商业世界与政客
http://www.weisun.org/apush/assignments/readings_03_1890_1900/05_business_vs_politicians_1895.pdf
亨利·卡伯特·洛奇 (1895)
在扩张主义时代，关于将美国控制范围扩大到美国大陆边界之外是否合宪和是否道德的争论不休。甚至在 1898 年美西战争之前，亨利·卡伯特·洛奇等政客就吞并的正当性展开了争论，在他漫长而有影响力的职业生涯中，他曾担任过国会议员和参议员。在下面的选段中，洛奇援引了乔治·华盛顿、托马斯·杰斐逊、詹姆斯·门罗和约翰·亚当斯的思想，支持吞并夏威夷并继续控制萨摩亚。如果说民主党有一个比其他党派更重要的基本原则，那就是不断推进美国的边界。
在本届政府的领导下，由于受到自由贸易的影响，民主党近一个世纪以来的这一伟大原则已被彻底抛弃。托马斯·杰斐逊承认他违反了宪法，并促成了路易斯安那州的购买，但克利夫兰先生却在努力推翻美国利益和美国对夏威夷的控制。安德鲁·杰克逊为佛罗里达而战，但克利夫兰先生却急于放弃萨摩亚……
这是这一理论的悲哀结果，即对人类或国家来说，没有比买卖、交易折刀和使一切变得便宜更高的目标或目的了。
没有人低估关税的重要性，也没有低估健全货币的更重要的重要性。但近年来，我们一直专注于这些经济问题，以至于对其他问题视而不见。曼彻斯特学派的这些信徒让我们受够了，他们认为印??花布的价格比国家的荣誉更重要，生铁的关税比种族的进步更重要。
现在是时候回忆起我们一直倾向于忘记的事情了：我们过去和现在都有一项对我们国家福祉至关重要的外交政策。
这项政策的基础是华盛顿的中立主义。他和汉密尔顿都认为，美国无权干涉欧洲事务。当这项政策宣布时，它震惊了当时的美国人，因为我们在思维习惯上仍然是殖民者，无法意识到欧洲的斗争与我们无关。然而，中立政策的确立是华盛顿和汉密尔顿为美国民族事业做出的最伟大的贡献之一。
华盛顿政策的必然结果是门罗主义，这是约翰·昆西·亚当斯的杰作，他比以他的名字命名的总统伟大得多。华盛顿宣称，美国无权干涉欧洲事务，约翰·昆西·亚当斯则补充说，欧洲不得干涉西半球。正如我最近看到有人郑重声明的那样，吞并夏威夷将违反门罗主义，因此，说门罗主义与美国的扩张无关，只是认为任何欧洲强国都不得在美洲建立自己的势力或干涉美国政府，也许并不为过。
中立政策和门罗主义是美国外交关系方面有远见的政治家从一开始就确立的两大原则。
但是，如果认为我们的外交政策止步于此，或者认为这些基本主张以任何方式束缚了美国人民的前进，那将是一个致命的错误。
华盛顿让我们退出欧洲事务，但同时他指出，我们真正的前进路线是向西。他从未想过我们会停滞不前，停止前进。他以先知般的眼光，看到了美国人民的真正道路，这是他那个时代没有其他人能做到的。他自己无法进入应许之地，但他向他的人民展示了从蓝岭到太平洋的应许之地。我们遵循了华盛顿的教诲。我们占领了密西西比河大峡谷，并越过了内华达山脉。我们拥有征服、殖民和领土扩张的记录，这是十九世纪任何民族都无法比拟的。
我们现在不应受到曼彻斯特学派教义的束缚，这些学说在英国从未出现过，作为一种外来学说，它们在这里比在本土更不合时宜。美国的政策不是像英国那样，在世界各地普遍获得远方土地后再进入。我们的政府不适应这样的政策，我们也不需要这样的政策，因为我们国内有充足的土地；但同时必须记住，在美国
我们自己拥有我们作为一个国家的力量和伟大的堡垒，有一些外围工事对于保卫这个堡垒至关重要，既不能忽视也不能放弃。
如果美国政治家们能够证明自己是华盛顿和亚当斯原则的继承者，那么他们在这方面有一个非常明确的政策要奉行。
我们不希望向南扩张，因为无论是中美洲还是南美洲的人口和土地都不会成为美国的理想补充。但是从格兰德河到北冰洋，应该只有一面旗帜和一个国家。种族和气候都不会禁止这种扩张，国家发展和国家福利的每一个考虑都要求这样做。为了我们的商业利益和我们最充分的发展，我们应该修建尼加拉瓜运河，为了保护这条运河，为了我们在太平洋的商业霸权，我们应该控制夏威夷群岛，并保持我们在萨摩亚的影响力。
英国在西印度群岛布满了坚固的据点，对我们的大西洋海岸构成了长期威胁。我们应该在这些岛屿中至少建立一个强大的海军基地，而当尼加拉瓜运河建成后，古巴岛仍然人烟稀少，土地肥沃，对我们来说将是必不可少的。商业跟着国旗走，我们应该建立一支强大的海军，它足够强大，可以保护世界各地的美国人，并且足够强大，使我们的海岸无法被成功攻击。
现代的趋势是走向合并。这在资本和劳动力方面都很明显，在国家方面也是如此。小国已经过时了，没有未来。现代运动都是朝着将人民和领土集中到大国和大领地的方向发展的。大国正在迅速吸收地球上所有的荒地，以备将来的扩张和现在的防御。这是一个促进文明和种族进步的运动。作为世界大国之一，美国绝不能掉队。
三十多年来，我们一直专注于国内的重大问题，却忽视了我们境外的这些巨大利益。
它们不应再被忽视。它们不仅具有物质重要性，而且关系到我们作为一个国家的伟大和我们作为一个伟大民族的未来。
它们关乎我们的国家荣誉和尊严，以及国家和种族的自豪感。如果本届政府屈辱的外交政策能够引起人们对这些问题的关注，并提醒我们这些问题至少与关税或货币一样重要，那么它或许将被证明是因祸得福。当我们面对外交关系问题时，永远不应忘记，我们遇到了超越党派政治的东西，它激发并呼吁我们永远不会拥有的爱国主义和美国主义，而在过去两年里，我们的政府却表现得太少了。
文档分析
1.洛奇支持美国在太平洋扩张的理由是什么？
2.洛奇引用了哪些历史先例来支持他的理由？他声称哪些历史人物可以支持他的理由？
3.洛奇如何描述小国的未来？他在倒数第二段中所说的“地球上的荒地”是什么意思？
The Business World vs. the Politicians
http://www.weisun.org/apush/assignments/readings_03_1890_1900/05_business_vs_politicians_1895.pdf
Henry Cabot Lodge (1895)
In the age of expansionism, debates abounded over the constitutionality and morality of expanding U.S. control outside the nation's continental borders. Even before the Spanish-merican War in 1898, politicians such as Henry Cabot Lodge, who served as both a congressman and senator during his long and influential career, argued over the propriety of annexation. In the selection below, Lodge invokes the ideas of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Monroe, and John Adams in support of the annexation of Hawaii and continued control of Samoa. If the Democratic party has had one cardinal principle beyond all others, it has been that of pushing forward the boundaries of the United States.
Under this Administration, governed as it is by free-trade influences, this great principle of the Democratic party during nearly a century of existence has been utterly abandoned. Thomas Jefferson, admitting that he violated the Constitution while he did it, effected the Louisiana purchase, but Mr. Cleveland has labored to overthrow American interests and American control in Hawaii. Andrew Jackson fought for Florida, but Mr. Cleveland is eager toabandon Samoa. . . .
It is the melancholy outcome of the doctrine that there is no higher aim or purpose for men or for nations than to buy and sell, to trade jack-knives and make everything cheap.
No one underrates the importance of the tariffs or the still greater importance of a sound currency. But of late years we have been so absorbed in these economic questions that we have grown unmindful of others. We have had something too much of these disciples of the Manchester school, who think the price of calico more important than a nation's honor, the duties on pig iron of more moment than the advance of a race.
It is time to recall what we have been tending to forget: that we have always had and that we have now a foreign policy which is of great importance to our national well-being.
The foundation of that policy was Washington's doctrine of neutrality. To him and to Hamilton we owe the principle that it was not the business of the United States to meddle in the affairs of Europe. When this policy was declared, it fell with a shock upon the Americans of that day, for we were still colonists in habits of thought and could not realize that the struggles of Europe did not concern us. Yet the establishment of the neutrality policy was one of the greatest services which Washington and Hamilton rendered to the cause of American nationality.
The corollary of Washington's policy was the Monroe doctrine, the work of John Quincy Adams, a much greater man than the President whose name it bears. Washington declared that it was not the business of the United States to meddle in the affairs of Europe, and John Quincy Adams added that Europe must not meddle in the Western hemisphere. As I have seen it solemnly stated recently that the annexation of Hawaii would be a violation of the Monroe doctrine, it is perhaps not out of place to say that the Monroe doctrine has no bearing on the extension of the United States, but simply holds that no European power shall establish itself in the Americas or interfere with American governments.
The neutrality policy and the Monroe doctrine are the two great principles established at the outset by far-seeing statesmen in regard to the foreign relations of the United States.
But it would be a fatal mistake to suppose that our foreign policy stopped there, or that these fundamental propositions in any way fettered the march of the American people.
Washington withdrew us from the affairs of Europe, but at the same time he pointed out that our true line of advance was to the West. He never for an instant thought that we were to remain stationary and cease to move forward. He saw, with prophetic vision, as did no other man of his time, the true course for the American people. He could not himself enter into the promised land, but he showed it to his people, stretching from the Blue Ridge to the Pacific Ocean. We have followed the teachings of Washington. We have taken the great valley of the Mississippi and pressed on beyond the Sierras. We have a record of conquest, colonization, and territorial expansion unequalled by any people in the nineteenth century.
We are not to be curbed now by the doctrines of the Manchester school which have never been observed in England, and which as an importation are even more absurdly out of place here than in their native land. It is not the policy of the United States to enter, as England has done, upon the general acquisition of distant possession in all parts of the world. Our government is not adapted to such a policy, and we have no need of it, for we have an ample field at home; but at the same time it must be remembered that while in the United States themselves we hold the citadel of our power and greatness as a nation, there are outworks essential to the defence of that citadel which must neither be neglected nor abandoned.
There is a very definite policy for American statesmen to pursue in this respect if they would prove themselves worthy inheritors of the principles of Washington and Adams. We desire no extension to the south, for neither the population nor the lands of Central or South America would be desirable additions to the United States. But from the Rio Grande to the Arctic Ocean there should be but one flag and one country. Neither race nor climate forbids this extension, and every consideration of national growth and national welfare demands it. In the interests of our commerce and of our fullest development we should build the Nicaragua canal, and for the protection of that canal and for the sake of our commercial supremacy in the Pacific we should control the Hawaiian Islands and maintain our influence in Samoa.
England has studded the West Indies with strong places which are a standing menace to our Atlantic seaboard. We should have among those islands at least one strong naval 3 station, and when the Nicaragua canal is built, the island of Cuba, still sparsely settled and of almost unbounded fertility, will become to us a necessity. Commerce follows the flag, and we should build up a navy strong enough to give protection to Americans in every quarter of the globe and sufficiently powerful to put our coasts beyond the possibility of successful attack.
The tendency of modern times is toward consolidation. It is apparent in capital and labor alike, and it is also true of nations. Small States are of the past and have no future. The modern movement is all toward the concentration of people and territory into great nations and large dominions. The great nations are rapidly absorbing for their future expansion and their present defence all the waste places of the earth. It is a movement which makes for civilization and the advancement of the race. As one of the great nations of the world, the United States must not fall out of the line of march.
For more than thirty years we have been so much absorbed with grave domestic questions that we have lost sight of these vast interests which lie just outside our borders.
They ought to be neglected no longer. They are not only of material importance, but they are matters which concern our greatness as a nation and our future as a great people. They appeal to our national honor and dignity and to the pride of country and of race. If the humiliating foreign policy of the present Administration has served to call attention to these questions and to remind us that they are quite as important at least as tariffs or currency, it will perhaps prove to have been a blessing in disguise. When we face a question of foreign relations it should never be forgotten that we meet something above and beyond party politics, something that rouses and appeals to the patriotism and the
Americanism of which we never can have too much, and of which during the last two years our Government has shown altogether too little.
Document Analysis
1.What was Lodge's reasoning for supporting U.S. expansion in the Pacific?
2.Which historical precedents did Lodge cite to support his reasoning? Which historical
figures did he claim would support his reasoning?
3.How did Lodge characterize the future of small states? What did he mean by “the
waste places of the earth” in the next-to-last paragraph?
商界与政客http://www.weisun.org/apush/assignments/readings_03_1890_1900/05_business_vs_politicians_1895.pdf
亨利·卡伯特·洛奇 (1895)
在扩张主义时代，关于将美国控制范围扩大到美国大陆边界之外是否合宪和是否道德的争论不休。甚至在 1898 年美西战争之前，亨利·卡伯特·洛奇等政客就吞并的正当性展开了争论，在他漫长而有影响力的职业生涯中，他曾担任过国会议员和参议员。在下面的选段中，洛奇援引了乔治·华盛顿、托马斯·杰斐逊、詹姆斯·门罗和约翰·亚当斯的思想，支持吞并夏威夷并继续控制萨摩亚。如果说民主党有一个比其他党派更重要的基本原则，那就是不断推进美国的边界。
在本届政府的领导下，由于受到自由贸易的影响，民主党近一个世纪以来的这一伟大原则已被彻底抛弃。托马斯·杰斐逊承认他违反了宪法，并促成了路易斯安那州的购买，但克利夫兰先生却在努力推翻美国利益和美国对夏威夷的控制。安德鲁·杰克逊为佛罗里达而战，但克利夫兰先生却急于放弃萨摩亚……
这是这一理论的悲哀结果，即对人类或国家来说，没有比买卖、交易折刀和使一切变得便宜更高的目标或目的了。
没有人低估关税的重要性，也没有低估健全货币的更重要的重要性。但近年来，我们一直专注于这些经济问题，以至于对其他问题视而不见。曼彻斯特学派的这些信徒让我们受够了，他们认为印??花布的价格比国家的荣誉更重要，生铁的关税比种族的进步更重要。
现在是时候回忆起我们一直倾向于忘记的事情了：我们过去和现在都有一项对我们国家福祉至关重要的外交政策。
这项政策的基础是华盛顿的中立主义。他和汉密尔顿都认为，美国无权干涉欧洲事务。当这项政策宣布时，它震惊了当时的美国人，因为我们在思维习惯上仍然是殖民者，无法意识到欧洲的斗争与我们无关。然而，中立政策的确立是华盛顿和汉密尔顿为美国民族事业做出的最伟大的贡献之一。
华盛顿政策的必然结果是门罗主义，这是约翰·昆西·亚当斯的杰作，他比以他的名字命名的总统伟大得多。华盛顿宣称，美国无权干涉欧洲事务，约翰·昆西·亚当斯则补充说，欧洲不得干涉西半球。正如我最近看到有人郑重声明的那样，吞并夏威夷将违反门罗主义，因此，说门罗主义与美国的扩张无关，只是认为任何欧洲强国都不得在美洲建立自己的势力或干涉美国政府，也许并不为过。
中立政策和门罗主义是美国外交关系方面有远见的政治家从一开始就确立的两大原则。
但是，如果认为我们的外交政策止步于此，或者认为这些基本主张以任何方式束缚了美国人民的前进，那将是一个致命的错误。
华盛顿让我们退出欧洲事务，但同时他指出，我们真正的前进路线是向西。他从未想过我们会停滞不前，停止前进。他以先知般的眼光，看到了美国人民的真正道路，这是他那个时代没有其他人能做到的。他自己无法进入应许之地，但他向他的人民展示了从蓝岭到太平洋的应许之地。我们遵循了华盛顿的教诲。我们占领了密西西比河大峡谷，并越过了内华达山脉。我们拥有征服、殖民和领土扩张的记录，这是十九世纪任何民族都无法比拟的。
我们现在不应受到曼彻斯特学派教义的束缚，这些学说在英国从未出现过，作为一种外来学说，它们在这里比在本土更不合时宜。美国的政策不是像英国那样，在世界各地普遍获得远方土地后再进入。我们的政府不适应这样的政策，我们也不需要这样的政策，因为我们国内有充足的土地；但同时必须记住，在美国
我们自己拥有我们作为一个国家的力量和伟大的堡垒，有一些外围工事对于保卫这个堡垒至关重要，既不能忽视也不能放弃。
如果美国政治家们能够证明自己是华盛顿和亚当斯原则的继承者，那么他们在这方面有一个非常明确的政策要奉行。
我们不希望向南扩张，因为无论是中美洲还是南美洲的人口和土地都不会成为美国的理想补充。但是从格兰德河到北冰洋，应该只有一面旗帜和一个国家。种族和气候都不会禁止这种扩张，国家发展和国家福利的每一个考虑都要求这样做。为了我们的商业利益和我们最充分的发展，我们应该修建尼加拉瓜运河，为了保护这条运河，为了我们在太平洋的商业霸权，我们应该控制夏威夷群岛，并保持我们在萨摩亚的影响力。
英国在西印度群岛布满了坚固的据点，对我们的大西洋海岸构成了长期威胁。我们应该在这些岛屿中至少建立一个强大的海军基地，而当尼加拉瓜运河建成后，古巴岛仍然人烟稀少，土地肥沃，对我们来说将是必不可少的。商业跟着国旗走，我们应该建立一支强大的海军，它足够强大，可以保护世界各地的美国人，并且足够强大，使我们的海岸无法被成功攻击。
现代的趋势是走向合并。这在资本和劳动力方面都很明显，在国家方面也是如此。小国已经过时了，没有未来。现代运动都是朝着将人民和领土集中到大国和大领地的方向发展的。大国正在迅速吸收地球上所有的荒地，以备将来的扩张和现在的防御。这是一个促进文明和种族进步的运动。作为世界大国之一，美国绝不能掉队。
三十多年来，我们一直专注于国内的重大问题，却忽视了我们境外的这些巨大利益。
它们不应再被忽视。它们不仅具有物质重要性，而且关系到我们作为一个国家的伟大和我们作为一个伟大民族的未来。
它们关乎我们的国家荣誉和尊严，以及国家和种族的自豪感。如果本届政府屈辱的外交政策能够引起人们对这些问题的关注，并提醒我们这些问题至少与关税或货币一样重要，那么它或许将被证明是因祸得福。当我们面对外交关系问题时，永远不应忘记，我们遇到了超越党派政治的东西，它激发并呼吁我们永远不会拥有的爱国主义和美国主义，而在过去两年里，我们的政府却表现得太少了。
文档分析
1.洛奇支持美国在太平洋扩张的理由是什么？
2.洛奇引用了哪些历史先例来支持他的理由？他声称哪些历史人物可以支持他的理由？
3.洛奇如何描述小国的未来？他在倒数第二段中所说的“地球上的荒地”是什么意思？
The Business World vs. the Politicians
http://www.weisun.org/apush/assignments/readings_03_1890_1900/05_business_vs_politicians_1895.pdf
Henry Cabot Lodge (1895)
In the age of expansionism, debates abounded over the constitutionality and morality of expanding U.S. control outside the nation's continental borders. Even before the Spanish-merican War in 1898, politicians such as Henry Cabot Lodge, who served as both a congressman and senator during his long and influential career, argued over the propriety of annexation. In the selection below, Lodge invokes the ideas of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Monroe, and John Adams in support of the annexation of Hawaii and continued control of Samoa. If the Democratic party has had one cardinal principle beyond all others, it has been that of pushing forward the boundaries of the United States.
Under this Administration, governed as it is by free-trade influences, this great principle of the Democratic party during nearly a century of existence has been utterly abandoned. Thomas Jefferson, admitting that he violated the Constitution while he did it, effected the Louisiana purchase, but Mr. Cleveland has labored to overthrow American interests and American control in Hawaii. Andrew Jackson fought for Florida, but Mr. Cleveland is eager toabandon Samoa. . . .
It is the melancholy outcome of the doctrine that there is no higher aim or purpose for men or for nations than to buy and sell, to trade jack-knives and make everything cheap.
No one underrates the importance of the tariffs or the still greater importance of a sound currency. But of late years we have been so absorbed in these economic questions that we have grown unmindful of others. We have had something too much of these disciples of the Manchester school, who think the price of calico more important than a nation's honor, the duties on pig iron of more moment than the advance of a race.
It is time to recall what we have been tending to forget: that we have always had and that we have now a foreign policy which is of great importance to our national well-being.
The foundation of that policy was Washington's doctrine of neutrality. To him and to Hamilton we owe the principle that it was not the business of the United States to meddle in the affairs of Europe. When this policy was declared, it fell with a shock upon the Americans of that day, for we were still colonists in habits of thought and could not realize that the struggles of Europe did not concern us. Yet the establishment of the neutrality policy was one of the greatest services which Washington and Hamilton rendered to the cause of American nationality.
The corollary of Washington's policy was the Monroe doctrine, the work of John Quincy Adams, a much greater man than the President whose name it bears. Washington declared that it was not the business of the United States to meddle in the affairs of Europe, and John Quincy Adams added that Europe must not meddle in the Western hemisphere. As I have seen it solemnly stated recently that the annexation of Hawaii would be a violation of the Monroe doctrine, it is perhaps not out of place to say that the Monroe doctrine has no bearing on the extension of the United States, but simply holds that no European power shall establish itself in the Americas or interfere with American governments.
The neutrality policy and the Monroe doctrine are the two great principles established at the outset by far-seeing statesmen in regard to the foreign relations of the United States.
But it would be a fatal mistake to suppose that our foreign policy stopped there, or that these fundamental propositions in any way fettered the march of the American people.
Washington withdrew us from the affairs of Europe, but at the same time he pointed out that our true line of advance was to the West. He never for an instant thought that we were to remain stationary and cease to move forward. He saw, with prophetic vision, as did no other man of his time, the true course for the American people. He could not himself enter into the promised land, but he showed it to his people, stretching from the Blue Ridge to the Pacific Ocean. We have followed the teachings of Washington. We have taken the great valley of the Mississippi and pressed on beyond the Sierras. We have a record of conquest, colonization, and territorial expansion unequalled by any people in the nineteenth century.
We are not to be curbed now by the doctrines of the Manchester school which have never been observed in England, and which as an importation are even more absurdly out of place here than in their native land. It is not the policy of the United States to enter, as England has done, upon the general acquisition of distant possession in all parts of the world. Our government is not adapted to such a policy, and we have no need of it, for we have an ample field at home; but at the same time it must be remembered that while in the United States themselves we hold the citadel of our power and greatness as a nation, there are outworks essential to the defence of that citadel which must neither be neglected nor abandoned.
There is a very definite policy for American statesmen to pursue in this respect if they would prove themselves worthy inheritors of the principles of Washington and Adams. We desire no extension to the south, for neither the population nor the lands of Central or South America would be desirable additions to the United States. But from the Rio Grande to the Arctic Ocean there should be but one flag and one country. Neither race nor climate forbids this extension, and every consideration of national growth and national welfare demands it. In the interests of our commerce and of our fullest development we should build the Nicaragua canal, and for the protection of that canal and for the sake of our commercial supremacy in the Pacific we should control the Hawaiian Islands and maintain our influence in Samoa.
England has studded the West Indies with strong places which are a standing menace to our Atlantic seaboard. We should have among those islands at least one strong naval 3 station, and when the Nicaragua canal is built, the island of Cuba, still sparsely settled and of almost unbounded fertility, will become to us a necessity. Commerce follows the flag, and we should build up a navy strong enough to give protection to Americans in every quarter of the globe and sufficiently powerful to put our coasts beyond the possibility of successful attack.
The tendency of modern times is toward consolidation. It is apparent in capital and labor alike, and it is also true of nations. Small States are of the past and have no future. The modern movement is all toward the concentration of people and territory into great nations and large dominions. The great nations are rapidly absorbing for their future expansion and their present defence all the waste places of the earth. It is a movement which makes for civilization and the advancement of the race. As one of the great nations of the world, the United States must not fall out of the line of march.
For more than thirty years we have been so much absorbed with grave domestic questions that we have lost sight of these vast interests which lie just outside our borders.
They ought to be neglected no longer. They are not only of material importance, but they are matters which concern our greatness as a nation and our future as a great people. They appeal to our national honor and dignity and to the pride of country and of race. If the humiliating foreign policy of the present Administration has served to call attention to these questions and to remind us that they are quite as important at least as tariffs or currency, it will perhaps prove to have been a blessing in disguise. When we face a question of foreign relations it should never be forgotten that we meet something above and beyond party politics, something that rouses and appeals to the patriotism and the
Americanism of which we never can have too much, and of which during the last two years our Government has shown altogether too little.
Document Analysis
1.What was Lodge's reasoning for supporting U.S. expansion in the Pacific?
2.Which historical precedents did Lodge cite to support his reasoning? Which historical
figures did he claim would support his reasoning?
3.How did Lodge characterize the future of small states? What did he mean by “the
waste places of the earth” in the next-to-last paragraph?
https://faculty.tnstate.edu/tcorse/h2020/henry_cabot_lodge.htm
亨利·卡伯特·洛奇 (1895)
如果民主党有一个超越其他所有原则的基本原则，那就是推动美国的边界向前发展。在本届政府的领导下，由于受到自由贸易的影响，民主党在近一个世纪的存在中这一伟大原则已被彻底抛弃。托马斯·杰斐逊承认他在购买路易斯安那时违反了宪法，但克利夫兰先生却努力推翻美国利益和美国在夏威夷的控制。安德鲁·杰克逊为佛罗里达而战，但克利夫兰先生急于放弃萨摩亚。……这是这一学说的悲哀结果，即对于人类或国家来说，没有比买卖、交易折刀和使一切变得便宜更高的目标或目的了。没有人会低估关税的重要性，也没有人会低估健全货币的更重要意义。但近年来，我们过于专注于这些经济问题，以至于忽视了其他问题。我们受曼彻斯特学派信徒的影响太大了，他们认为印??花布的价格比国家的荣誉更重要，生铁的关税比种族的进步更重要。
现在是时候回忆一下我们一直倾向于忘记的事情了：我们过去和现在都有一项对国家福祉至关重要的外交政策。这项政策的基础是华盛顿的中立主义。我们应该感谢他和汉密尔顿，他和汉密尔顿提出了这样一个原则：美国无权干涉欧洲事务。当这项政策宣布时，当时的美国人感到震惊，因为我们在思维习惯上仍然是殖民者，没有意识到欧洲的斗争与我们无关。然而，中立政策的确立是华盛顿和汉密尔顿为美国民族事业做出的最伟大的贡献之一。华盛顿政策的必然结果是门罗主义，这是约翰·昆西·亚当斯的杰作，他比以他的名字命名的总统要伟大得多。华盛顿宣称，美国无权干涉欧洲事务，约翰·昆西·亚当斯则补充说，欧洲不得干涉西半球。正如我最近看到有人郑重声明的那样，吞并夏威夷将违反门罗主义，因此，说门罗主义与美国的扩张无关，只是认为任何欧洲国家都不得在美洲建立自己的势力或干涉美国政府，也许并不为过。
中立政策和门罗主义是美国外交关系方面有远见的政治家从一开始就确立的两大原则。但是，如果以为我们的外交政策就此止步，或者这些基本主张以任何方式束缚了美国人民的前进，那就大错特错了。华盛顿让我们退出欧洲事务，但同时他指出，我们真正的前进路线是向西。他从未想过我们会停滞不前，停止前进。他以先知般的眼光，看到了美国人民的真正道路，这是他那个时代没有其他人能做到的。他自己无法进入应许之地，但他向他的人民展示了从蓝岭到太平洋的应许之地。我们遵循了华盛顿的教诲。我们占领了密西西比河大峡谷，并越过内华达山脉。我们拥有征服、殖民和领土扩张的记录，是十九世纪任何民族都无法比拟的。我们现在不应受曼彻斯特学派的教义束缚，这些教义在英国从未出现过，作为一种外来思想，它们在这里比在本国更不合时宜。美国的政策不是像英国那样，在世界各地普遍获得远方土地。我们的政府不适应这样的政策，我们也不需要它，因为我们国内有广阔的土地；但同时必须记住，虽然我们在美国自己拥有我们作为一个国家的权力和伟大的堡垒，但有一些外围工事对于保卫这个堡垒是必不可少的，这些外围工事既不能忽视也不能放弃。
如果美国政治家想证明自己是华盛顿和亚当斯原则的合格继承者，他们在这方面有一个非常明确的政策要奉行。我们不希望向南扩张，因为无论是中美洲还是南美洲的人口和土地都不会是美国的理想补充。但从格兰德河到北冰洋，应该只有一面旗帜和一支
国家。种族和气候都不妨碍这种扩张，国家发展和国家福利的每一个考虑都要求这样做。为了我们的商业利益和我们最充分的发展，我们应该修建尼加拉瓜运河，为了保护这条运河，为了我们在太平洋的商业霸权，我们应该控制夏威夷群岛，并保持我们在萨摩亚的影响力。英国在西印度群岛布满了坚固的地方，对我们的大西洋海岸构成了长期威胁。我们应该在这些岛屿中至少有一个强大的海军站，当尼加拉瓜运河建成时，古巴岛仍然人烟稀少，几乎拥有无限的肥沃，对我们来说将成为必需品。商业跟着国旗走，我们应该建立一支强大的海军，足以保护全球各地的美国人，并且足够强大，使我们的海岸远离成功攻击的可能性。
现代的趋势是走向整合。这在资本和劳动力中都很明显，在国家中也是如此。小国已成过去，没有未来。现代运动全都朝着将人民和领土集中到大国和大领地的方向发展。大国正迅速吞并地球上所有的荒地，以用于未来的扩张和目前的防御。这是一场促进文明和种族进步的运动。作为世界大国之一，美国绝不能落伍。
三十多年来，我们一直专注于严重的国内问题，以至于我们忽视了这些就在我们边界之外的巨大利益。它们不应该再被忽视了。它们不仅具有物质重要性，而且关系到我们作为一个国家的伟大和我们作为一个伟大民族的未来。它们关乎我们的国家荣誉和尊严，关乎国家和种族的自豪感。如果本届政府屈辱的外交政策能够引起人们对这些问题的关注，并提醒我们这些问题至少与关税或货币一样重要，那么它也许会被证明是因祸得福。当我们面临外交关系问题时，永远不应忘记，我们面临的是超越党派政治的东西，它激发并呼吁我们永远不嫌多的爱国主义和美国主义，而过去两年来，我们的政府却表现得太少了。
The Business World vs. the Politicians
https://faculty.tnstate.edu/tcorse/h2020/henry_cabot_lodge.htm
Henry Cabot Lodge (1895)
If the Democratic party has had one cardinal principle beyond all others, it has been that of pushing forward the boundaries of the United States. Under this Administration, governed as it is by free-trade influences, this great principle of the Democratic party during nearly a century of existence has been utterly abandoned. Thomas Jefferson, admitting that he violated the Constitution while he did it, effected the Louisiana purchase, but Mr. Cleveland has labored to overthrow American interests and American control in Hawaii. Andrew Jackson fought for Florida, but Mr. Cleveland is eager to abandon Samoa. . . . It is the melancholy outcome of the doctrine that there is no higher aim or purpose for men or for nations than to buy and sell, to trade jack-knives and make everything cheap. No one underrates the importance of the tariffs or the still greater importance of a sound currency. But of late years we have been so absorbed in these economic questions that we have grown unmindful of others. We have had something too much of these disciples of the Manchester school, who think the price of calico more important than a nation's honor, the duties on pig iron of more moment than the advance of a race.
It is time to recall what we have been tending to forget: that we have always had and that we have now a foreign policy which is of great importance to our national well-being. The foundation of that policy was Washington's doctrine of neutrality. To him and to Hamilton we owe the principle that it was not the business of the United States to meddle in the affairs of Europe. When this policy was declared, it fell with a shock upon the Americans of that day, for we were still colonists in habits of thought and could not realize that the struggles of Europe did not concern us. Yet the establishment of the neutrality policy was one of the greatest services which Washington and Hamilton rendered to the cause of American nationality. The corollary of Washington's policy was the Monroe doctrine, the work of John Quincy Adams, a much greater man than the President whose name it bears. Washington declared that it was not the business of the United States to meddle in the affairs of Europe, and John Quincy Adams added that Europe must not meddle in the Western hemisphere. As I have seen it solemnly stated recently that the annexation of Hawaii would be a violation of the Monroe doctrine, it is perhaps not out of place to say that the Monroe doctrine has no bearing on the extension of the United States, but simply holds that no European power shall establish itself in the Americas or interfere with American governments.
The neutrality policy and the Monroe doctrine are the two great principles established at the outset by far-seeing statesmen in regard to the foreign relations of the United States. But it would be a fatal mistake to suppose that our foreign policy stopped there, or that these fundamental propositions in any way fettered the march of the American people. Washington withdrew us from the affairs of Europe, but at the same time he pointed out that our true line of advance was to the West. He never for an instant thought that we were to remain stationary and cease to move forward. He saw, with prophetic vision, as did no other man of his time, the true course for the American people. He could not himself enter into the promised land, but he showed it to his people, stretching from the Blue Ridge to the Pacific Ocean. We have followed the teachings of Washington. We have taken the great valley of the Mississippi and pressed on beyond the Sierras. We have a record of conquest, colonization, and territorial expansion unequalled by any people in the nineteenth century. We are not to be curbed now by the doctrines of the Manchester school which have never been observed in England, and which as an importation are even more absurdly out of place here than in their native land. It is not the policy of the United States to enter, as England has done, upon the general acquisition of distant possession in all parts of the world. Our government is not adapted to such a policy, and we have no need of it, for we have an ample field at home; but at the same time it must be remembered that while in the United States themselves we hold the citadel of our power and greatness as a nation, there are outworks essential to the defence of that citadel which must neither be neglected nor abandoned.
There is a very definite policy for American statesmen to pursue in this respect if they would prove themselves worthy inheritors of the principles of Washington and Adams. We desire no extension to the south, for neither the population nor the lands of Central or South America would be desirable additions to the United States. But from the Rio Grande to the Arctic Ocean there should be but one flag and one country. Neither race nor climate forbids this extension, and every consideration of national growth and national welfare demands it. In the interests of our commerce and of our fullest development we should build the Nicaragua canal, and for the protection of that canal and for the sake of our commercial supremacy in the Pacific we should control the Hawaiian Islands and maintain our influence in Samoa. England has studded the West Indies with strong places which are a standing menace to our Atlantic seaboard. We should have among those islands at least one strong naval station, and when the Nicaragua canal is built, the island of Cuba, still sparsely settled and of almost unbounded fertility, will become to us a necessity. Commerce follows the flag, and we should build up a navy strong enough to give protection to Americans in every quarter of the globe and sufficiently powerful to put our coasts beyond the possibility of successful attack.
The tendency of modern times is toward consolidation. It is apparent in capital and labor alike, and it is also true of nations. Small States are of the past and have no future. The modern movement is all toward the concentration of people and territory into great nations and large dominions. The great nations are rapidly absorbing for their future expansion and their present defence all the waste places of the earth. It is a movement which makes for civilization and the advancement of the race. As one of the great nations of the world, the United States must not fall out of the line of march.
For more than thirty years we have been so much absorbed with grave domestic questions that we have lost sight of these vast interests which lie just outside our borders. They ought to be neglected no longer. They are not only of material importance, but they are matters which concern our greatness as a nation and our future as a great people. They appeal to our national honor and dignity and to the pride of country and of race. If the humiliating foreign policy of the present Administration has served to call attention to these questions and to remind us that they are quite as important at least as tariffs or currency, it will perhaps prove to have been a blessing in disguise. When we face a question of foreign relations it should never be forgotten that we meet something above and beyond party politics, something that rouses and appeals to the patriotism and the Americanism of which we never can have too much, and of which during the last two years our Government has shown altogether too little.
