According to the resolution adopted by Congress, this was to be a war of liberation, of disinterested benevolence, and not a war of conquest. This resolution, involving a solemn promise, makes the question of the peace conditions not a mere question of interest, but emphatically a question of honor. It seems to be generally admitted that, accordingly, we cannot annex Cuba.
But if we annex Porto Rico, or the Philippines, will not that make the war a war of conquest, contrary to our declaration and pledge? In the case of Porto Rico we have not even the pretext of a popular insurrection against Spanish rule. If we annex that island it will be palpable, flagrant conquest by arms, annexation by force, not only unjustified, but undisguised. And what did you say in your annual message? That annexation by force cannot be thought of; that it would be, according to the American code of morals, a criminal act of aggression.
I maintain, therefore, that as an honorable nation, we are peremptorily precluded from annexing any of the Spanish islands. We can “liberate” them, we may make other disposition of them, but we cannot, under existing circumstances, take any of them for ourselves without breaking our word, without violating the principle so forcibly stated by yourself in your message, and without putting a stain of disgrace upon the American name.
I believe also that a peace strictly in accordance with our original declaration and the pledge it involved will ultimately bring us the greatest material advantage. If we really needed a coaling-station, then we could have it without annexing a whole island with a large population, just as Great Britain holds Gibraltar without owning Spain.
Permit me to enclose an article on this subject I recently published in the Independent. I have a much stronger one, insisting mainly on the point of honor, in the September number of the Century.
