Kitabı oku: «England, Canada and the Great War», sayfa 10

CHAPTER XVIII.
Imperialism

Mr. Bourassa is apparently so frightened by what he calls Imperialism that the horrible phantom being always present to his imagination, he shudders at it in day time, and wildly dreams of it at night. Judging by what he has said and written, he seems to have worried a great deal, for many years past, about the dire misfortunes which, he believed, were more and more threatening the future of the world by the strong movement of imperialist views he detected everywhere. It is the great hobby which saddens his life, the terrible bugbear with which he is ever trying to arouse the feelings of his French Canadian countrymen against England.

The deceased British statesman, called Joseph Chamberlain, by his efforts to promote the unity of the Empire, inspired Mr. Bourassa with a profound fear which he wanted his compatriots to share by all the means at his command: – public speeches, newspaper editorials, pamphlets. He charged him with the responsibility of the infamous crime he brought England to commit in accepting the challenge of President Kruger and the then South African Republic, and fighting for the defence of her Sovereign rights in South Africa. According to the Nationalist leader, a vigorous impulse was given by the South African war to the political evolution which he termed British Imperialism. Nothing was further from the true meaning of this important event.

In refuting Mr. Bourassa's assertion, I showed that the South African war was not the outgrowth of Imperialist ideas, and that it has in no way resulted in a dangerous advance of the kind of Imperialism which so much frightens him and all those who experience his baneful influence.

As I have previously proved, the South African campaign was imposed upon England by the then aspiration of a section only of Boer opinion, led by the unscrupulous and haughty President Kruger, imprudently relying on the support of the German Kaiser who had hastened to congratulate him for his success in the Jameson Raid. It resulted not in favor of Imperialism of the type so violently denounced by Mr. Bourassa, but in a most beneficent expansion of Political Freedom by the granting of the free British institutions to the new great South African overseas Dominion. It is only the other day that ex-Premier Asquith, on the occasion of a great public function, has declared that Premier Botha, the former most prominent Boer General, was now one of the strongest pillars of the British Empire.

It being so important to set the opinion of the French Canadians right respecting that question of Imperialism, so much discussed of late, and by many with so little political sense and historical knowledge, I would not rest satisfied with a refutation of the special Bourassist appreciation of the causes and results of the South African conflict. I summarized, in a condensed review, the divers phases of the political movement which can properly be called Imperialism, tracing its origin as far back as the organization of the first great political Powers known to History: the Persian, the Egyptian, the Greek Empires, &c. More than ever before, Imperialism was triumphant during the long Roman domination of almost all the then known world. Every student of History is impressed by the grandeur of the part played by the Roman Empire in the world's drama. Constantine struck the first blow at Roman Imperialism – unwillingly we can rest assured – in laying the foundations of Constantinople, and dividing the Roman Empire into the Western and Eastern Empires. At last, after repeated invasions, the Northern barbarians succeeded in smashing the Roman Colossus.

After many long years during which European political society passed through the incessant turmoil of rival ambitions, Charlemagne sets up anew the Western Empire, being coronated Emperor in Rome. Ever since, amidst multiplied ups and downs, Imperialism has swayed to and fro by the successive edification and overthrow of the Holy Roman Empire, the short lived Napoleonic European domination, the recently organized North German Empire.

So far as Imperialism is concerned, all those great historical facts considered, how best can it be defined? Is it not evident that from the very birth of political societies for the government of Mankind, a double current of political thoughts and aspirations has been concurrently at work, with alternate successes and retrocessions: one tending towards large political organizations, uniting a variety of ethnical groups; the other operating the reverse way to bring about their dissolution in favour of multiplied small sovereignties. Each of the two opposing political systems has had its ebb and flow tides; the waves of the one, in their flowing days, washing the shores of the other until they had to recede before the pressure caused by the exhaustion of their own strength and the increased resistance of internal opposition.

Viewed from this elevated standpoint, Imperialism is not new under the sun. It is as ancient as the world itself. Mr. Bourassa has been uselessly spending his energy in breaking his head against a movement which is in the very nature of things, developing the same way under the same favourable conditions and circumstances.

Are the days we live so fraught with the dangers of Imperialism as to justify the fears of the alarmist? The answer would be in the affirmative, the question being considered from the point of view of Germany's autocratic Imperialism, if the free nations of the world had not joined in a holy union to put an end to its extravagant and tyrannical ambition. But how is it that Mr. Bourassa, the heaven-born anti-imperialist, so frightened at the supposed progress of British Imperialism, is so lenient towards Teutonic Imperialism? How is it that from the very first days of the gigantic struggle calling for the most heroic efforts of the human race to emerge safe and free from the furious waves powerfully set in motion by the most daring absolutism that ever existed, he has not thought proper to chastise as it deserved the worst kind of Imperialism that he could, or any one else, imagine?

Taking for granted that the present economical conditions of the universe, likely to intensify, are working for great political organisations, from the causes previously explained, any intelligent observer could not fail to see that for the last century four great imperialist evolutions have been concurrently – or rather simultaneously – developing themselves; they were the British, the Teutonic, the Russian, the Republican in the United States. Let no one be astonished at seeing the two words Imperialism and Republicanism coupled together. In their true sense, they are easily conciliated.

The Roman Republic, by the grandeur of its part, was Imperialist as much as the Empire to which she gave birth. Cæsar, without the imperial crown was Emperor as much as August. He was more so by his genius, and by the eminent position he had acquired by one of the most brilliant careers in History.

Bonaparte, General and First Consul, in the closing days of the first French Republic, was Emperor as much as he became on the day of his Coronation, at Paris, by the Sovereign Pontiff.

Imperialism being a great historical fact through all the ages, and most certainly destined to further developments, is it to be judged favourably or alarmingly?

No doubt the problem is of the greatest possible political importance. The question can, I consider, be at the outset simplified as follows: – Would the prosperity, the freedom, the happiness of the world be better served by great political Powers, or by the multiplication of small sovereignties? It is just as well, and even better, to admit at once that a unique, a dogmatic, answer cannot be given to that question. Independent nations, sovereign societies, are not created at will by men, merely according to their fancy, to their variable and very often undefined wishes. History teaches that they are the outgrowth of various circumstances, of many divergent causes, – the most important, the one inscrutable, being always the action of Divine Providence directing the destinies of peoples as well as those of every human being. Different causes produce, of course, different results. Large and small political communities can surely be productive of much good for their populations. Much depends upon the intelligence, the wisdom, the devotion, the patriotism of the rulers and the governed. They can also do much harm. Unfortunately, the readers of past events have too much reason to deplore that both large and small political organizations have been equally guilty of maladministration, of ambitious cupidity of their neighbours' possessions, of unjust wars. As an uncontrovertible example, can I not point to the present German Empire, whose origin dates back to the days of the very small Prussia of two centuries ago, fighting her way up to her actual greatness by successive, unfair, and often criminal aggressions.

After reading much of the history of past ages, I have not been able to come to the conclusion – and the more I read, the less inclined I am to do so – that the days when England, France, Central Europe, Italy, &c., were subdivided into numerous small political organizations, almost always warring, were preferable to ours, even darkened and saddened as they are by the present trials and sufferings.

If, on the other hand, the causes which at all times have tended to the creation of large political sovereignties are gradually acquiring an increased momentum of strength and activity, from the changed conditions brought about by the great scientific discoveries so wonderfully developing the commercial relations of the nations, is it not more advisable to study the true nature of the evolution and the good it can produce, rather than to shiver at the supposed prospects of an Imperialist cataclysm so certainly to be averted if public opinion is sound and Rulers wise. Crying on the shores of the St. Lawrence, against the advance of the rolling waves, would not prevent the tide from running up. The mad man who would try it, and persist in remaining on the spot, displaying his indignant and extravagant protest, would surely be submerged and drowned.

Political developments, like many others, obey natural laws which no true statesman can ignore nor overlook. Because the limits of a political organization are extended, does it necessarily follow that only deplorable consequences can be expected from their enlargement? Surely not. One might as well pretend that unity, cohesion, strength, grandeur, are only productive of baneful results. Is it not a certainty that they can be equally beneficial or harmful, according to the intellectual and moral qualities of those who are called upon to apply them to the best interests of those they govern.

German Imperialism, for instance, was not per se a public misfortune. It became such because instead of using its instrumentality for the general good of the world as well as that of Germany, it was applied to a barbarous and criminal purpose to satisfy unjust and senseless aspirations.

In the same years, all the resources of British Imperialism, – so abhorrent to Mr. Bourassa and his Nationalist adepts who view with such meekness the Teutonic type – have been brought into play for the freedom of the world and the protection of the small nationalities – notably Belgium.

Bulgaria was a small State. Was it on this account less ambitious and troublesome for its neighbours? Any one conversant with the recent Balkan history knows that Bulgaria has from the start aspired to dominate the Balkan States. When the Berlin Government struck the hour which was to throw not only Europe, but three-fourths of the universe into the worst horrors of war, has Bulgaria rallied to the defence of her weak neighbour, Servia? Has she proved any sympathy for treacherously crushed Belgium?

I emphatically declare that I would oppose Imperialism with all my might, if I thought that it is by nature a necessary producer of absolutism, of autocratic tyranny. But, the British precedent considered through all its beneficial developments, I must recognize that true Imperialism is not incompatible with the just and wise exercise of political liberty, with respectful protection of the rights and conditions of the divers national elements under its ægis.

I pray to remain to my last day a faithful friend of the political liberties of the people. Knowing, as I do, how hard it is to apply them to the government of nations – great or small – I am not bewildered by vain illusions. But I cannot conceive – and never will – that the justice of the real principles of Political Liberty is to be denied on account of the difficulties of their satisfactory working, certainly obtainable when applied in conformity with the dictates of moral laws owing all their power to their Divine origin.

The best political institutions which can work out such great advantages for the populations enjoying them, are too often diverted from their beneficient course by the vicious passions of those who are charged with, and responsible for, their administration. It would be most illogical to draw the inference that good institutions become bad by their guilty management.

Free and autocratic governments are essentially different in their natural structure. Though liable to mismanagement by unscrupulous politicians, free institutions can, under ordinary favourable conditions, be trusted to be productive of much good for the peoples living under their protection. Autocracy – the whole human history proves it – by nature engenders absolutism. Crowned or revolutionary despots as a rule are not imbued with the patriotism nor purified by the virtues required for the good government of a country. Kaiserism, Terrorism and Bolshevikism are equally despicable and unfit to contribute to the sound progress which liberty, practiced by sensible and wise men, can develop.

Reverting to the Nationalist bugbear, which does not in the least move me to despair of Canada's future, I consider that Imperialism, sensibly appreciated, is of two kinds: Autocratic Imperialism; Democratic Imperialism: – Absolutism is the foundation stone of the former; Political Liberty that of the latter. I am energetically opposed to the first. I sincerely believe that the second can do a great deal for the prosperity of the countries where it has regularly and justifiably been developed according to the natural laws of its growth.

Autocratic Imperialism, in contemporaneous history, is almost exclusively typified by its Teutonic production. A general review of the world shows that for the last century, and more, with one sad exception, all the nations have been moving along the path leading to a greater freedom of their institutions. Even Japan and China have joined in the race. Russia had deliberately done so. Much was expected from her first efforts, and much would certainly have been reaped in due course had not the calamitous war still raging at first opened an opportunity for the reactionary Russian element, strongly influenced by German intrigues, spies and money, to check, through the Petrograd Court, the forward movement of Russian political liberty, and to impede, for Germany's sake, the success of the Russian military operations. Under those circumstances – as was also to be expected – the advancing wave of the aspirations of the great Russian people for more political freedom, was bound either to recede before the autocratic outburst, or to rush impetuously against the wall Germany was to her best helping to raise against it. The latter prevision happened, history once more repeating itself.

Even barbarous Turkey, in recent years, had been somewhat shaken by a sudden desire to remove some of her secular shackles. The young Turks movement might have had some desirable results had the Ottoman Empire, as every national and political considerations should have induced her to do, sided with France and England.

Germany is actually the only country in the world where Autocratic Imperialism has been flourishing during the last century. We all know the extent and the grievousness of the calamity it has wrought on the universe.

During the same last century, Democratic Imperialism – using the term in its broadest and most reasonable meaning – has had two distinct beneficial developments: – the Monarchical Democratic Imperialism, and the Republican Democratic Imperialism.

The Monarchical Democratic or free Imperialism – it is scarcely necessary for me to say – is that of Great Britain.

The Republican Democratic or free Imperialism is that of the United States of America, of the Argentine Republic, of Brazil.

Happily the two great and glorious countries which are favoured with the advantages of the Democratic type of Imperialism are united in a grand and noble effort to destroy the German Autocratic Imperialism in chastisement of its criminal aspirations to universal domination.

The two types of Democratic or free Imperialism – the Monarchical and the Republican – can be better illustrated by a comparative short historical study of their development in Great Britain and her colonies, and in the United States. I summarize it as follows, beginning by the last mentioned, as it requires a shorter exposition.

CHAPTER XIX.
American Imperialism

The still recent and wonderful growth of the two American continents, in population and wealth, is almost an incredible marvel. It is none the least politically.

The two Americas, by the extent of their areas, the vastness of their productive lands, the length and largeness of their mighty Rivers, the broadness of their Lakes, the grandeur of their scenery, seem to be most adapted to great developments of many kinds. It is difficult to think of small conceptions originating in the New World, which the genius of Columbus discovered and the combined genius of all the great races of the Old are united in developing.

Let me first put the question: – when the leading European nations undertook to colonize the new Continents, were they not, consciously or not, throwing the Imperialist seed in a fertile land where it was sure to take root and blossom? Spain, France, and, last, England were certainly not obeying the dictates of our "Nationalist school" when they brought under their Sovereign authority such vast stretches of American territory.

That Christian Civilization was to be extended to the new great Hemisphere, goes without saying. That the riches, then unknown, of the New World, were to be extracted from the land so full of them, was one of the duties of the discoverers, all will admit. The European Governments in extending their Sovereignties to America unfortunately adopted the mistaken Colonial Policy then still too much prevalent. Their error was to stick to the wrong conception that a colony was important only in the measure that it could be favourable to the interests of the Metropolis. History proves that this colonial system is bound to lead to unfair treatment of the colonies. Absolutism, then dominant in Europe, could not be expected to show any tender leniency towards the Colonials who were above all to work for the wealth and glory of the Metropolis. Spain proved to be the worst promoter of that Regime. Her failure has been most complete. She has had to withdraw her flag from the very large part of America over which it might have been kept waving, if sounder and more just political notions had prevailed in the narrowed minds of her Rulers.

England, treading along the wrong path of Colonial oppression, but in a much less proportion, had to face a like result in the revolt of her American Colonies. Fortunately for her, for America and the world at large, the event widely opened her eyes. In acknowledging the independence of the young Republic of the United States, she was destined to be proud of her offspring in witnessing the astonishing development of the child to whom she had given birth. Could she have then foreseen that the day would come when at the hour of her dire trial, the daughter who threw off her motherly authority, too stringently exercised, would rush to her support for the defence of the very principles of Political Liberty for which she, the child, had fought for her independence, how soon would England have forgotten the sufferings of the parting and blessed Providence for them!

The American Revolution, successfully carried out, was the occasion for England to revolutionize her Colonial Policy. She was the first nation – and I am sorry to say she has remained alone – to understand with great clearness that the old Colonial Regime, fraught with such disastrous consequences, must be done away with and replaced by the new one which called the colonies to the enjoyment, to the largest possible extent, of the free institutions of the Mother Land.

Like every new born child, whose laborious birth was critical, the American Republic experienced great difficulties the very moment she commenced to breathe freely. So true it is always that national development, like personal success, cannot be achieved without struggle.

The United States offer the example of the best development of the Imperialist evolution in the world. It dates as far back as the proclamation of the Independence of the Republic. When she was admitted into the international society of Sovereign States, she had at first to settle her political organization. The framing of a constitutional charter proved to be a very arduous task, at times almost desperate.

Three sets of divergent opinions were fighting at close range during the protracted and solemn deliberations which at last reached a happy conclusion. Thirteen American British Colonies had coalesced to wring their Independence from England. The goal once attained, a first group of opinion was favoured by the supporters of the dissolution of the temporary union organized to secure the Independence of the whole, but to revert, they said, if successful, to their previous separate status. Had this view prevailed, at the very start North America would have been cumbered with thirteen Sovereign States. Many were alarmed at the creation of so many small Republics. More reasonable persons suggested to organize three or four of them, instead of thirteen, meeting as much as possible the wants natural to geographical conditions. It was no doubt an improvement on the first mentioned scheme. It met with the hearty support of devoted adepts.

It is much to be hoped that they will forever receive from the successive generations of their countrymen the reward of the gratitude they deserve, the true statesmen who, at this important juncture, stepped on the scene and bravely took their stand in favour of the maintenance of the Union which had conquered Independence, and of the establishment of only one great Republic. The celebrated Hamilton was their trusted leader. They knew they were undertaking an herculean task. At that time, the population of the thirteen original States, scarcely four millions in number, was scattered over a vast territory, and located, for the most part, on the lands near the Atlantic coasts, two thousand miles in length, from North to South. Transportation was in a very primitive stage. Many years had yet to run before the whistle of the locomotive, powerful and struggling, would be echoed by the solitude of immense forests. No one foresaw that, in less than a century, the overflowing tide of European immigration would roll its waves so powerfully as to cross the whole continent and the Rocky Mountains to reach the coast of the Pacific Ocean.

With such conditions, so unfavourable to the aspirations of only one new Independent State, moulding together political groups so far apart, interests apparently so hostile, the local point of view, local prejudices, were sure to dominate. They inspired the strong current of opinion in favour of the dissolution of the temporary Union, and the organization of every one of the old provinces into a separate Sovereign State.

How, under such circumstances, the friends of a unique National American Union succeeded in the marvellous achievement of carrying their point by a prodigy of persuasive demonstration, will forever be a wonder for the student of the Republic's history. Few in numbers when they boldly threw their challenge, they encountered the shock of local fanaticism heightened by their offensive. Everything seemed to predict their utter failure. If ever Founders of States have proved the heroism of their convictions, the American Federalists have most gloriously done so. Undoubtedly, the force of the argument was with them. But what can logic, reason, good sense, too often do against inveterate prejudices? Were they, in this particular instance, destined to be powerless?

The Federalists – such is their historical name – were not to be disheartened by the formidable obstacles thrown in their way. An Imperialist inspiration was certainly the basic foundation of their demonstration finally triumphant. They told their countrymen that if they were to erect thirteen small Republics upon the burning ruins of the first Union to which they owed their Independence, they would prepare a very sad future for their children and children's children. European immigration was setting in, slowly but surely. They predicted that the World, this time, would witness, not a barbarous invasion like that which overthrew the Roman Empire, but one which the Old World would overflow to the New Continents. This surplus European population would bring over to America Christian Civilization, the training of hard work, large hopes, courage, experience in many ways, persevering energy, which would transform the boundless regions which could become their national heritage – until then the domain of the wandering Indian – into one of the greatest and wealthiest countries on earth. Would they commit the irreparable error to destroy the certainty of such a magnificent National Destiny, by creating thirteen separate governments, with the sure result of renewing in America, by such race groupings, the atrocious military conflicts which, for centuries, have flooded the European soil with human blood.

Hamilton and some of his most distinguished friends published that work, entitled: "The Federalist", which will ever live as one of the broadest and most elevated productions of Political Intelligence. To all, and especially to the "Nationalist" theorists, I strongly recommend the reading of that book, a monument of the genius of great statesmen.

In short, after a lengthy discussion characterized by their brilliant eloquence and their argumentative strength, the supporters of the Federal Union of the thirteen States, under one Sovereignty, carried the day. They had well deserved their glorious triumph. The Republic of the United States of North America was founded under the ægis of the free constitutional Charter which has done so much for her prosperity and her grandeur.

Such was the initial move of the evolution of American Imperialism. Those amongst us who desire to learn more about its developments have only to look over the boundary line. The thirteen original States, federally united, have increased to number forty-four, with three more territories gradually developing into Statehood.

The actual population of the Republic is already much over a hundred million, living in unrivalled prosperity and contentment on a territorial area of more than three millions and a half square miles, larger than all the European Continent. The sun of the present century will set upon a people of more than 250,000,000, with a splendid situation in a world to the destinies of which they will contribute in many admirable ways, if they are only true to the Christian principles which alone can assure Civilization and Progress.

If the term Imperialism truly means what the word implies, —Sovereignty being exercised over a large population and a vast territory, this political evolution, so decried by some, has most undoubtedly achieved a great success amongst our neighbours to the South.

In all sincerity, may I not ask every unprejudiced mind: – has not the whole World every reason to be much elated at witnessing the beneficent results of the triumph of the American Federalists? Evidently, it has been Imperial in its nature, in its proportions. It is so in its promises for the future greatness of the Republic. It has maintained, with only one exception, peace and harmony during nearly a century and a half, between the descendants of the European nationalities who have trusted their future welfare to the Sovereignty of the United States. Instead of wasting their energies in endless conflicts, such as numerous small States would have infallibly occasioned, thanks to the unity of the Sovereign Power binding into an admirable whole territories larger than Europe, they have learned to consider themselves as citizens of the same free country, as the free subjects of the same governmental authority. The temporary rupture of the Union, caused by the war of Secession, was but a vain reactionary action against the powerful current driving the Republic towards her grand future.

It is most unlikely – I can say impossible without the slightest hesitation – that the United States, after taking such a grand and glorious part in the present war, will abandon the broad and felicitous policy by which they have grown to be one of the greatest independent nations of the world, to drop so low as to adopt the blinding notions of a narrow, sectional, prejudiced and fanatical "Nationalism", such as the type which would ruin the future of our own Dominion, if ever it was allowed to prevail. They know too well, by the happiest experience, that the only true "Nationalism" is that which by the united effort of the intelligence, the culture, the strength, the patriotism of citizens of divers races has wrought for them their present admirable national status so full of the brightest promises. When peace shall have been restored, the great and mighty American Republic will be one of the leading Powers on earth, owing her unrivalled prosperity in a very large measure to her appreciation of the wonderful results obtainable by the union of all her subjects, of whatever racial origins, working with the same heart and devotion for the grandeur of their common country.