who certainly were there first and who were weaker than ourselves. Our
reason was simply that we wanted it and intended to have it. That is
precisely what England has done. She has by various means not one whit
better or worse than ours, acquired her possessions in various parts of
the world because they were necessary to her safety and welfare, just as
this continent was necessary to our safety and welfare. Moreover, the
pressure upon her, her necessity for self-preservation, was far more
urgent than was the pressure upon us. To make you see this, I must once
again resort to some statistics.

England's area--herself and adjacent islands--is 120,832 square miles.
Her population in 1811 was eighteen and one half millions. At that same
time our area was 408,895 square miles, not counting the recent Louisiana
Purchase. And our population was 7,239,881. With an area less than one
third of ours (excluding the huge Louisiana) England had a population
more than twice as great. Therefore she was more crowded than we were--
how much more I leave you to figure out for yourself. I appeal to the
fair-minded American reader who only "wants to be shown," and I say to
him, when some German or anti-British American talks to him about what a
land-grabber England has been in her time to think of these things and to
remember that our own past is tarred with the same stick. Let every one
of us bear in mind that little sentence of the Kaiser's, "Even now I
rule supreme in the United States;" let us remember that the Armistice
and the Peace Treaty do not seem to have altered German nature or German
plans very noticeably, and don't let us muddle our brains over the
question of the land grabbed by the great-grandfathers of present
England.

Any American who is anti-British to-day is by just so much pro-German, is
helping the trouble of the world, is keeping discord alight, is doing his