protect Cuba." 1 Bryan enforced his argument by a poetical citation: "Would we tread in the paths of tyranny, Nor reckon the tyrant's cost? Who taketh another's liberty His freedom is also lost. Would we win as the strong have ever won, Make ready to pay the debt, For the God who reigned over Babylon The important printed contributions to the campaign are this speech of Bryan's and McKinley's letter of acceptance of September 8; of this two-thirds are devoted to the Philippines and a defence of his management. The letter is in effect a reply to the speech and on the whole may be deemed an effective answer. The majority of voters probably thought so, although the quotable portions of McKinley's speech of July 12 may have had the greater influence. We have fulfilled the pledges we made in 1896, he declared, "We have prosperity at home and prestige abroad," yet by the action of the Democratic party, "the menace of 16:1 still hangs over us. The Philippines are ours and American authority must be supreme throughout the archipelago. . . . There must be no scuttle policy." "No blow has been struck except for liberty and humanity and none will be." The Republican party "broke the shackles of 4,000,000 slaves" and now it has liberated 10,000,000 "from the yoke of imperialism." Kipling's words represent McKinley's action: 1 Speeches, ii. 46. In a courteous letter to D. M. Matteson, William J. Bryan says the citation was from a poem written by James A. Edgerton. 3 Official Proceedings, pp. 148, 149, 150. The decisive jury was the thirteen and a half million voters. The logical result of Democratic policy was to turn over the Philippines to Aguinaldo and his associates, and there were many who thought as did Senator Lodge, the permanent chairman of the Republican convention, that Aguinaldo was "a self-seeking adventurer and usurper." While the bloody suppression of the Philippine rebellion militated against Republican success, there seemed no other way out. Even if we had an undesirable acquisition, it was ours and our authority must be preserved. McKinley and Hay, who took an eager though impersonal view of the contest, were solicitous that Hanna should continue as chairman of the Republican National Committee and, when he decided to do so, the President wrote to him: "I am delighted that you have accepted the chairmanship of the National Committee. It is a great task and will be to you a great sacrifice." As we see it now, the election of McKinley appeared a foregone conclusion, but during the canvass there was anxiety among the knowing ones. On September 25 Hay wrote to Henry Adams: "Hanna has been crying wolf all summer, and he has been much derided for his fears, but now everybody shares them. Bryan comes out a frank anarchist again in his letter of acceptance; and Mitchell 1 See letter to Samuel Mather, Life by Thayer, ii. 254. * Croly, 319. with his coal strike has thrown at least a hundred thousand votes to him." The anthracite coal strike disturbed Hanna and he used his influence with the coal operators to get it settled before election.2 Hanna was unquestionably the chief man on the Republican side. All of his executive ability and his knack at raising money were exercised in behalf of his candidate and party. So far, it was 1896 over again, but he had learned to make effective speeches on the stump and, as he was much in demand from the several committees, he appeared before many audiences throughout the country. The burden of his talk was that Republican success and administration had given prosperity to the manufacturer, merchant and financier, and the full dinner pail to the laborer. His more effective work was through his personality. Westerners beyond Ohio had the idea that he was a "bloated millionaire," and when they came to see a man of easy bearing, of democratic ways, placing himself on a par with the common man and hear his rough speech adapted to their easy comprehension, they were converted to the Hanna cult. "This trip," wrote Croly with singular penetration, "helped to make Mr. Hanna personally popular throughout the West, just as his first stumping tour in Ohio had made him personally popular in his own State. As soon as he became known, the virulence and malignity with which he had been abused reacted in his favor. When he appeared on the platform, the crowd, instead of seeing a monster, found him to be just the kind of man whom Americans best understand 1 Letters Privately Printed, iii. 196. Croly, 328; The Nation, Nov. 1, 1900, 342. and most heartily like. He was not separated from them by differences of standards and tastes or by any intellectual or professional sophistication. The roughness of much of his public speaking and its lack of form which makes it comparatively poor reading, were an essential part of its actual success. He stamped himself on his speeches just as he had stamped himself upon his business. His audiences had to pass judgment on the man more than on the message and the man could not but look good to them." 1 a "I have never wondered," said Senator Dolliver of Iowa, "as so many have, that Hanna suddenly developed into a great orator. . . . I was present in 1900 at the stock yards in Chicago when I had a glimpse of the colossal personality of this man which made a very profound impression on my mind. We took him down there to speak to the working people of Chicago, and curiously enough very strange anomaly under institutions like ours-a large part of the audience had assembled there, not to listen to him but to prevent him from speaking; and with noise, riot, tumult, disturbance, and breach of peace that surging multitude for one hour and thirty minutes fought an unequal battle with the genius of a single man; and at 10 o'clock, the audience calmed, controlled, fascinated, he began one of the most remarkable political speeches it was ever my good fortune to hear." 2 Next in importance was Roosevelt's stumping. If we may judge his speeches by his letter of acceptance, he defended Republican policy and administration. He insisted that the remonetization of silver meant disaster, 1 P. 340. 2 Address, April 7, 1904. and that our acquisition of new provinces was in the line of national development; it meant expansion and not "imperialism or militarism." He added strength to the ticket and his appearance and manner increased his strong personal popularity. "His attitude as speaker," wrote Thayer, "his gestures, the way in which his pent-up thoughts seemed almost to strangle him before he could utter them, his smile showing the white rows of teeth, his fist clenched as if to strike an invisible adversary, the sudden dropping of his voice, and levelling of his forefinger as he became almost conversational in tone, and seemed to address special individuals in the crowd before him, the strokes of sarcasm, stern and cutting, and the swift flashes of humor which set the great multitude in a roar, became in that summer and autumn familiar to millions of his countrymen; and the cartoonists made his features and gestures familiar to many other millions." 2 As was the case four years previously, Bryan was indefatigable on the stump. By his and the Democratic criticism of the Republican management of the Philippines, he gained the support of the anti-Imperialists, at the head of whom was Carl Schurz, but as The Nation remarked on another occasion, "Those who sup with the devil, even with a long spoon, are sure to have to swallow a nauseous portion at the end." Bryan had the cordial support of Tammany Hall and showed his appreciation of it when he came to New York, declaring "Great is Tammany! And Croker is its prophet." This disgusted Carl Schurz, who wrote, "Bah! Wasn't it awful!” 4 1 Official Proceedings, 180. 2 Roosevelt, 151. * Reminiscences, iii. 447. 3 3 June 28, 1900. |