Every expansion of civilization makes for peace. In other words, every expansion of a great civilized power means a victory for law, order, and righteousness. This has been the case in every instance of expansion during the present century, whether the expanding power were France or England, Russia or America. In every instance the expansion has been of benefit, not so much to the power nominally benefited, as to the whole world. . . .
So it has been in the history of our own country. Of course our whole national history has been one of expansion. Under Washington and Adams we expanded westward to the Mississippi; under Jefferson we expanded across the continent to the mouth of the Columbia; under Monroe we expanded into Florida; and then into Texas and California; and finally, largely through the instrumentality of Seward, into Alaska; while under every administration the process of expansion in the great plains and the Rockies has continued with growing rapidity. While we had a frontier the chief feature of frontier life was the endless war between the settlers and the red men. Sometimes the immediate occasion for the war was to be found in the conduct of the whites and sometimes in that of the reds, but the ultimate cause was simply that we were in contact with a country held by savages or half-savages.
Where we abut on Canada there is no danger of war, nor is there any danger where we abut on the well-settled regions of Mexico. But elsewhere war had to continue until we expanded over the country. Then it was succeeded at once by a peace which has remained unbroken to the present day. In North America, as elsewhere throughout the entire world, the expansion of a civilized nation has invariably meant the growth of the area in which peace is normal throughout the world.
The same will be true of the Philippines. If the men who have counseled national degradation, national dishonor, by urging us to leave the Philippines and put the Aguinaldan oligarchy in control of those islands, could have their way, we should merely turn them over to rapine and bloodshed until some stronger, manlier power stepped in to do the task we had shown ourselves fearful of performing. But, as it is, this country will keep the islands and will establish therein a stable and orderly government, so that one more fair spot of the world’s surface shall have been snatched from the forces of darkness. Fundamentally the cause of expansion is the cause of peace. . . .
Nations that expand and nations that do not expand may both ultimately go down, but the one leaves heirs and a glorious memory, and the other leaves neither. The Roman expanded, and he has left a memory which has profoundly influenced the history of mankind, and he has further left as the heirs of his body, and, above all, of his tongue and culture, the so-called Latin peoples of Europe and America. Similarly to-day it is the great expanding peoples who bequeath to the future ages the great memories and material results of their achievements, and the nations which shall have sprung from their loins, England standing as the archetype and best exemplar of all such mighty nations. But the peoples that do not expand leave, and can leave, nothing behind them.
It is only the warlike power of a civilized people that can give peace to the world. The Arab wrecked the civilization of the Mediterranean coasts, the Turk wrecked the civilization of southeastern Europe, and the Tartar desolated from China to Russia and to Persia, setting back the progress of the world for centuries, solely because the civilized nations opposed to them had lost the great fighting qualities, and, in becoming overpeaceful, had lost the power of keeping peace with a strong hand.
1 answer
Points (Pros) Supporting Expansion of Civilization for Peace:
Historical Precedent of Peace: The argument posits that historical expansions by powers like France, England, Russia, and America have consistently led to peace and stability in the regions they have incorporated, suggesting a positive correlation between expansion and lawfulness.
Nation-Building: Expansion is framed as a responsibility of powerful nations to establish stable and orderly governments in less developed areas, which are deemed incapable of self-governance, purportedly preventing chaos and conflict.
Expansion Leads to Progress: The narrative implies that the cultural and material contributions of expanded territories lead to global progress, leaving a legacy that benefits future generations (e.g., the influence of Roman culture).
Comparison with Non-Expansion: The text suggests that nations that do not expand ultimately fade into obscurity, leaving no significant legacy or influence, portraying expansion as necessary for a nation to remain culturally relevant and impactful.
Civilization as a Restraint: The view is presented that only the military might and "warlike power" of civilized nations can maintain global peace and order, implying that fierce resistance from uncivilized entities justifies preemptive or imposing actions by civilized nations.
Counterpoints (Cons) Against Expansion as a Means for Peace:
Colonialism and Oppression: Expansion often leads to colonization, displacement, and oppression of indigenous populations, resulting in violence, suffering, and a lasting legacy of inequality rather than peace.
Cultural Erasure: The argument overlooks the potential cultural erasure and loss of identity faced by communities under expanded powers, which can lead to long-term sociopolitical tensions rather than harmony.
Questionable Justifications: The notion that "savages" or "half-savages" cannot govern themselves is a subjective and potentially prejudiced view that dismisses the agency and abilities of other cultures and societies.
War as an Inevitability: While the text claims that expansion leads to peace, it also acknowledges that expansion often occurs through violent conflict, suggesting that such peace is maintained through suppression rather than genuine order.
Modern Global Dynamics: In today's interconnected world, the idea that military might is necessary for maintaining peace is increasingly challenged by diplomacy, international law, and collaborative governance as more effective means of achieving stability.
Sustainability of Peace: The historical legacy of expansion often includes ongoing conflict and resentment in newly acquired territories, and the stability created is sometimes superficial, established through military dominance rather than mutual respect and consensus.
In summary, while the essay makes a strong case for the perceived benefits of expansion as a force for peace and civilization, there are significant moral, historical, and practical critiques that challenge this view.
