Bur Darrow on hearing of his death said the following:
"His death is a great loss to the American people."
For more details see:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/evolut.htmI like the following quotes":
"It is possible that Bryan, who cared deeply about equality, worried that Darwin's theories were being used by supporters of a growing eugenics movement that was advocating sterilization of "inferior stock." More likely, the Great Commoner came to his cause both out a concern that the teaching of evolution would undermine traditional values he had long supported
See more on Bryan and the Theory of Evolution (This is his booklet on the subject):
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/bryanonevol.htmlIn that pamphlet clearly states he had no objections to the Teaching of Evolution but did not want it done with tax payers money.
As to our present War in Iraq Bryan would have opposed it on the grounds he opposed our Expansion after the Spanish-American War of 1898 (for a sites to his speeches on the subject):
http://www.boondocksnet.com/ai/ail/bryan.htmlIn regards to his comments on British India and how it is an example of WHY the US should NOT have a colony (Remember this was was Popular for it was short, low life lost AND gained huge colonies):
"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: "Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question."
Bryan's report on the 1900 Elections sounds like 2004:
http://www.boondocksnet.com/ai/ailtexts/bryan001200.html"To recapitulate, the Republican victory was due to money, war and better times.".....
"All of these trusts, and many others, had a pecuniary reason for supporting the Republican ticket, for they have not only enjoyed immunity during the present Administration, but they had every reason to expect further immunity in case of Republican success; while the Democratic platform and the Democratic organization were outspoken in their condemnation of private monopolies, and the candidates were pledged to aggressive measures for the extermination of all combinations formed in restraint of trade.
The alarming feature of a contest between the trusts and the victims of the trusts is that the former, enjoying great profits out of the system, are able and willing to contribute liberally to perpetuate the system, while the people at large are not always able to calculate the amount of the extortion, and are therefore slow to apply a remedy."....
"The most surprising feature of the campaign was the indifference manifested by many Republicans to the attack on governmental principles heretofore regarded as sacred. The party in power is clearly committed to a colonial policy so repugnant to our history, our traditions and our political maxims that there was no substantial effort made by Republican leaders to defend the party's position. Where a defense was attempted the gist of it was about as follows: "We did not want the Philippine Islands; they came to us by accident; but now that we have them, we cannot honorably let them go; besides, it looks as if it was God's work; and then, too, there is money in it."
Destiny, Divinity and Dollars! The destiny argument is a subterfuge. Bulwer's description of it is the best I have seen. In speaking of William of Hastings, who laid his sins at the door of destiny, he says:
"'It is Destiny!' phrase of the weak human heart! 'It is Destiny!' dark apology for every error! The strong and virtuous admit no Destiny! On earth, guides Conscience, in Heaven watches God. And Destiny is but the phantom we invoke to silence the one, to dethrone the other!"
The destiny of the American people must be determined by the American people themselves. No circumstances can justify an individual in doing wrong; neither can circumstances justify a nation in doing wrong. If American principles are good, we should continue to observe them; if they are bad, we should abandon them; but, whatever we do, we should do as a matter of choice and not hide behind the pretense that we are the victims of blind necessity.
It is hard to believe that any one acquainted with the Scriptures would defend a war of conquest as a matter of religious duty, and yet many have imagined that they saw the hand of God in the tragedy now being enacted in the Orient.
The doctrine that we are commanded by the Almighty to sacrifice our own citizens and slaughter Filipinos, in order to establish a carpet bag government over a distant people, is on a par with the doctrine that kings are divinely appointed to govern their subjects, and, as a corollary to this theory, divinely commissioned to kill their subjects if they do not like the government which the kings provide. Lincoln properly described this doctrine when he said:
"Those arguments that are made, that the inferior race are to be treated with as much allowance as they are capable of enjoying, that as much is to be done for them as their condition will allow -- what are these arguments? They are the arguments that kings have made for enslaving the people in all ages of the world. You will find that all the arguments in favor of king-craft were of this class; they always bestrode the necks of the people, not that they wanted to do it, but because the people were better off for being ridden. That is their argument."
But, while the partisan Republican may plead destiny as a reason for endorsing the policy of imperialism, and while the pious Republican may throw the blame upon Providence, the more candid of the Republican leaders boldly preach the doctrine of commercialism, and advocate an imperial career on the ground that it will expand trade and add to the nation's wealth. This is by far the most influential argument given in defense of imperialism.
The partisan has little influence with the party management, because, while he loudly endorses imperialism today, he would condemn it with as much emphasis tomorrow, if the Administration should change its policy. Neither are the Republican leaders influenced by those who now advocate the spread of Christianity by the sword, for the Republican party is not being conducted as a missionary society. The dollar argument, however, has influence. The same powerful financial interests which protect industrial trusts at home will attempt to force the nation to join the international land-grabbing trust. The same unseen, but well-nigh irresistible, force which can compel the Republican party, when dealing with American citizens, to trample upon the doctrine of equal rights to all and special privileges to none, can also compel it, when dealing with the unknown inhabitants of a distant land, to repudiate the doctrine that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. To admit that the nation can permanently pursue the imperial policy now mapped out by Republican leaders, would be to admit the probability of the overthrow of the Republic, for the nation could not long remain half Republic and half Empire, half free and half vassal. Hope of relief is to be found, first, in the fact that a full development of the Republican scheme will alienate independent Republicans, who are devoted to the principles of the fathers, and who have thus far been deceived as to the purpose of Republican leaders; and, second, in the fact that an imperial career will impose increasing burdens upon the taxpayers, and thus alienate those Republicans who can be reached only through the purse. The same greed which has already led to a violation of the promise made by Gen. Miles to the Puerto Ricans, and which is leading to a surrender of the Declaration of Independence in order to force our sovereignty over the Filipinos, is likely to lead to a repudiation of the pledge made to Cuba. A joint resolution passed by Congress will hardly restrain a party which scoffs at traditions and disregards the limitations of the Constitution.
A government resting upon force instead of consent always needs the support of a large army, and the Republican party cannot long conceal its purpose to permanently increase the military establishment. The President in his message of November 5th, 1898, said:
"The importance of legislation for the permanent increase of the army is therefore manifest, and the recommendation of the Secretary of War for that purpose has my unqualified approval. There can he no question that at this time, and probably for some time in the future, one hundred thousand men will be none too many to meet the necessities of the situation."
A Republican House of Representatives passed a bill carrying out the President's recommendation, and the Republicans in the Senate favored the bill; but they were compelled to accept a compromise, offered by Senator Gorman, limiting the increase to two years. That an increase in the standing army is intended by Republican leaders is well known, although in the late campaign no one with authority to speak for the party discussed or defended the President's recommendation. Imperialism is an expensive luxury; if the burden of a colonial system is thrown upon the subjects, it will cause an insurrection; if it is thrown upon the American people, it will cause a political revolt.
The ship subsidy bill, which was kept in the background during the campaign, will receive an impetus from the Republican victory, along with other schemes for the expenditure of public money for private advantage.
The pocket nerve, which, at this time, seems to be the most sensitive nerve, is liable to be touched by the extravagance of those who have come to regard the government as a sort of Santa Claus, who turns every day into Christmas.
There remains for consideration the third and, as I believe, most influential cause of the Republican victory, viz., the fear of a change.......
Back of all the questions which have been referred to, lies the deep and lasting struggle between human rights and inhuman greed. If greed triumphs, its victory will transform our government into a plutocracy and our civilization into barbarism.
Those who believe in equal rights before the law, and desire a government which rests upon the consent of the governed and deals justly with all who are under its jurisdiction, must continue the contest in triumph or defeat. Success may be the measure of enjoyment, but it cannot be the measure of duty.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
