This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1921 Excerpt: ...they are unable to uphold a government of their own. If we should withdraw, anarchy would ensue. The first answer is that we have no right to assume anything of the kind; the second is that anarchy is to be preferred to tyranny. So the anarchy argument fails whether looked at from the historical or ethical point-of-view. As an historical fact, what we can mean by anarchy in this case--serious social confusion--has been again and again the outward evidence of deep-seated movements which result in the formulation of some system of government best fitted for the time and circumstances. Never yet in the world's history has one nation been ultimately successful in forcing upon another its own civilization and ideals. The Philippines are entitled to their own form of development be it what we call anarchy or progress. "Next we are told that we must hold the islands to prevent them being seized upon by some other power--Great Britain, Germany or Japan. This argument is no less flimsy than the others. One might begin by hazarding the suggestions that if it's a question of the Filipinos being held in subjection by some one, perhaps the inhabitants might prefer to choose their guardian, possibly they would gain by the rule of Japan or Great Britain rather than 'benevolent assimilation' by the United States. Why should we assume that our particular rule is so necessary to the Philippines? Has it spared war and bloodshed? Does it satisfy the people of the islands? Have we been so successful in perfecting the details of our own form of government that we are justified in deciding upon those for other people? And if these are answered satisfactorily, there still remains the fact that nothing could be simpler than to take the Philippines under our protection and say ...