Harper's Weekly Editorials on Carl Schurz/Perfidious Imperialism

by Harper's Weekly

THE Hon. Carl Schurz has delivered himself of a ten-column philippic against Perfidious Imperialism, in which he flays alive everybody who has had anything to do with the situation in the Philippine Islands, excepting, of course, Aguinaldo find his followers, Mr. Bryan and his Concerning
Mr. Schurz aides, and the Spaniards, who are primarily responsible for the whole trouble. He admits in the course of his arguments that his blood boils, and it is unquestionably true that his eloquence seethes. It is a pity that when Mr. Schurz's blood begins to boil he draws himself away from that good-tempered method of debate in which he has often shown himself a master, and that as a result of this departure he places himself in a position which in the eyes of his friends and well-wishers is a deplorable one. In days gone by, despite certain peculiarities of temperament over which Mr. Schurz no more than any other man similarly constructed can exercise control, he has been a power in argumentation. We know of no man to whose words we should prefer to listen rather than to those of Mr. Schurz when engaged in making an address upon a purely academic question. There is a fine quality to fill his utterances of this nature. There is a subtle humor suggesting the rapier rather than the bludgeon running through most of his periods, and when listening to the sound of his pleasant voice it becomes well nigh impossible to doubt his sincerity. But when it comes to the discussion of existing conditions Mr. Schurz is a dreamer. He cannot quite see things as they are, and he is so wedded to his visions that he is a hard man to wake up. It is our honest conviction that Mr. Schurz was designed by nature to write poetry. He has in his soul that feeling of divine discontent which has carried many a less gifted man to the fore, and which has resulted in the enrichment of our Anthologies. By some unkind provision of the powers, however — possibly because of his own resentment of a preconceived ideal of the life he should lead — Mr. Schurz has spent most of his days in politics, and in American politics at that, than which there is probably nowhere in the world to be found a kind more calculated to keep the blood of the poet simmering at least, if not actually boiling, and as a result he has been in a perpetual state of fermentation as long as we can remember. Discontent with conditions in the father-land gave to us the benefit and the distinction of his citizenship. Discontent with conditions during the civil- war period secured for him a stinging rebuke from no less a personage than Abraham Lincoln. Discontent with conditions led him into an alliance with the Democratic party when President Grant, for the second time, ran for the Presidential office. Discontent with his new associates made of him a staunch supporter of Rutherford B. Hayes and the Republican party four years later. Discontent with his party in 1884 drew him away once more from the Republican ranks and made a Democrat of him. Discontent in 1896 drew him away from the Democratic ranks into an advocacy of the election of Mr. McKinley, and to-day he is consistently following his political system of alternation, has deserted Republicanism and joined hands with the forces of anarchy and disorder. He has been right and he has been wrong, but he has always been himself. We think that on the whole he is a valuable sort of citizen to have, because the nation does not exist which does not need for its political development an intelligent party of opposition. If Mr. Schurz by going over to Bryanism can make Bryanism intelligent, his present attitude is not quite so deplorable as at first sight it seems to be. Ardent supporters of the Administration as we are in this campaign, we recognize the fact that a sincere and intelligent opposition is a thing it has conspicuously lacked, and we are wholly willing to express our astonishment that it should have got along so well without it. If Mr. Schurz is used by the people he supports, or by the people he opposes, in the right way, there can be no question that he will remain as he has been in the past, a type of citizen which a strong and growing country really needs to have during its formative period. He can at least call attention to what he considers to be our mistakes, and if the people can only perceive wherein Mr. Schurz is right and wherein he is wrong, much good may ultimately come from his fermentations.

MR. SCHURZ'S address on Perfidious Imperialism, as printed in full by the flirtatious but not yet completely Bryanized organ of the Populist candidate, the Evening Post, as a piece of literature is really worth reading. As a serious offset to the comprehensive treatment of Perfidious
Imperialism the Philippine question by President McKinley in his letter of acceptance, it is not to be reckoned with, and for a precise reason. Mr. Schurz in its preparation has been influenced rather by the ideal surroundings of the beautiful northern lake upon whose borders he has passed the summer, than by the salient facts of the situation. There all is peace. The placid waters speak not of war. The rustling breezes blowing through the trees speak only of idleness and of dreams. The hills hide their heads in the clouds, and the poetic side of man, with its license and its independence of the sordid realities of life, willy-nilly obtains control. Had Mr. Schurz gone to Washington, with its brutal heat and the awful anxieties of the past summer, to study the question from the “hidden sources of information” which Mr. McKinley has so nefariously used, instead of dreaming of things is they might be beneath the soft spell of Lake George, we think he would have spoken differently. He would not have forgotten, as he seems to have done, that we went into the Philippines as an act of formal and declared war — a war which for many years we had been striving to avoid. He would not have forgotten the fact that in a conflict we did not seek, but which we could not honorably escape, we effected the conquest of the Philippine Islands. He would not have forgotten, as he appears to have done, that by the formal and legal and inevitable ceding and relinquishment to us of the Philippine Islands by their only properly constituted sovereign power we assumed a responsibility to shirk which would have made us worthy of the pillory into which Mr. Bryan and his followers, and even Mr. Schurz himself, would doubtless have been the first to place the Administration. He would not have forgotten that there rests upon the shoulders of the American people in this matter a duty the proper performance of which is to be the test of our honor, of our strength, and of our right to take part in the councils of the nations of earth, by which alone we may hope to be influential in the spreading of the principles of civilization.

Had the essential facts of Mr. Schurz's arraignment of the Administration been these, his argument would have been unassailable. Lacking the solid foundation of truth, the address falls to the ground, and in so far as criticism is required comes more properly into the realm of literature than into that of politics. As literature we cannot deny its excellence. We know of no more interesting bit of fiction published this fall. As a statesmanlike utterance we think it will find little commendation outside of the exclusive circle represented by John P. Altgeld, William Jennings Bryan, Richard Olney, Erving Winslow, Richard Croker, and E. L. Godwin.

• Page Image at Wikimedia Commons