Such a man would be a fool if he did not back his hand to the limit and get all the benefit possible from it.

So will the United States, if she fails to back her hand to the limit, recognizing the fact that in the grand game now going on for the stakes of the commercial supremacy of the world, she holds the best hand.

She has the largest and most numerous seaports, the most enterprising and inventive people, and the most wealth with which to force to success all the various necessary undertakings.
This does not mean that the United States ought, as a matter either of ethics or of policy, to build a great navy in order to take unjust advantage of weaker nations; but it does mean that she ought to build a navy great enough to save her from being shorn of her wealth and glory by simple force, as France was shorn in 1871.
It is often said that the reason for Great Britain's having so powerful a navy is that she is so situated geographically that, without a powerful navy to protect her trade, the people would starve.
While this statement may be true, the inference usually drawn is fallacious: the inference that if Great Britain were not so situated, she would not have so great a navy.
Why would she not?
It is certain that that "tight little island" has attained a world-wide power, and a wealth per capita greater than those of any other country; that her power and wealth, as compared with her home area, are so much greater than those of any other country as to stagger the understanding; that she could not have done what she has done without her navy; that she has never hesitated to use her navy to assist her trade, and yet that she has never used her navy to keep her people from starving.
In fact, the insistence on the anti-starvation theory is absurd.
Has any country ever fought until the people as a mass were starving?
Has starving anything to do with the matter?
Does not a nation give up fighting just as soon as it sees that further fighting would do more harm than good?
A general or an admiral, in charge of a detached force, must fight sometimes even at tremendous loss and after all hope of local success has fled, in order to hold a position, the long holding of which is essential to the success of the whole strategic plan; but what country keeps up a war until its people are about to starve?
Did Spain do so in our last war?
Did Russia fear that Japan would force the people of her vast territory into starvation?
No--starvation has nothing to do with the case.

If some discovery were made by which Great Britain could grow enough to support all her people, she would keep her great navy nevertheless--simply because she has found it to be a good investment.
The anti-starvation theory--the theory that one does things simply to keep from starving--does apply to some tropical savages, but not to the Anglo-Saxon.

Long after starvation has been provided against, long after wealth has been secured, we still toil on.