Home Rule in America, by Andrew Carnegie

The Gospel of Wealth, by Andrew Carnegie

Part X: Home Rule in America

In 1887, Andrew Carnegie gave a speech before the Glasgow Junior Liberal Association. A major issue in British politics of the day was the question of Irish home rule. Ireland demanded a degree of self-governance; the rest of the nation was generally opposed, and the Home Rule act had been defeated in the House of Commons the previous year. Carnegie related Irish home rule to American federalism. Carnegie explained that home rule, or federalism, is not a first step toward secession, but is merely the most reasonable and most democratic form of government for any large nation.

Carnegie urges that Irish home rule be established as quickly as possible, using the US Constitution as a model. After all, it is a tried and tested method; no sense starting from scratch. The "great, beneficient principle of Home Rule" will bring peace and strength to the English-speaking world, with Britain as its leader, Carnegie promises.

Home Rule for each of the divisions, with a central authority over all to keep them in order; and in that congregation of English-speaking people, in that future Parliament - I know not how many divisions, I know not what their size or number, I know not their positions, but I know the position of one power is fixed, immovable, perpetual, and secure - that of this glorious little island. There may be many children clustering around her in that Parliament of Man; there can only be one mother. I say cursed be the arm and withered the tongue of any man, wherever found, who would strive to keep apart, by word or by deed, those children from that mother.

Although Home Rule was eventually enacted, by that time Irish politics had shifted such that they would settle for nothing less than independence. One wonders whether the independence movement would have lost support had Ireland been granted Home Rule in the late 1880s as Carnegie urged, rather than thirty years later.

Democracy in England, by Andrew Carnegie

The Gospel of Wealth, by Andrew Carnegie

Part IX: Democracy in England

In this 1886 essay, Carnegie congratulates the British on their decision to extend vote to all adult males, and to realign the districts to better represent the public. These changes, Carnegie says, made Britain a democracy for the first time in her history.

Carnegie says that Britain is undergoing a process of Americanization. Meaning, that the principles of liberty and democracy athat took root in America are now beginning to flourish in Britain. A major force behind this push for change was public education.

The first and by far the most important step ever taken in this direction was the adoption some years ago of a system of public education. Every child in the land now receives an education equal to that which we bestow. ... Attendance is compulsory. The first generation of those who have benefited by this system are now appearing upon the stage of action with the inevitable result: they are radical. Education is everywhere a sure destroyer of privilege. The boy who can read the Declaration of Independence may be trusted to feel its force sooner or later. The doctrine of political equality, once known, enters the heart of man a welcome guest.

Carnegie further asserts that as Britain assimilates the concept of democracy, she will once again become a major world power. But instead of returning to her imperial ways, she will adopt the national habits of America: Britain will refrain from meddling in foreign affairs, and will become a great, peaceful world power.

Is the British democracy to be pacific or belligerent? Is Britain to continue to embroil herself in wars in all parts of the world? Is she to maintain her costly and useless interferences in the quarrels of Europe? I think not. I believe that the British democracy is to be pacific, and that the American doctrine of non-intervention will commend itself to it. Britain will be more and more inclined to follow the example of America in regard to foreign affairs, as she has done in home affairs.

It is a short essay. The political analysis is simplistic, and Carnegie offers scanty support for his optimistic predictions. This is the future as Carnegie would like it. It is not a realistic analysis.

Americanism versus Imperialism, by Andrew Carnegie

The Gospel of Wealth: Americanism versus Imperialism, by Andrew Carnegie
Reviewed date: 2007 Jul 16

Part VIII: Americanism versus Imperialism

Andrew Carnegie once again returns to the question of the Philippines. He argues forcefully that the United States should not attempt to rule the Philippines, but rather give them their independence. Carnegie portrays the United States at a crossroads between imperialism and traditional American isolationism.

Shall we remain as we are, solid, compact, impregnable, republican, American? or, Shall we creep under the protection, and become, as Bishop Potter says, the "cat's-paw" of Britain, in order that we may grasp the phantom of Imperialism.

Imperialism will be particularly costly for the United States, Carnegie argues, because (at the turn of the century) it lacked a world-class navy. To become an imperial power, America would need to field a world-class navy--at tremendous expense. In the short term, if the United States wishes to promote its international imperial agenda, it can only do so with the support of Britain and her navy; thus America must support Britain.

Carnegie identifies three main arguments in favor of imperialism: 1) for commercial gains--unnecessary because global open trade policies already obviated the need for American-owned colonies; 2) increased power in war--counterproductive, because foreign expansion puts America at greater risk compared to the geographic safety of the continental US; 3) America has a "sacred task to undertake the civilization of a backward people committed to their charge." It is this last argument that dominated the newspapers in Carnegie's day.

The average American, especially in the West, really believes that his country can govern these tropical people, and benefit them by so doing ... The writer knows that the cynics, both at home and abroad, but especially the latter, will smile at this statement; but the extent of the ignorance of the American people in general, except in the South, about subject races and tropical conditions, cannot be realized by Europeans. This ignorance is truly as great as their belief implies.

The thought sweeping America--fueled by zealous religious leaders--is that America has been called by God to bring civilization, liberty, and Protestant Christianity to the world. Most specifically, to Cuba and the Philippines. Carnegie asserts that America can do nothing but harm to the Philippines. (Cuba had already been granted independence at the time Carnegie wrote.)

Imperialism can become a "holy duty" only if we can by forcible interference confer blessings upon the subject races; otherwise it remains what the President once said it was, "criminal aggression." Let us see, therefore, whether good or evil flows from such interference. ... Has the influence of the superior race upon the inferior ever proved beneficial to either? I know of no case in which it has been or is...
We can only retard, not hasten, their [the Philippines] development.

Finally, Carnegie draws parallels between the Filipinos and the American Revolutionary War.

They have just the same feelings as we have, not excluding love of country, for which, like ourselves, as we see, they are willing to die. Oh, the pity of it! the pity of it! that Filipino mothers with American mothers equally mourn their lost sons -- one fallen, defender of his country; the other the invader. Yet the invader was ordered by those who see it their "duty" to invade the land of the Filipinos for their civilization. Duty, stern goddess, what strange things men sometimes do in thy name!

Historical note: the United States did not leave the Philippines until 1992.