Waning Consent of the Governed

William Jennings Bryan was the political face of Anti-Imperialism from 1898 through to his defeat in the 1900 presidential election, and beyond. He lost the election to President McKinley.

It doesn’t mean his ideas were wrong.

In the selections below, he reminds us that it was Thomas Jefferson who said Americans should have “nothing to do with conquest,” because it contradicts the founding principle of consent of the governed. And, that corporate power, already difficult to control at home, is unthinkable to be controlled in distant lands. Remember this was 128 years ago.

Yet, it’s also true that Bryan, and others in the Anti-Imperialist League, were out of step with the direction the American nation was was moving as it transformed from a continental republic to an imperial empire.

It doesn’t mean they were wrong.

This week at Ink & Time, in our pre-Independence Day series, we bring you excerpts from Bryan’s anti-imperial writings which appear in our forthcoming anthology:

Against Empire: Patriotic Dissent for America’s 250th.

The collectible hardcover edition will be released next week, comprising 36 curated writings from 22 leading anti-imperialist voices: speeches, prose, poetry, satire, philosophy and more.

Join the waitlist below, and you can get one of the earmarked first 100 copies at basic printing costs (estimated $12).

[…]

Whether a man steals much or little may depend upon his opportunities, but whether he steals at all depends upon his own volition.

So with our nation. If we embark upon a career of conquest no one can tell how many islands we may be able to seize or how many races we may be able to subjugate; neither can any one estimate the cost, immediate and remote, to the nation’s purse and to the nation’s character, but whether we shall enter upon such a career is a question which the people have a right to decide for themselves.

Unexpected events may retard or advance the nation’s growth, but the nation’s purpose determines its destiny.

What is the nation’s purpose?

The main purpose of the founders of our government was to secure for themselves and for posterity the blessings of liberty, and that purpose has been faithfully followed up to this time.

Our statesmen have opposed each other upon economic questions, but they have agreed in defending self-government as the controlling national idea. They have quarreled among themselves over tariff and finance, but they have been united in their opposition to an entangling alliance with any European power.

Under this policy our nation has grown in numbers and in strength. Under this policy its beneficent influence has encircled the globe. Under this policy the taxpayers have been spared the burden and the menace of a large military establishment and the young men have been taught the arts of peace rather than the science of war.

On each returning Fourth of July our people have met to celebrate the signing of the Declaration of Independence; their hearts have renewed their vows to free institutions and their voices have praised the forefathers whose wisdom and courage and patriotism made it possible for each succeeding generation to repeat the words,

“My country, ‘tis of thee, Sweet land of Liberty, Of thee I sing.”

This sentiment was well-nigh universal until a year ago. It was to this sentiment that the Cuban insurgents appealed; it was this sentiment that impelled our people to enter into the war with Spain.

Have the people so changed within a few short months that they are now willing to apologize for the War of the Revolution and force upon the Filipinos the same system of government against which the colonists protested with fire and sword?

The advocates of imperialism have sought to support their position by appealing to the authority of Jefferson. Of all the statesmen who have ever lived, Jefferson was the one most hostile to the doctrines embodied in the demand for a European colonial policy.

Imperialism, as it now presents itself, embraces four distinct propositions:

1. That the acquisition of territory by conquest is right.

2. That the acquisition of remote territory is desirable.

3. That the doctrine that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed is unsound.

4. That people can be wisely governed by aliens.

To all these propositions Jefferson was emphatically opposed.

Could he be more explicit?

[…]

If the principle of conquest is right, why should it be denied a place in American public law?

So objectionable is the theory of acquisition of territory by conquest that the nation which suffers such injustice can, according to the resolutions, recover by arbitration the land ceded in the presence of an armed force.

So abhorrent is it, that a waiver of arbitration, made under such circumstances, is null and void. While the resolutions were only for the consideration of the American Republics, the principle therein stated cannot be limited by latitude or longitude.

And yet some are now thinking of that which was then “not to be thought of.”

Policy may change, but does a “code of morality” change?

In the discussion of a colonial policy for the United States frequent references will be made to England's government of India. The imperialists are already declaring that Great Britain's policy has resulted in profit to herself and benefit to her Asiatic subjects.

The opponents of imperialism, on the other hand, find in India's experience a warning against a policy which places one nation under the control of another and distant nation.

In 1600 the first East India company was organized. Its charter was for fifteen years, but a new and perpetual charter was granted in 1609. Under the reign of Charles II the company obtained another charter which continued former privileges and added authority "to make peace or war with any prince or people (in India) not being Christian."

The affairs of the company were managed with an eye single to gain, and intervention in the quarrels of native princes resulted in the gradual extension of its influence. Money was the object, and the means employed would not always bear scrutiny. There was, however, no hypocritical mingling of an imaginary "philanthropy" with an actual "five percent."

[…]

In 1877 Queen Victoria assumed the title, Empress of India. Even if it could be shown that England's sovereignty over India had brought blessings to the Indian people and advantage to the inhabitants of Great Britain, we could not afford to adopt the policy.

A monarchy can engage in work which a republic dare not undertake. A monarchy is constructed upon the theory that authority descends from the king and that privileges are granted by the crown to the subjects.

Of course the ruling power recognizes that it owes a duty to the people, but while the obligation is binding upon the conscience of the sovereign it cannot be enforced by the subject.

[…]

A nation which denies the principle that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed can give self-government to one colony and deny it to another; it can give it to colonies strong enough to exact it by force and deny it to weaker ones; but a nation which recognizes the people as the only sovereigns, and regards those temporarily in authority merely as public servants, is not at liberty to apply the principle to one section of the country and refuse it to another.

[…]

"The strength of civilization without its mercy!" The American people are capable of governing themselves, but what reason have we to believe that they can wisely administer the affairs of distant races? It is difficult enough to curb corporate power in this country, where the people who suffer have in their own hands the means of redress; how much more difficult it would be to protect the interests of the people where the people who do the governing do not feel the suffering and where the people who do the suffering must rely upon the mercy of alien rulers!

True, Macaulay argues that English morality, tardily but finally, followed English authority into the Orient, but, as a matter of fact, the bleeding of India has continued systematically during the present century.

Polite and refined methods have been substituted for the rude and harsh ones formerly employed, and the money received is distributed among a larger number, but the total sum annually drawn from India is greater now than it was when England's foremost orators and statesmen were demanding the impeachment of notorious malefactors.

Does any one doubt that, if we annex the Philippines, and govern them by agents sent from here, questions between them and the people of the United States will be settled by the people of the United States and for the benefit of the people of the United States?

If we make subjects of them against their will and for our own benefit are we likely to govern them with any more benevolence?

The resolutions quoted mention efforts for the curtailment of the liberty of the press. Is that not a necessary result of governmental injustice? Are we likely to allow the Filipinos freedom of the press, if we enter upon a system that is indefensible according to our theory of government?

English rule in India is not bad because it is English, but because no race has yet appeared sufficiently strong in character to resist the temptations which come with irresponsible power.

We may well turn from the contemplation of an imperial policy and its necessary vices to the words of Jefferson in his first inaugural message:

William Jennings Bryan (1860–1925) was a dominant force in American politics during the Progressive Era. Known as "The Great Commoner" and "The Boy Orator," Bryan was a lawyer, politician, and three-time Democratic nominee for President.

He transformed the Democratic Party from a conservative, business-aligned coalition into a vehicle for progressive reform and agrarian populism.

At the 1896 Democratic National Convention in Chicago, the 36-year-old Bryan delivered his legendary "Cross of Gold" speech. He electrified the convention by declaring:

As Secretary of State (1913–1915), appointed by President Woodrow Wilson, Bryan focused heavily on "conciliation treaties" to prevent war through international arbitration. He resigned in protest in 1915 following the sinking of the Lusitania, believing Wilson's warnings to Germany would inevitably drag the U.S. into World War I.

Following the Spanish-American War of 1898, the United States acquired the Philippines, Puerto Rico, and Guam. Bryan emerged as a leading voice against American colonial expansion.

Bryan made anti-imperialism the "paramount issue" of his 1900 presidential campaign against McKinley. In his formal acceptance of the 1900 Democratic nomination, Bryan delivered a sweeping indictment of empire.

Though he never won the presidency, William Jennings Bryan was one of the most consequential political figures in American history.

Many of the "radical" populist reforms Bryan championed were eventually enacted into law during the Progressive Era under Presidents Roosevelt, Taft, and Wilson. His enduring legislative legacy includes:

The 16th Amendment (Graduated Income Tax), The 17th Amendment (Direct Election of U.S. Senators), The 18th Amendment (Prohibition), The 19th Amendment (Women's Suffrage), The creation of the Department of Labor, The establishment of the Federal Reserve System.

Bryan's legacy remains complex. His final years as a crusader against evolution in the Scopes Trial cemented his image for many as a reactionary fundamentalist.

Nevertheless, his insistence that government should serve the "toiling masses" rather than corporate monopolies left an indelible mark on the American political landscape.

Ink & Time works to resurface and refresh writings that we forgot, and in so doing open our eyes to fresh ways of understanding the world we live in.

Our forthcoming Anti-Imperialist Reader is being published in honor of the 250th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.

The book includes curated writings of William Jennings Bryan and 21 other leading voices of the day, from America and the Philippines, including:

Pre-order your copy at the discounted price at the link below.