26.5Albert Beveridge, “Defense of Imperialism” Albert Beveridge (1862-1927) was a Republican Senator from Indiana, historian, and imperialist. A supporter of President Theodore Roosevelt (in office from 1901-1909), Beveridge supported American expansion in the Philippines, Cuba, and Puerto Rico after the American victory in the Spanish-American War (1898). In “Defense of Imperialism,” Beveridge portrays Americans as a people favored by God who are destined to rule over additional lands and achieve commercial supremacy. He did not believe that the people of the Philippines, Cuba, and Puerto Rico were mature or capable of self-government, which justified American rule. In addition, Beveridge acknowledges the importance of imperial adventures to justifying national greatness in the early twentieth-century. Beveridge’s ideas represent, in sum, two primary justifications for the New Imperialism of the late nineteenth and early twentieth-centuries. On the one hand, imperialists argued that foreign control was necessary for peoples not yet ready to govern themselves. On the other hand, they recognized that imperialism served the interests of the metropole insofar as it justified “Great Power” status among the community of nations. It is a noble land that God has given us; a land that can feed and clothe the world; a land whose coastlines would enclose half the countries of Europe; a land set like a sentinel between the two imperial oceans of the globe, a greater England with a nobler destiny. It is a mighty people that He has planted on this soil; a people sprung from the most masterful blood of history, a people perpetually revitalized by the virile, man-producing working-folk of all the earth; a people imperial by virtue of their power, by right of their institutions, by authority of their Heaven-directed purposes— the propagandists and not the misers of liberty. It is a glorious history our God has bestowed upon His chosen people; a history heroic with faith in our mission and our future; a history of statesmen who flung the boundaries of the Republic out into unexplored lands and savage wilderness; a history of soldiers who carried the flag across blazing deserts and through the ranks of hostile mountains, even to the gates of sunset; a history of a multiplying people who overran a continent in half a century; a history of prophets who saw the consequences of evils inherited from the past and of martyrs who died to save us from them; a history divinely logical, in the process of whose tremendous reasoning we find ourselves today. Therefore, in this campaign, the question is larger than a party question. It is an American question. It is a world question. Shall the American people continue their march toward the commercial supremacy of the world? Shall free institutions broaden their blessed reign as the children of liberty wax in strength, until the empire of our principles is established over the hearts of all mankind? Have we no mission to per.

1. 26.5Albert Beveridge, “Defense of Imperialism”
Albert Beveridge (1862-1927) was a Republican Senator from
Indiana, historian, and imperialist. A supporter of President
Theodore Roosevelt (in office from 1901-1909), Beveridge
supported American expansion in the Philippines, Cuba, and
Puerto Rico after the American victory in the Spanish-American
War (1898). In “Defense of Imperialism,” Beveridge portrays
Americans as a people favored by God who are destined to rule
over additional lands and achieve commercial supremacy. He
did not believe that the people of the Philippines, Cuba, and
Puerto Rico were mature or capable of self-government, which
justified American rule. In addition, Beveridge acknowledges
the importance of imperial adventures to justifying national
greatness in the early twentieth-century. Beveridge’s ideas
represent, in sum, two primary justifications for the New
Imperialism of the late nineteenth and early twentieth-centuries.
On the one hand, imperialists argued that foreign control was
necessary for peoples not yet ready to govern themselves. On
the other hand, they recognized that imperialism served the
interests of the metropole insofar as it justified “Great Power”
status among the community of nations.
It is a noble land that God has given us; a land that can feed and
clothe the world; a land whose coastlines would enclose half the
countries of Europe; a land set like a sentinel between the two
imperial oceans of the globe, a greater England with a nobler
destiny.
It is a mighty people that He has planted on this soil; a people
sprung from the most masterful blood of history, a people
perpetually revitalized by the virile, man-producing working-
folk of all the earth; a people imperial by virtue of their power,
by right of their institutions, by authority of their Heaven-
directed purposes— the propagandists and not the misers of
liberty.
It is a glorious history our God has bestowed upon His chosen

2. people; a history heroic with faith in our mission and our
future; a history of statesmen who flung the boundaries of the
Republic out into unexplored lands and savage wilderness; a
history of soldiers who carried the flag across blazing deserts
and through the ranks of hostile mountains, even to the gates of
sunset; a history of a multiplying people who overran a
continent in half a century; a history of prophets who saw the
consequences of evils inherited from the past and of martyrs
who died to save us from them; a history divinely logical, in the
process of whose tremendous reasoning we find ourselves
today.
Therefore, in this campaign, the question is larger than a party
question. It is an American question. It is a world question.
Shall the American people continue their march toward the
commercial supremacy of the world? Shall free institutions
broaden their blessed reign as the children of liberty wax in
strength, until the empire of our principles is established over
the hearts of all mankind?
Have we no mission to perform, no duty to discharge to our
fellow man? Has God endowed us with gifts beyond our deserts
and marked us as the people of His peculiar favor, merely to rot
in our own selfishness, as men and nations must, who take
cowardice for their companion and self for their deity—as
China has, as India has, as Egypt has?
Shall we be as the man who had one talent and hid it, or as he
who had ten talents and used them until they grew to riches?
And shall we reap the reward that waits on our discharge of our
high duty; shall we occupy new markets for what our farmers
raise, our factories make, our merchants sell—aye, and please
God, new markets for what our ships shall carry?
Hawaii is ours; Puerto Rico is to be ours; at the prayer of her
people Cuba finally will be ours; in the islands of the East, even
to the gates of Asia, coaling stations are to be ours at the very
least; the flag of a liberal government is to float over the
Philippines, and may it be the banner that Taylor unfurled in
Texas and Fremont carried to the coast.

3. The Opposition tells us that we ought not to govern a people
without their consent. I answer, the rule of liberty that all just
government derives its authority from the consent of the
governed, applies only to those who are capable of self-
government. We govern the Indians without their consent, we
govern our territories without their consent, we govern our
children without their consent. How do they know what our
government would be without their consent? Would not the
people of the Philippines prefer the just, humane, civilizing
government of this Republic to the savage, bloody rule of
pillage and extortion from which we have rescued them?
And, regardless of this formula of words made only for
enlightened, self-governing people, do we owe no duty to the
world? Shall we turn these peoples back to the reeking hands
from which we have taken them? Shall we abandon them, with
Germany, England, Japan, hungering for them? Shall we save
them from those nations, to give them a self-rule of tragedy?
They ask us how we shall govern these new possessions. I
answer: Out of local conditions and the necessities of the case
methods of government will grow. If England can govern
foreign lands, so can America. If Germany can govern foreign
lands, so can America. If they can supervise protectorates, so
can America. Why is it more difficult to administer Hawaii than
New Mexico or California? Both had a savage and an alien
population; both were more remote from the seat of government
when they came under our dominion than the Philippines are
today.
Will you say by your vote that American ability to govern has
decayed; that a century’s experience in self-rule has failed of a
result? Will you affirm by your vote that you are an infidel to
American power and practical sense? Or will you say that ours
is the blood of government; ours the heart of dominion; ours the
brain and genius of administration? Will you remember that we
do but what our fathers did—we but pitch the tents of liberty
farther westward, farther southward—we only continue the
march of the flag…? [W]hile, we did not need the territory

4. taken during the past century at the time it was acquired, we do
need what we have taken in 1898, and we need it now. The
resources and the commerce of these immensely rich dominions
will be increased as much as American energy is greater than
Spanish sloth. In Cuba, alone, there are 15,000,000 acres of
forest unacquainted with the ax, exhaustless mines of iron,
priceless deposits of manganese, millions of dollars’ worth of
which we must buy, today, from the Black Sea districts. There
are millions of acres yet unexplored.
The resources of Porto Rico have only been trifled with. The
riches of the Philippines have hardly been touched by the
finger-tips of modern methods. And they produce what we
consume, and consume what we produce— the very
predestination of reciprocity—a reciprocity “not made with
hands, eternal in the heavens.” They sell hemp, sugar, coconuts,
fruits of the tropics, timber of price like mahogany; they buy
flour, clothing, tools, implements, machinery and all that we
can raise and make. Their trade will be ours in time.…
[I]f any man tells you that trade depends on cheapness and not
on government influence, ask him why England does not
abandon South Africa, Egypt, India. Why does France seize
South China, Germany the vast region whose port is
Kaouchou…?
[H]awaii furnishes us a naval base in the heart of the Pacific;
the Ladrones another, a voyage further on; Manila another, at
the gates of Asia—Asia, to the trade of whose hundreds of
millions American merchants, manufacturers, farmers, have as
good right as those of Germany or France or Russia or England;
Asia, whose commerce with the United Kingdom alone amounts
to hundreds of millions of dollars every year; Asia, to whom
Germany likes to take her surplus products; Asia, whose doors
must not be shut against American trade. Within five decades
the bulk of Oriental commerce will be ours.…
Wonderfully has God guided us. Yonder at Bunker Hill and
Yorktown His providence was above us. At New Orleans and on
ensanguined seas His hand sustained us. Abraham Lincoln was

5. His minister and His was the altar of freedom the Nation’s
soldiers set up on a hundred battlefields. His power directed
Dewey in the East and delivered the Spanish fleet into our
hands, as He delivered the elder Armada into the hands of our
English sires…We can not fly from our world duties; it is ours
to execute the purpose of a fate that has driven us to be greater
than our small intentions. We can not retreat from any soil
where Providence has unfurled our banner; it is ours to save that
soil for liberty and civilization.
26.5
Albe
rt Beveridge, “Defense
of Imperialism”
Albert Beveridge (1862
-
1927) was a Republican Senator from
Indiana, historian, and imperialist. A supporter of President
Theodore Roosevelt (in office from 1901
-
1909), Beveridge
supported American expansion in the Phi
lippines, Cuba, and
Puerto Rico after the American victory in the Spanish
-
American
War (1898). In “Defense of Imperialism,” Beveridge portrays
Americans as a people favored by God who are destined to rule
over additional lands and achieve commercial suprem
acy. He
did not believe that the people of the Philippines, Cuba, and
Puerto Rico were mature or capable of self
-
government, which

6. justified American rule. In addition, Beveridge acknowledges
the importance of imperial adventures to justifying national
gre
atness in the early twentieth
-
century. Beveridge’s ideas
represent, in sum, two primary justifications for the New
Imperialism of the late nineteenth and early twentieth
-
centuries. On the one hand, imperialists argued that foreign
control was necessary for
peoples not yet ready to govern
themselves. On the other hand, they recognized that
imperialism served the interests of the metropole insofar as it
justified “Great Power” status among the community of nations.
It is a noble land that God has given us; a
land that can feed and clothe the world;
a land whose coastlines would enclose half the countries of
Europe; a land set
like a sentinel between the two imperial oceans of the globe, a
greater England
with a nobler destiny.
It is a mighty people that He has planted on this soil; a people
sprung from the
most masterful blood of history, a people perpetually revitalized
by the virile,
man
-
producing working
-
folk of all the earth; a people imperial by virtue of their
power, by ri
ght of their institutions, by authority of their Heaven

7. -
directed
purposes
—
the propagandists and not the misers of liberty.
It is a glorious history our God has bestowed upon His chosen
people; a history
heroic with faith in our mission and our future; a h
istory of statesmen who flung
the boundaries of the Republic out into unexplored lands and
savage wilderness;
a history of soldiers who carried the flag across blazing deserts
and through the
ranks of hostile mountains, even to the gates of sunset; a histo
ry of a multiplying
26.5Albert Beveridge, “Defense
of Imperialism”
Albert Beveridge (1862-1927) was a Republican Senator from
Indiana, historian, and imperialist. A supporter of President
Theodore Roosevelt (in office from 1901-1909), Beveridge
supported American expansion in the Philippines, Cuba, and
Puerto Rico after the American victory in the Spanish-American
War (1898). In “Defense of Imperialism,” Beveridge portrays
Americans as a people favored by God who are destined to rule
over additional lands and achieve commercial supremacy. He
did not believe that the people of the Philippines, Cuba, and
Puerto Rico were mature or capable of self-government, which
justified American rule. In addition, Beveridge acknowledges
the importance of imperial adventures to justifying national
greatness in the early twentieth-century. Beveridge’s ideas
represent, in sum, two primary justifications for the New
Imperialism of the late nineteenth and early twentieth-
centuries. On the one hand, imperialists argued that foreign
control was necessary for peoples not yet ready to govern

8. themselves. On the other hand, they recognized that
imperialism served the interests of the metropole insofar as it
justified “Great Power” status among the community of nations.
It is a noble land that God has given us; a land that can feed and
clothe the world;
a land whose coastlines would enclose half the countries of
Europe; a land set
like a sentinel between the two imperial oceans of the globe, a
greater England
with a nobler destiny.
It is a mighty people that He has planted on this soil; a people
sprung from the
most masterful blood of history, a people perpetually revitalized
by the virile,
man-producing working-folk of all the earth; a people imperial
by virtue of their
power, by right of their institutions, by authority of their
Heaven-directed
purposes— the propagandists and not the misers of liberty.
It is a glorious history our God has bestowed upon His chosen
people; a history
heroic with faith in our mission and our future; a history of
statesmen who flung
the boundaries of the Republic out into unexplored lands and
savage wilderness;
a history of soldiers who carried the flag across blazing deserts
and through the
ranks of hostile mountains, even to the gates of sunset; a history
of a multiplying
25.1Andrew Jackson, “On Indian Removal”
On December 6, 1830, U.S. President Andrew Jackson (1767-
1845) delivered a message to Congress that explained and
justified the Indian Removal Act that had been signed into law
earlier that year. By the time of Jackson’s election in 1828, four
major Indian tribes—Cherokees, Chickasaws, Choctaws, and

9. Creeks—along with others, controlled significant portions of
land in several southern states including Georgia, Alabama, and
Mississippi. The Indian Removal Act provided Jackson with the
power to designate land west of the Mississippi River where
these tribes were to be relocated in exchange for their territory
within the states. Jackson’s speech argued that removing the
Indians was beneficial for both Americans and the Indians, and
it articulated his support for individual states’ authority by
explaining how the removal would help those states grow and
prosper. Advocating an early act of ethnic cleansing, Jackson
claimed this policy to be “liberal” and “generous” because the
U.S. government was providing new western land for the
Indians to settle and paying all expenses for the removal. Many
Indians resisted, however, and tens of thousands were forced to
move away from their homes, resulting in the infamous “Trail
of Tears.”
It gives me pleasure to announce to Congress that the
benevolent policy of the Government, steadily pursued for
nearly thirty years, in relation to the removal of the Indians
beyond the white settlements is approaching to a happy
consummation. Two important tribes have accepted the
provision made for their removal at the last session of Congress,
and it is believed that their example will induce the remaining
tribes also to seek the same obvious advantages.
The consequences of a speedy removal will be important to the
United States, to individual States, and to the Indians
themselves. The pecuniary advantages which it promises to the
Government are the least of its recommendations. It puts an end
to all possible danger of collision between the authorities of the
General and State Governments on account of the Indians. It
will place a dense and civilized population in large tracts of
country now occupied by a few savage hunters. By opening the
whole territory between Tennessee on the north and Louisiana
on the south to the settlement of the whites it will incalculably
strengthen the southwestern frontier and render the adjacent
States strong enough to repel future invasions without remote

10. aid. It will relieve the whole State of Mississippi and the
western part of Alabama of Indian occupancy, and enable those
States to advance rapidly in population, wealth, and power. It
will separate the Indians from immediate contact with
settlements of whites; free them from the power of the States;
enable them to pursue happiness in their own way and under
their own rude institutions; will retard the progress of decay,
which is lessening their numbers, and perhaps cause them
gradually, under the protection of the Government and through
the influence of good counsels, to cast off their savage habits
and become an interesting, civilized, and Christian community.
What good man would prefer a country covered with forests and
ranged by a few thousand savages to our extensive Republic,
studded with cities, towns, and prosperous farms embellished
with all the improvements which art can devise or industry
execute, occupied by more than 12,000,000 happy people, and
filled with all the blessings of liberty, civilization and religion?
The present policy of the Government is but a continuation of
the same progressive change by a milder process. The tribes
which occupied the countries now constituting the Eastern
States were annihilated or have melted away to make room for
the whites. The waves of population and civilization are rolling
to the westward, and we now propose to acquire the countries
occupied by the red men of the South and West by a fair
exchange, and, at the expense of the United States, to send them
to land where their existence may be prolonged and perhaps
made perpetual. Doubtless it will be painful to leave the graves
of their fathers; but what do they more than our ancestors did or
than our children are now doing? To better their condition in an
unknown land our forefathers left all that was dear in earthly
objects. Our children by thousands yearly leave the land of their
birth to seek new homes in distant regions. Does Humanity
weep at these painful separations from everything, animate and
inanimate, with which the young heart has become entwined?
Far from it. It is rather a source of joy that our country affords
scope where our young population may range unconstrained in

11. body or in mind, developing the power and facilities of man in
their highest perfection. These remove hundreds and almost
thousands of miles at their own expense, purchase the lands
they occupy, and support themselves at their new homes from
the moment of their arrival. Can it be cruel in this Government
when, by events which it can not control, the Indian is made
discontented in his ancient home to purchase his lands, to give
him a new and extensive territory, to pay the expense of his
removal, and support him a year in his new abode? How many
thousands of our own people would gladly embrace the
opportunity of removing to the West on such conditions! If the
offers made to the Indians were extended to them, they would
be hailed with gratitude and joy.
And is it supposed that the wandering savage has a stronger
attachment to his home than the settled, civilized Christian? Is
it more afflicting to him to leave the graves of his fathers than
it is to our brothers and children? Rightly considered, the policy
of the General Government toward the red man is not only
liberal, but generous. He is unwilling to submit to the laws of
the States and mingle with their population. To save him from
this alternative, or perhaps utter annihilation, the General
Government kindly offers him a new home, and proposes to pay
the whole expense of his removal and settlement.
Source Citation:
Jackson, Andrew. “On Indian Removal.” Social Policy:
Essential Primary Sources. Ed. K. Lee Lerner, Brenda Wilmoth
Lerner, and Adrienne Wilmoth Lerner. Detroit: Gale, 2006. 76-
78. Web. 24 June 2015.
25.1
Andrew Jackson, “On Indian
Removal”
On December 6, 1830, U.S. President Andrew Jackson (1767
-

12. 1845) delivered a message to Congress that e
xplained and
justified the Indian Removal Act that had been signed into law
earlier that year. By the time of Jackson’s election in 1828, four
major Indian tribes
—
Cherokees, Chickasaws, Choctaws, and
Creeks
—
along with others, controlled significant portion
s of
land in several southern states including Georgia, Alabama, and
Mississippi. The Indian Removal Act provided Jackson with the
power to designate land west of the Mississippi River where
these tribes were to be relocated in exchange for their territory
within the states. Jackson’s speech argued that removing the
Indians was beneficial for both Americans and the Indians, and
it articulated his support for individual states’ authority by
explaining how the removal would help those states grow and
prosper.
Advocating an early act of ethnic cleansing, Jackson
claimed this policy to be “liberal” and “generous” because the
U.S. government was providing new western land for the
Indians to settle and paying all expenses for the removal. Many
Indians resisted, ho
wever, and tens of thousands were forced to
move away from their homes, resulting in the infamous “Trail
of
Tears.”
It gives me pleasure to announce to Congress that the
benevolent policy of the
Government, steadily pursued for nearly thirty years, in rela
tion to the removal

13. of the Indians beyond the white settlements is approaching to a
happy
consummation. Two important tribes have accepted the
provision made for their
removal at the last session of Congress, and it is believed that
their example will
indu
ce the remaining tribes also to seek the same obvious
advantages.
The consequences of a speedy removal will be important to the
United States, to
individual States, and to the Indians themselves. The pecuniary
advantages
which it promises to the Government
are the least of its recommendations. It
puts an end to all possible danger of collision between the
authorities of the
General and State Governments on account of the Indians. It
will place a dense
and civilized population in large tracts of country now
occupied by a few savage
hunters. By opening the whole territory between Tennessee on
the north and
Louisiana on the south to the settlement of the whites it will
incalculably
25.1Andrew Jackson, “On Indian
Removal”
On December 6, 1830, U.S. President Andrew Jackson (1767-
1845) delivered a message to Congress that explained and
justified the Indian Removal Act that had been signed into law
earlier that year. By the time of Jackson’s election in 1828, four
major Indian tribes—Cherokees, Chickasaws, Choctaws, and
Creeks—along with others, controlled significant portions of
land in several southern states including Georgia, Alabama, and

14. Mississippi. The Indian Removal Act provided Jackson with the
power to designate land west of the Mississippi River where
these tribes were to be relocated in exchange for their territory
within the states. Jackson’s speech argued that removing the
Indians was beneficial for both Americans and the Indians, and
it articulated his support for individual states’ authority by
explaining how the removal would help those states grow and
prosper. Advocating an early act of ethnic cleansing, Jackson
claimed this policy to be “liberal” and “generous” because the
U.S. government was providing new western land for the
Indians to settle and paying all expenses for the removal. Many
Indians resisted, however, and tens of thousands were forced to
move away from their homes, resulting in the infamous “Trail
of
Tears.”
It gives me pleasure to announce to Congress that the
benevolent policy of the
Government, steadily pursued for nearly thirty years, in relation
to the removal
of the Indians beyond the white settlements is approaching to a
happy
consummation. Two important tribes have accepted the
provision made for their
removal at the last session of Congress, and it is believed that
their example will
induce the remaining tribes also to seek the same obvious
advantages.
The consequences of a speedy removal will be important to the
United States, to
individual States, and to the Indians themselves. The pecuniary
advantages
which it promises to the Government are the least of its
recommendations. It
puts an end to all possible danger of collision between the
authorities of the
General and State Governments on account of the Indians. It

15. will place a dense
and civilized population in large tracts of country now occupied
by a few savage
hunters. By opening the whole territory between Tennessee on
the north and
Louisiana on the south to the settlement of the whites it will
incalculably
24.6 When Queen Victoria Became Empress of India
Queen Victoria (1819-1901) of Great Britain was officially
declared “Empress of India” at a ceremony in Delhi on January
1, 1877, marking the solidification of British control over the
Asian subcontinent. After the Indian Revolt of 1857 was
defeated, Great Britain redefined their relationship with India
by dissolving the British East India Company and placing it
under direct imperial control. The following account describes
the Durbar at Delhi where the proclamation of the Queen’s new
title was made official in front of a crowd of over 80,000
people. The introduction of the new Viceroy of India, Lord
Lytton, represented the Crown’s direct rule, which would have
immediate and long-lasting effects on Indian trade and society.
In this excerpt, Frederick Roberts describes processions of
elephants, meetings with numerous princes, and the extravagant
ceremony emphasizes the importance the Crown’s official
dominion over India and the need for popular indigenous
support. That a “Great Famine” – during which as many as 5.5
million Indians died – was ongoing in the south and
southwestern parts of India at the same time as this conspicuous
display of wealth illustrates as well the continued inequities and
injustice of imperial rule.
In the autumn of 1876 preparations were commenced for the
“Imperial Assemblage,” which it was announced by the Victory
would be held at Delhi on the first day of January, 1877, for the
purpose of proclaiming to the Queen’s subjects throughout India
the assumption by Her Majesty of the title of “Empress of
India.” To this assemblage Lord Lytton further announced that

16. be proposed “to invite the governors, lieutenant-governors, and
heads of administration from all parts of the Queen’s Indian
dominions, as well as the princes, chiefs, and nobles in whose
persons the antiquity of the past is associated with the
prosperity of the present, and who so worthily contribute to the
splendor and stability of this great empire.”
Delhi was selected as the place where the meeting between the
Queen’s representative and the great nobles of India could most
appropriately be held, and a committee was appointed to make
the necessary arrangements. As a member of the committee I
was deputed to proceed to Delhi, settle about the sites for the
camps, and carry out all details in communication with the local
authorities. The Viceroy impressed upon me that the assemblage
was intended to emphasize the Proclamation Lord Caning issued
eighteen years before, by which the Queen assumed the direct
sovereignty of her Eestern possessions, and that he wished no
trouble or expense to be spared in making the ceremony
altogether worthy of such a great historical event.
I returned to Simla in October, when my wife and I
accompanied the commander-in-chief on a very delightful march
over thew Jalauri Pass through the Kulu Valley to Chamba and
Dalhousie. Out party consisted of the chief, his doctor
(Bradshaw), Persian interpreter (Moore), General and Mrs.
Lumsden, and ourselves. The first slight shower of snow had
just fallen on the Jalauri Pass, and as we crossed over we
disturbed a number of beautiful snow-pheasants and minals
busily engaged in scratching it away to get at their food. The
scenery on this march is very fine and varied; for the most part
the timber and foliage are superb, and the valleys are very
fertile and pretty, lying close under the snow-capped mountains.
Having inspected the “Hill stations,” we proceeded to Peshawar,
where the Victory had arranged to hold a conference with the
lieutenant-governor of the Punjab and the commissioner of
Peshawar about frontier affairs.
The chiefs and princes were all settled in their several camps
ready to meet the Viceroy, who, on his arrival, in a few graceful

17. words welcomed them to Delhi, and thanked them for
responding to his invitation. He then mounted with Lady Lytton,
on a state elephant, and a procession was formed, which, I
fancy, was about the most gorgeous and picturesque which has
ever been seen, even in the East. The magnificence of the native
princes’ retinues can hardly be described; their elephant
housing were of cloth of gold, or scarlet-and-blue cloths
embroidered in gold and silver. The houdaks were veritable
thrones of the precious metals, shaded by the most brilliant
canopies, and the war-elephants belonging to some of the
Central India and Rajputana chiefs formed a very curious and
interesting feature. Their tusks were tipped with steel; they
wore shields on their foreheads, and breastplates of flashing
steel; chain-mail armor hung down over their trunks and
covered their backs and sides; and they were mounted by
warriors clad in chain-mail, and armed to the teeth. Delhi must
have witnessed many splendid pageants, when the Rajput, the
Moghul, and Maharatta dynastics, each in its turn, was at the
height of its glory; but never before had princes and chiefs of
every race and creed come from all parts of Hindustan, vying
with each other as to the magnificence of their encourage, and
met together with the same object, that of acknowledging and
doing homage to one supreme ruler.
The next few days were spent by Lord Lytton in receiving the
sixty-three ruling princes of India according to the strictest
etiquette. Each prince, with his suite, was met at the entrance to
the camp, and conducted up the street to the durbar tent by
mounted officers, the salute to which he was entitled being fired
while the procession moved on. He was then presented by the
Foreign Secretary to the Viceroy, who placed him on a chair on
his right, immediately below a full-length portrait of Her
Majesty. A satin banner, richly embroidered with the chief’s
armorial bearings surmounted by the imperial crown, was next
brought in by Highland soldiers and planted in front of the
throne, when the Viceroy, leading the particular chief towards
it, thus addressed him: “I present Your Highness with this

18. banner as a personal gift from Her Majesty the Queen, in
commemoration of her assumption of the title of Empress of
India. Her Majesty trusts that it may never be unfurled without
reminding you not only of the close union between the throne of
England and your loyal and princely house, but also of the
earnest desire of the paramount power to see your dynasty
strong, prosperous, and permanent.”
His Excellency then placed round the chief’s neck a crimson
ribbon, to which was attached a very handsome gold medal with
the Queen’s head engraved on it adding: “I further decorate you,
by command of Her Majesty. May this medal be long worn by
yourself, and long kept as an heirloom in your family in
remembrance of the auspicious date it bears.”
The first of January, 187, saw the Queen proclaimed Empress of
India. The ceremony was most imposing, and in every way
successful. Three tended pavilions had been constructed on an
open plain. The throne pavilion in the center was a very
graceful erection, brilliant in hangings and banners of red, blue,
and white satin magnificently embroidered in gold with
appropriate emblems. It was hexagonal in shape, and rather
more than two hundred feet in circumference. In front of this
was the pavilion for the ruling chiefs and high European
officials, in the form of a semicircle eight hundred feet long.
The canopy was of Star of India blue-and-white satin
embroidered in gold, each pillar being surmounted by an
imperial crown. Behind the throne was the stand for the
spectators, also in the form of a semicircle divided in the
middle, and likewise canopied in brilliant colors. Between these
two blocks was the entrance to the area.
Each chief and high official sat beneath his own banner, which
was planted immediately behind his chair, and they were all
mixed up as much as possible to avoid questions of precedence,
the result being the most wonderful mass of color, produced
from the intermingling of British uniforms and plumes with
gorgeous Eastern constumes, set off by a blaze of diamonds and
other precious stones.

19. All the British troops brought to Delhi for the occasion were
paraded to the north, and the troops and retainers belonging to
the native chiefs to the south, of the pavilion. Guards of honor
were drawn up on either side of the throne, and at each opening
by which the ruling chiefs were to enter the pavilion.
The guests being all seated, a flourish of trumpets by the
heralds exactly at noon announced the arrival of the Victory.
The military bands played a march, and Lord Lytton,
accompanied by Lady Lytton, their daughters, and his staff,
proceeded to the pavilion. His Excellency took his seat upon the
throne, arrayed in his robes as Grand Master of the Star of
India, the National Anthem was played, the guards of honor
presented arms, while the whole of the vast assemblage rose as
one man. The chief herald was then commanded to read the
proclamation. A flourish to trumpets was again sounded, and
Her Majesty was proclaimed Empress of India.
When the chief herald had ceased reading, the royal standard
was hoisted, and a salute of one hundred and one salves of
artillery was fired, with a feu-de-joie from the long line of
troops. This was too much for the elephants. As the feu-de-joie
approached nearer and nearer to them, they became more and
more alarmed, and at last scampered off, dispersing the were
quieted and brought back by their mahouts, only to start
off again when the firing recommenced; but, as it was a
perfectly bare plain, without anything for the great creatures to
come in contact with, there was no harm done beyond a severe
shaking to their riders. As the sound of the last salvo died away,
the Viceroy addressed the assemblage. When he had ceased
speaking, the assembly again rose en masse and joined the
troops in giving several ringing cheers.
His Highness the Maharaja Sindhia then spoke as follows:
“Shah in Shah Padishah. May God bless you. The princes of
India bless you, and pray that your sovereignty and power may
remain steadfast forever.”
The Maharaja of Udaipur and Jaipur, in the name of the United
Chiefs of Rajputana, begged that telegram might be sent to the

20. Queen, conveying their dutiful and loyal congratulations; and
the Maharaja of Kashmir expressed his gratification at the tenor
of the Viceroy’s speech, and declared that he should henceforth
consider himself secure under the shadow of Her Majesty’s
protecting care.
It is difficult to overrate the political importance of this great
gathering. It was looked upon by most of the ruling chiefs as the
result of the Prince of Wale’s visit, and rejoined in as an
evidence of Her Majesty’s increased interest in, and
appreciation of, the vast Empire of India with its many different
races and peoples.
Source Citation:
“When Queen Victoria Became Empress of India.” Forty-one
years in India: From Subaltern To Commander-In-Chief.
Frederick Sleigh Roberts. Richard Bentley and Son, 1898. 184-
190. CourseReader. Detroit: Gale, 2010. Web. 24 June 2015.
24.
6
When Queen Victoria
Became Empress of India
Queen Victoria (1819
-
1901) of Great Britain was officially
declared “Empress of India” at a ceremony in Delhi on January
1, 1877, marking the solidification of British control over the
Asian subcontinent. After the Indian Revolt of 1857 was
defeated, Great
Britain redefined their relationship with India
by dissolving the British East India Company and placing it
under direct imperial control. The following account describes

21. the Durbar at Delhi where the proclamation of the Queen’s new
title was made officia
l in front of a crowd of over 80,000 people.
The introduction of the new Viceroy of India, Lord Lytton,
represented the Crown’s direct rule, which would have
immediate and long
-
lasting effects on Indian trade and society.
In this excerpt, Frederick Roberts
describes processions of
elephants, meetings with numerous princes, and the
extravagant ceremony emphasizes the importance the Crown’s
official dominion over India and the need for popular
indigenous support. That a “Great Famine”
–
during which as
many a
s 5.5 million Indians died
–
was ongoing in the south and
southwestern parts of India at the same time as this
conspicuous display of wealth illustrates as well the continued
inequities and injustice of imperial rule.
In the autumn of 1876 preparations wer
e commenced for the “Imperial
Assemblage,” which it was announced by the Victory would be
held at Delhi on
the first day of January, 1877, for the purpose of proclaiming to
the Queen’s
subjects throughout India the assumption by Her Majesty of the
title of

22. “Empress
of India.” To this assemblage Lord Lytton further announced
that be proposed “to
invite the governors, lieutenant
-
governors, and heads of administration from all
parts of the Queen’s Indian dominions, as well as the princes,
chiefs, and nobles
in
whose persons the antiquity of the past is associated with the
prosperity of the
present, and who so worthily contribute to the splendor and
stability of this
great empire.”
24.6 When Queen Victoria
Became Empress of India
Queen Victoria (1819-1901) of Great Britain was officially
declared “Empress of India” at a ceremony in Delhi on January
1, 1877, marking the solidification of British control over the
Asian subcontinent. After the Indian Revolt of 1857 was
defeated, Great Britain redefined their relationship with India
by dissolving the British East India Company and placing it
under direct imperial control. The following account describes
the Durbar at Delhi where the proclamation of the Queen’s new
title was made official in front of a crowd of over 80,000
people.
The introduction of the new Viceroy of India, Lord Lytton,
represented the Crown’s direct rule, which would have
immediate and long-lasting effects on Indian trade and society.
In this excerpt, Frederick Roberts describes processions of
elephants, meetings with numerous princes, and the
extravagant ceremony emphasizes the importance the Crown’s
official dominion over India and the need for popular

23. indigenous support. That a “Great Famine” – during which as
many as 5.5 million Indians died – was ongoing in the south and
southwestern parts of India at the same time as this
conspicuous display of wealth illustrates as well the continued
inequities and injustice of imperial rule.
In the autumn of 1876 preparations were commenced for the
“Imperial
Assemblage,” which it was announced by the Victory would be
held at Delhi on
the first day of January, 1877, for the purpose of proclaiming to
the Queen’s
subjects throughout India the assumption by Her Majesty of the
title of “Empress
of India.” To this assemblage Lord Lytton further announced
that be proposed “to
invite the governors, lieutenant-governors, and heads of
administration from all
parts of the Queen’s Indian dominions, as well as the princes,
chiefs, and nobles
in whose persons the antiquity of the past is associated with the
prosperity of the
present, and who so worthily contribute to the splendor and
stability of this
great empire.”
24.3John M. Hay, “Open Door Policy in China”
United States Secretary of State John M. Hay (1838-1905)
crafted an “open door” policy in China that ultimately increased
American influence in Asia by promoting equal access among
the western imperial powers to Chinese trade. The following
includes Secretary Hay’s original 1899 communication
explaining the open door policy that he sent to other the major
European nations, the official responses from Great Britain and
Russia, and Hay’s second message in 1900 further explaining
American rights in China. Hay’s initial proclamation
demonstrates how imperial powers had failed to distinguish

24. their respective interests in China. In order to avoid future
conflict, those nations should agree to equal treatment between
each “sphere of influence.” The British and Russian responses
imply cooperation with such a policy and acknowledge
American involvement in China without providing a definite
confirmation. While these diplomatic discussions were taking
place, the Boxer Rebellion erupted in 1900. This attempt to
force western powers out of China failed as Hay declared the
right to protect American interests in China – by force if
necessary. The international response resulted in the quick
defeat of the rebellion.
Notes of Secretary of State John Hays, 1899 and 1900
At the time when the Government of the United States was
informed by that of Germany that it had leased from His
Majesty the Emperor of China the port of Kiao-chao and the
adjacent territory in the province of Shantung, assurances were
given to the ambassador of the United States at Berlin by the
Imperial German minister for foreign affairs that the rights and
privileges insured by treaties with China to citizens of the
United States would not thereby suffer or be in anywise
impaired within the area over which Germany had thus obtained
control.
More recently, however, the British Government recognized by
a formal agreement with Germany the exclusive right of the
latter country to enjoy in said leased area and the contiguous
“sphere of influence or interest” certain privileges, more
especially those relating to railroads and mining enterprises; but
as the exact nature and extent of the rights thus recognized have
not been clearly defined, it is possible that serious conflicts of
interest may at any time arise not only between British and
German subjects within said area, but that the interests of our
citizens may also be jeopardized thereby.
Earnestly desirous to remove any cause of irritation and to
insure at the same time to the commerce of all nations in China
the undoubted benefits which should accrue from a formal
recognition by the various powers claiming “spheres of interest”

25. that they shall enjoy perfect equality of treatment for their
commerce and navigation within such “spheres,” the
Government of the United States would be pleased to see His
German Majesty’s Government give formal assurances, and lend
its cooperation in securing like assurances from the other
interested powers, that each, within its respective sphere of
whatever influence—
First. Will in no way interfere with any treaty port or any vested
interest within any so-called “sphere of interest” or leased
territory it may have in China.
Second. That the Chinese treaty tariff of the time being shall
apply to all merchandise landed or shipped to all such ports as
are within said “sphere of interest” (unless they be “free
ports”), no matter to what nationality it may belong, and that
duties so leviable shall be collected by the Chinese government.
Third. That it will levy no higher harbor dues on vessels of
another nationality frequenting any port in such “sphere” than
shall be levied on vessels of its own nationality, and no higher
railroad charges over lines built, controlled, or operated within
its “sphere” on merchandise belonging to citizens or subjects of
other nationalities transported through such “sphere” than shall
be levied on similar merchandise belonging to its own nationals
transported over equal distances.
The liberal policy pursued by His Imperial German Majesty in
declaring Kiao-chao a free port and in aiding the Chinese
Government in the establishment there of a custom-house are so
clearly in line with the proposition which this Government is
anxious to see recognized that it entertains the strongest hope
that Germany will give its acceptance and hearty support.
The recent ukase of His Majesty the Emperor of Russia
declaring the port of Ta-lien-wan open during the whole of the
lease under which it is held from China to the merchant ships of
all nations, coupled with the categorical assurances made to this
Government by His Imperial Majesty’s representative at this
capital at the time and since repeated to me by the present
Russian ambassador, seem to insure the support of the Emperor

26. to the proposed measure. Our ambassador at the Court of St.
Petersburg has in consequence been instructed to submit it to
the Russian Government and to request their early consideration
of it. A copy of my instruction on the subject to Mr. Tower is
herewith inclosed for your confidential information.
The commercial interests of Great Britain and Japan will be so
clearly served by the desired declaration of intentions, and the
views of the Governments of these countries as to the
desirability of the adoption of measures insuring the benefits of
equality of treatment of all foreign trade throughout China are
so similar to those entertained by the United States, that their
acceptance of the propositions herein outlined and their
cooperation in advocating their adoption by the other powers
can be confidently expected. . . .
In view of the present favorable conditions, you are instructed
to submit the above considerations to His Imperial German
Majesty’s Minister for Foreign Affairs, and to request his early
consideration of the subject.
Copy of this instruction is sent to our ambassadors at London
and at St. Petersburg for their information.
The British Reply, 1899
I have the honor to state that I have carefully considered, in
communication with my colleagues, the proposal … that a
declaration should be made by foreign powers claiming “spheres
of interest” in China as to their intentions in regard to the
treatment of foreign trade and interest therein.
I have much pleasure in informing your excellency that Her
Majesty’s Government will be prepared to make a declaration in
the sense desired by your Government in regard to the leased
territory of Wei-hai Wei and all territory in China which may
hereafter be acquired by Great Britain by lease or otherwise,
and all spheres of interest now held or that may hereafter be
held by her in China, provided that a similar declaration is made
by other powers concerned.
The Russian Reply, 1899
I had the honor to receive your excellency’s note … relating to

27. the principles which the Government of the United States would
like to see adopted in commercial matters by the powers which
have interests in China.
In so far as the territory leased by China to Russia is concerned,
the Imperial Government has already demonstrated its firm
intention to follow the policy of “the open door” by creating
Dalny (Ta-lien-wan) a free port; and if at some future time that
port, although remaining free itself, should be separated by a
customs limit from other portions of the territory in question,
the customs duties would be levied, in the zone subject to the
tariff, upon all foreign merchandise without distinction as to
nationality.
As to the ports now opened or hereafter to be opened to foreign
commerce by the Chinese Government, and which lie beyond
the territory leased to Russia, the settlement of the question of
customs duties belongs to China herself, and the Imperial
Government has no intention whatever of claiming any
privileges for its own subjects to the exclusion of other
foreigners. It is to be understood, however, that this assurance
of the Imperial Government is given upon condition that a
similar declaration shall be made by other powers having
interests in China.
With the conviction that this reply is such as to satisfy the
inquiry made in the aforementioned note, the Imperial
Government is happy to have complied with the wishes of the
American Government, especially as it attaches the highest
value to anything that may strengthen and consolidate the
traditional relations of friendship existing between the two
countries.
The Second Open Door Note, 1900
In this critical posture of affairs in China it is deemed
appropriate to define the attitude of the United States as far as
present circumstances permit this to be done. We adhere to the
policy initiated by us in 1857, of peace with the Chinese nation,
of furtherance of lawful commerce, and of protection of lives
and property of our citizens by all means guaranteed under

28. extraterritorial treaty rights and by the law of nations. If wrong
be done to our citizens we propose to hold the responsible
authors to the uttermost accountability. We regard the condition
at Pekin as one of virtual anarchy, whereby power and
responsibility are practically devolved upon the local provincial
authorities. So long as they are not in overt collusion with
rebellion and use their power to protect foreign life and
property we regard them as representing the Chinese people,
with whom we seek to remain in peace and friendship. The
purpose of the President is, as it has been heretofore, to act
concurrently with the other powers, first, in opening up
communication with Pekin and rescuing the American officials,
missionaries, and other Americans who are in danger; secondly,
in affording all possible protection everywhere in China to
American life and property; thirdly, in guarding and protecting
all legitimate American interests; and fourthly, in aiding to
prevent a spread of the disorders to the other provinces of the
Empire and a recurrence of such disasters. It is, of course, too
early to forecast the means of attaining this last result; but the
policy of the Government of the United States is to seek a
solution which may bring about permanent safety and peace to
China, preserve Chinese territorial and administrative entity,
protect all rights guaranteed to friendly powers by treaty and
international law, and safeguard for the world the principle of
equal and impartial trade with all parts of the Chinese Empire.
Source Citation:
Hay, John M. “Open Door Policy in China.” World War I and
the Jazz Age. Woodbridge, CT: Primary Source Media, 1999.
American Journey. Web. 24 June 2015.
24.3
John M. Hay, “Open Door
Policy in China”
United States Secretary o

29. f State John M. Hay (1838
-
1905)
crafted an “open door” policy in China that ultimately increased
American influence in Asia by promoting equal access among
the western imperial powers to Chinese trade. The following
includes Secretary Hay’s original 1899 c
ommunication
explaining the open door policy that he sent to other the major
European nations, the official responses from Great Britain and
Russia, and Hay’s second message in 1900 further explaining
American rights in China. Hay’s initial proclamation
de
monstrates how imperial powers had failed to distinguish
their respective interests in China. In order to avoid future
conflict, those nations should agree to equal treatment between
each “sphere of influence.” The British and Russian responses
imply coope
ration with such a policy and acknowledge
American involvement in China without providing a definite
confirmation. While these diplomatic discussions were taking
place, the Boxer Rebellion erupted in 1900. This attempt to
force western powers out of China
failed as Hay declared the
right to protect American interests in China
–
by force if
necessary. The international response resulted in the quick
defeat of the rebellion.
Notes of Secretary of State John Hays, 1899 and 1900
At the time when the Government
of the United States was informed by that of
Germany that it had leased from His Majesty the Emperor of

30. China the port of
Kiao
-
chao and the adjacent territory in the province of Shantung,
assurances
were given to the ambassador of the United States at Berl
in by the Imperial
German minister for foreign affairs that the rights and
privileges insured by
treaties with China to citizens of the United States would not
thereby suffer or be
in anywise impaired within the area over which Germany had
thus obtained
co
ntrol.
More recently, however, the British Government recognized by
a formal
agreement with Germany the exclusive right of the latter
country to enjoy in said
leased area and the contiguous “sphere of influence or interest”
certain
privileges, more especia
lly those relating to railroads and mining enterprises;
24.3John M. Hay, “Open Door
Policy in China”
United States Secretary of State John M. Hay (1838-1905)
crafted an “open door” policy in China that ultimately increased
American influence in Asia by promoting equal access among
the western imperial powers to Chinese trade. The following
includes Secretary Hay’s original 1899 communication
explaining the open door policy that he sent to other the major
European nations, the official responses from Great Britain and
Russia, and Hay’s second message in 1900 further explaining
American rights in China. Hay’s initial proclamation
demonstrates how imperial powers had failed to distinguish

31. their respective interests in China. In order to avoid future
conflict, those nations should agree to equal treatment between
each “sphere of influence.” The British and Russian responses
imply cooperation with such a policy and acknowledge
American involvement in China without providing a definite
confirmation. While these diplomatic discussions were taking
place, the Boxer Rebellion erupted in 1900. This attempt to
force western powers out of China failed as Hay declared the
right to protect American interests in China – by force if
necessary. The international response resulted in the quick
defeat of the rebellion.
Notes of Secretary of State John Hays, 1899 and 1900
At the time when the Government of the United States was
informed by that of
Germany that it had leased from His Majesty the Emperor of
China the port of
Kiao-chao and the adjacent territory in the province of
Shantung, assurances
were given to the ambassador of the United States at Berlin by
the Imperial
German minister for foreign affairs that the rights and
privileges insured by
treaties with China to citizens of the United States would not
thereby suffer or be
in anywise impaired within the area over which Germany had
thus obtained
control.
More recently, however, the British Government recognized by
a formal
agreement with Germany the exclusive right of the latter
country to enjoy in said
leased area and the contiguous “sphere of influence or interest”
certain
privileges, more especially those relating to railroads and
mining enterprises;