wanted--and more. From Spain we seized western Florida; the annexation
of Texas and the subsequent war with Mexico are acts upon which we cannot
look back with unmixed democratic pride; while more than once we
professed a naive willingness to fight England in order to push our
boundaries further north. We regarded the Monroe Doctrine as altruistic,
while others smiled. But it suited England, and her sea power gave it
force.

Our war with Spain in 1898, however, was fought for an idea, and,
despite the imperialistic impulse that followed it, marks a transition,
an advance, in international ethics. Imperialistic cynics were not
lacking to scoff at our protestation that we were fighting Spain in order
to liberate Cuba; and yet this, for the American people at large, was
undoubtedly the inspiration of the war. We kept our promise, we did not
annex Cuba, we introduced into international affairs what is known as the
Big Brother idea. Then came the Platt Amendment. Cuba was free, but she
must not wallow near our shores in an unhygienic state, or borrow money
without our consent. We acquired valuable naval bases. Moreover, the
sudden and unexpected acquisition of Porto Rico and the Philippines made
us imperialists in spite of ourselves.

Nations as well as individuals, however, must be judged by their
intentions. The sound public opinion of our people has undoubtedly
remained in favour of ultimate self-government for the Philippines, and
the greatest measure of self-determination for little Porto Rico; it has
been unquestionably opposed to commercial exploitation of the islands,
desirous of yielding to these peoples the fruits of their labour in
developing the resources of their own lands. An intention, by the way,
diametrically different from that of Germany. In regard to our
protectorate in the island of San Domingo, our "semi-protectorate" in