"My country, 'tis of thee!" / Or, the United States of America; past, present and future. A philosophic view of American history and of our present status, to be seen in the Columbian exhibition.

by Willis Fletcher Johnson

with all the efforts that have been made they are approaching solution at so slow a rate that a number of the advocates of one side or the other are discouraged and indignant. There are a great many brilliant theories of what might be done by the annexation of this or that country by the United States. But an ounce of fact is worth a ton of theory, and fortunately we have enough facts to keep us for a long time in examination if we will take the pains.

The ancient nation called Rome was the champion annexer of the world. She annexed every territory that it was possible for her soldiers to reach, and at one time the entire world owed allegiance to Rome. It was practical allegiance, too, because we read in the Gospel according to St. Matthew that in the days of Augustus Cæsar there went out a decree that all the world should be taxed. To collect taxes from annexed countries is more than some modern nations have ever been able to do. The military and political prestige of Rome was afterward strengthened by religion. Rome ruled the souls as well as the bodies and estates of men, but even the Holy Roman empire went to pieces.

Greece did a great deal of annexing in the days of Alexander, who penetrated farther into the civilizations of the East than the legions of the Cæsars ever did, but Greece to-day is a mere spot upon the map.

But it is not necessary to go so far back. The great colonizing and annexing schemes of the world, when nation after nation became numerous and free enough to compete with each other, began soon after the discovery of America. Nearly every European power planted colonies in some portions of the new world. Most of these powers exist and are strong to-day. But where are their colonies? England has Canada to be sure, simply because she does not know how to get rid of it. But Spain has not a foot of ground upon the mainland of America, and holds her island possessions by very uncertain tenure. Look at Cuba, “the ever-faithful island,” as she is called, with the greatest extremity of sarcasm. The majority of the inhabitants detest the mother country and all the officials she sends out there, her taxes are paid grudgingly, again and again a large minority of the inhabitants have struggled to free themselves from the Spanish yoke, and the struggle will probably continue in view of the illustrious examples set by Mexico and all the South American republics. Perhaps you will say that Spain is a bankrupt old brute. Well, that is not overstating the matter at all. But look from Spain to Holland. The Dutch have not been cruel taskmasters. They have planted a number of colonies, and their paternal government, if characterized by thrift, has also been unstained by any of the cruelties and brutalities which have made the name of Spain a synonym for savagery. How many of Holland’s colonies remain in the possession of the mother country? None of any consequence except the island of Java, and Java is no longer a treasury for Holland.

France at one time had large colonial possessions. She owned nearly one-half of the territory now embraced by the boundaries of the United States and all of Canada beside. France has now a few insignificant islands and some undesirable swamp-land in Africa, which is valuable chiefly as a place to send military officers who are so ambitious at home as to be somewhat troublesome. Sweden has no colonies at all. Denmark has two or three little islands near the Equator, and has an elephant on her hands in the shape of Iceland.

But, you say that England is an exception to all these relations. Well; is she? Do facts and figures justify the assertion? The most peaceable portion of the British empire at the present time is the Dominion of Canada. Canada gives England absolutely no trouble on her own part. Australia is about as good. But of what use is either country to England except as a resort for dissatisfied Englishmen who wish to begin life anew somewhere else?—an opportunity which they could have equally well if England didn’t own a particle of soil outside the British islands.

But England has a large empire in the East. She holds nearly all of India. Yes; but how does she hold it? Some of it by absolute possession, and a great deal through protectorates and treaties, through intrigues with native princes and by other means which the people of the United States would think beneath the dignity of our own country to exercise anywhere else. We know what happened in India a few years ago when great masses of people rose against English rule, and gave us the most horrible details of war that this century has ever heard of. England’s unrest and uneasiness about her possessions in India can be seen by any one who reads the English newspapers or magazines or reviews. Some phase or other of the Indian question is continually popping up, and there never is anything in it to pacify the national unrest as to the future of the two countries. The possibility of assimilation of the population of India and England is laughed at by Englishmen of all degrees. Britons will not live in India unless they are compelled to do so, and also coaxed by compensation such as Englishmen never expect to receive at home. Even in the days of “John Company” it was impossible to keep an army there without double pay. I am not certain about the private soldiers, but the officers received their pay from the home government and an equal amount from the company, and even then the majority of them were discontented.

As for the natives liking England or English habits or English customs, it would be unreasonable to expect it, even did not facts prove that it is impossible. Native Indians of wealth and intelligence frequently visit England but very few remain. What is called the superior civilization of the West has no charms for them. And they don’t take English customs and principles home with them to disseminate among their own class and the orders beneath it. Many intelligent natives will admit that portions of the country are better ruled than they were under the native princes a hundred or more years ago. But at heart the feeling is that the old ways, if not the best, are certainly the most desirable and the most fitted to the nature of the people. England is in chronic fear of uprisings and disturbances. Her most statesmanlike public officials and her ablest soldiers are sent to India; not enough of them can be spared even to cross the channel to Ireland.

And, speaking of Ireland, which is another of Great Britain’s annexations, is there a more prominent and damning disgrace existing in the name of any civilized government of the world? It is not necessary to go over the Irish question at all. Every man knows enough about it to know that England’s rule of Ireland has been an entire and disgraceful failure, and that with ample opportunities for colonization, for maintaining military establishments, for pacifying the people, England has persistently and continuously failed to make Ireland anything but a hot-bed of hatred.