Page:Speeches, correspondence and political papers of Carl Schurz, Volume 2.djvu/105

Rh the character of nations and in destinies of countries. I acknowledge that; but I desire to discuss one point at a time.

I want to prove to the Senator that it was not the question of climate that affected their condition, because there was an illustration where they had the finest climate in the world. They were our neighbors. When it came under the United States it turned out that we could establish our institutions and make them prosper there very well. So it does not appear to have been the case in California, which, previous to annexation, I maintain was in no better condition than any other part of Mexico. It does not appear to have been a question of climate. It must have been owing to other causes.

I understand the Senator now. Does he desire me to make the difference clearer? In the first place, California is not a tropical country. He will not assert that it is. In the second place, there was a sparse Mexican population in California. Americans went in there, and by numbers and energy completely overwhelmed them, so that at the present moment the Mexican race in public life is hardly noticed—is that not so?—and if they wanted to make trouble they could not.

Might not that occur in San Domingo, or in Sonora; or in Sinaloa, if we were to annex it? Is there any particular line where that may not occur?

If the Senator will be kind enough to give me time to explain that to him also I shall be most happy to do so. He will admit, then, that the example of California, which he has just adduced, does not fit the case at all. I was just going to prove that whenever similar attempts were made by the Anglo-Saxon race under the tropical sun they had equally failed in the main point.

If the Senator will find a similar case where we have tried it, very well.