites le quiz ici et gagnez un CD-Rom d'une valeur de 250F

“On imperialism”

                                                                                                                             C. Schurz

 

Introduction:

Defining the text – The text is a denunciation of American imperialism by C. Schurz who was a German himself and a hero of the Civil War. Also a politician who illustrated himself as an advocate of democratic values and rebelled and denounced Grant's corrupt administration. This helped him to the senate in 1870 and to become Governor of Missouri thanks to democratic support. He became the leading defender of the 'Merit System' for appointments in the civil service.
Historical background – This text established the basis for the organisation of the League resulting from a congress in Chicago 1899. It was a coalition of different groups since it gathered intellectuals, reformers, union members but also included rabid southern racists including Ben Tillman?? ('Pitchfork Ben'). To understand Schurz’s argument, we must recall some of the main episodes leading to the annexation of the Philippines after the treaty of Paris. Ratification was difficult and came only in February?? 1899 as public opinion was extremely divided on the issue and the controversy did not die down with ratification but organised itself and intensified because of the insurrection in the Philippines led by a nationalist leader, Emilio??? Aguinaldo. A severe repression ensued and his situation provoked the indignation of  public opinion. Besides, the political situation was chaotic: already the electoral campaign for the presidential election were under way and the league was constituted as a pressure group. This campaign was dominated by this debate.
The organisation of the text & the outline of our commentary – The text is organised pretty simply: we first have a review of the main argument of the imperialists and concludes on the hope that Americans will not be fooled by such arguments and will stick to the fundamental principles of the American democracy. We will focus on the imperialist defence of annexation to move on to Schurz’s denunciation of these arguments and finish with a close study of the ideological assumptions behind his argument and criticism.

I] A review of the imperialists’ arguments in favour of annexation.
II] Schurz's denunciation of these arguments.
III] The ideological assumptions behind his argument and criticism.  

 

I] A review of the imperialists' arguments in favour of annexation.

Commercial arguments come first and Schurz devotes a lot of space to them presumably because they carry a lot of weight. Annexation meant an economic expansion to the public opinion. As far as the Philippines are concerned the economic interest was real as it was full of tropical products such as rubber. The business circles did see the islands as a base for the future conquest of the Chinese market.

Then Schurz passes on more ideological arguments such as that of America’s manifest destiny. Its man contents, religious especially, are present and Schurz insists on determinism but much is made on the idea of  a divine mission although he includes the need to civilise the Philippinos. They were Catholics already and there was a degree of competition between the Catholics and the protestants as Catholicism was associated with despotism. His idea is that of a mission and of a ‘burden’ following R. Kipling’s poem “The white Man’s Burden” published during the ratification debate in February 1899. We observe a shift from the notion of duty to the notion of burden. Americans were asked to accept the civilising mission. The poem touched a sensitive fibre as it relied on an argument very strongly implanted in the American consciousness, that of stewardship.

The next argument is that of national pride: it seems to sum it all up in its celebration of the land, of the flag (see Beveridge). Her what matters is schurz’s attitude towards the imperialists as his main object to denounce their views is satire and irony.

Schurz also dismisses the commercial arguments on several grounds. Expansion does not require a war of conquest nor any empire. As a person attached to democracy, Schurz denounces the violation of the principle of the concept of the government and of anti-colonialism, a traditional feature in America. Such betrayal, Schurz note, would endanger democracy at home as it would encourage German-like ‘militarism’.

Schurz delivers an apology of force and the spirit of conquest characterised by Roosevelt. Militarism soon became a code-word to denounce despotism in Europe. Besides, militarism is also dismissed on the ground that conquest would only favour wealthy capitalists, illustrating a populist rhetoric. The populist party was still vigorous despite its defeat in the 1896 elections. The argument came at a time when the anti-trust feeling was high as the US knew a period of intense amalgamation and concentration in business and industry.

II] Schurz's denunciation of these arguments.

The argument of manifest destiny is being denounced as sheer hypocrisy, a sham hiding real and shameful motivation, "moral cowardice." His aim is to show that manifest destiny is almost a worn-out concept used again and again to defend dubious causes such as slavery. Schurz wants to stigmatise the spirit of conquest and to appeal indirectly to the republican party to return to its old ideals expressed by A. Lincoln.

His attack on the "burden men" is based on a moralistic approach. The sense-of-mission argument is dismissed as a mask for brutal conquest. Schurz systematically opposes "the concept of the governed". What is at stake are the values of the American revolution.

His most violent argument goes to the nationalists, accusing them of "desecrating" the principles of the American democracy. He does not mention the rivalry with other colonial powers. His aim is to denounce the hypocrisy of the imperialists. He does so with a degree of violence.

 

III] This raises the question of the ideological assumption behind this criticism.  There seems to be ideals to which Schurz might subscribe once put right. He would replace conquest by sound business values such as free competition, relations based on equality between traders and consumers. In fact we see him in line with the economic ideals of the populists defending small individual enterprise against the excessive power of the trusts. The argument he uses are those of middle class small producers, that feel threatened by big business and have to work for themselves (23). This attack on nationalism does not exclude nationalism based on the principles of democracy (93-95) This nationalism has to be put right somehow. The need for correction is strong if the US does not want to revert to the conditions of Europe.

His approach to the question of race arouses our suspicion and betrays a sense of superiority on his part. He suspiciously speaks of "our race" as opposed to the people from tropical countries (21-22). This might evoke the fear of mongrelisation of some anti-imperialist figures.

Schurz's condemnation of the manifest destiny men remains fairly traditional in the sense that he constantly uses a moral vocabulary which somehow situates him in the puritan camp: "the destiny lies intelligent will..." This means that the notion of an exceptional destiny is not totally dismissed but is simply put on surer moral ground and strength replace brutal force. This indicates that the notion of manifest destiny is revisited from a moral point of view. Besides, schurz blames the so-called "destiny people" to apply his concept of "distant lands" (77-83). Contiguous expansion was honourable while overseas imperialism should be rejected.

 

Conclusion – 1899 constituted a transition heading towards a redefinition of manifest destiny which will be put on economic basis. The open-door policy for example, which will enable America to return to its state of innocence, abandoning its colonialist temptations.

 

 

next next