The Debate over the Philippines, 1898 - 1900
Documentary Source Problem
Background:
On April 19, 1898,
the United States Congress passed a joint resolution that amounted to a
declaration of war against Spain. This resolution:
1) proclaimed Cuba to be
free
2) demanded that Spain
withdraw from Cuba
3) directed the President to
use armed force to insure these demands
4) disclaimed any intention
by the United States to annex Cuba
This action stemmed
from more than a decade of American concern over the chaos and cruelty of
Spain's administration of its Cuban colony. In 1897, and 1898, American outrage
at the ruthlessness of Spanish military rule in Cuba was further provoked by
exaggerated newspaper reports of Spanish atrocities. In the spring of 1898, a
mysterious explosion which sunk the United States battleship Maine in
Havana harbor and claimed the lives of over 250 people on board, brought
American indignation to a boiling point.
The American public
and Congress pressured President William McKinley to go to war with Spain.
Politicians and journalists alike, claimed that the United States must go to
war in order to achieve humanitarian goals, not to acquire more territory. Once
war was officially declared, the public's attention was turned to the
Caribbean. The first major military encounter with Spain however, occurred in
the distant Philippines. Thanks to the strategic foresight of Assistant
Secretary of the Navy, Theodore Roosevelt, the Asiatic Squandrom of the
American Navy had been ordered to keep an eye on the segment of the Spanish
fleet anchored in Manila harbor. When war was declared the American squadron,
under the command of Admiral George Dewey, sailed immediately for the
Philippines, where it surprised and destroyed the Spanish fleet. Americans virtually
burst with pride at this "glorious victory" at a distant and
unexpected site. McKinley, himself, confessed later, "When we received the
cable from Admiral Dewey telling of the taking of the Philippines I looked up
their location on the globe. I could not have told where those darned islands
were within 2000 miles!"
Those "darned
islands" created a dilemma for American leaders and the public. The
Congressional declaration had stated that the United States did not intend to
annex Cuba, but what about other Spanish territories acquired during the war?
At the turn of the century, debate about the future of the Philippines divided
Senators and Presidential candidates. Should the United States allow the
Philippines to pursue self - rule, or should the government annex the
Philippines, and under what conditions?
Although the nation
experienced growth and expansion during much of the nineteenth-century, it
pursued the foreign policy President Washington advocated in his farewell
address.
DOCUMENTS
As you read the
following documents, answer the following questions:
1.
Answer in complete sentences using your own words the questions that are posed
at the beginning of each document.
2. Write one to two
well-written paragraphs exploring how the issues of race, humanitarianism, and
economic opportunity fit into the pro and con arguments. Quote from the documents using the correct
format. This will be for a quiz grade.
Document #1
President George
Washington's "Farewell Address to the People of the United States"
first published in a Philadelphia newspaper on September 19, 1796. Washington
encouraged the nation to avoid "entangling alliances" with foreign
countries. Why did Washington believe involvement with foreign nations would be
harmful to the new nation?
...As avenues of
foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly
alarming to the truly enlightened and independent Patriot. How many
opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practise
(sic) the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the
Public Concils!...
...The great rule
of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our
commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection
as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be
fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.
...It is our true
policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign
world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be
understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold
the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is
always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be
observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and
would be unwise to extend them.
Taking care always
to keep ourselves, by suitable establishments, on a respectable defensive
posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary
emergencies.
Document #2
Judge Peter S.
Grossup, United States District Court, in Chicago Tribune, May 3, 1898.
According to Grossup, why should the United States retain possession of the
Philippines? What advantages would it give the U. S. and why would the U. S. be
justified in retaining possession of the islands?
...The Latin race,
tho still preeminent in many fields, is a diminishing race; the Anglo-Saxon,
preeminent in all the arts and ambitions that make this age powerful, is an
increasing race. It is the only race that has, since the beginning of time,
correctly conceived the individual rights of men, and is, on that account, more
than anything else, surviving, by fitness, the other races.
...This war has
shown that we need a home port in Asiatic waters. The strategy of war has
compelled us to obtain a temporary foothold in the Philippines. I believe we
will find a way to make it permanent (and), having no policy looking to
colonial settlement, we will find such a way without offending any great power....
Document # 3
Senator William
Jennings Bryan and Democratic Party Presidential candidate in 1896 and 1900,
speech at Omaha, Nebraska, June 14, 1898. Why is Bryan against annexing the
Philippines?
...If , however, a
contest undertaken for the sake of humanity degenerates into a war of conquest,
we shall find it difficult to meet the charge of having added hypocrisy to
greed. Is our national character so weak that we cannot withstand the
temptation to appropriate the first piece of land that comes within our reach?
...Our guns
destroyed a Spanish fleet, but can they destroy that self-evident truth, that
governments derive their just powers, not from superior force, but from the
consent of the governed?...
Document # 4
Senator Justin S.
Morrill, speech in U. S. Senate, June 20, 1898. According to Morrill, why would
the U. S. be unjustified in annexing the Philippines?
We can not afford
to denounce and forbid all acquisitions of territory in the Western hemisphere
by European governments, even at the peril of war, and forthwith embark in a
thus-bedamned enterprise ourselves....
This historical
policy of the republic of the United States for the hundred years just passed,
based, as it has been, upon the sound doctrine promulgated by Washington in his
farewell address with words of perennial wisdom against foreign entangling
alliance, has taken root in the hearts of the American people, where it is
treasured up as their political Bible and can not now be mocked at as merely an
ancient tradition. Its acceptance has made the nation great, made it respected.
Document # 5
Henry Watterson,
editor of Louisville Courier - Journal, from an interview in the New
York Herald, June 22, 1898. Why did Watterson believe it was time for
the United States to pursue a more aggressive foreign policy?
To surrender
territory acquired by the outlay of so much blood and treasure would be a
wanton and cowardly abandonment of obligations and opportunities literally
heaven-sent, for they were not originally contemplated by anybody....
The traditional
stay-at-home and mind-your-own-business policy laid down by Washington was wise
for a weak and struggling nation.... But each of the centuries has its own tale
of progress to tell.... We must adapt ourselves to the changed order. We must
make a new map.... The United States from now on is destined to be a world
power. Henceforth its foreign policy will need to be completely reconstructed.
The man who would cling to the traditions of Washington is as one who would
reject the railway and travel by the stage-coach, or, disdaining the highway,
would strike through the woods...
Document # 6
Reverend A. B.
Leonard, "Prospective Mission Fields," Gospel in All Lands
(Methodist publication), August 1898. Why did Leonard believe annexing the
Philippines would be advantageous?
...an overruling
Providence has thrust us out to the "uttermost parts of the earth,"
there to break the power of Spanish despotism.... These marvelous events are
now history, but no moral ken can foretell their far-reaching influences. But
we do know that great opportunities are suddenly open before the Christian
Church for advancing among long-oppressed peoples the kingdom of God.... The
Christian Church must follow the army and occupy the territory conquered by the
war power of the nation.
Document # 7
Charles Denby,
"Shall We Keep the Philippines?" Forum (September 1898). Denby
was United States Minister to China from 1885 to July 1898. Why did Denby
believe it was time for the United States to alter the course of its foreign
policy by maintaining control of the Philippines?
...I recognize the
existence of a national sentiment, in accordance with the supposed teaching of
Washington's Farewell Address, which is against the acquisition of foreign
territory; but the world has moved and circumstances are changed. We have
become a great people. We have great commerce to take care of. We have to
compete with commercial nationals of the world in far-distant markets.
Commerce, not politics is king....
There is no reason
whatever why we cannot administer the Philippines in a manner satisfactory to
their people as well as to ourselves....
If we give up the
Philippines, we throw away the splendid opportunity to assert our influence in
the Far East.... The Philippines are a foothold for us in the Far East. The
possession gives us standing and influence. It gives us also valuable trade
both in exports and imports....
Editor's Note:
Congress passed the Northwest Ordinance in 1787, under the Articles of
Confederation. This legislation specified how newly acquired territory would be
assimilated into the nation and eventually become states. Individuals residing
in the new states, according to this ordinance, would be the legal equals of
those residing in existing states. Some Americans became alarmed at the idea of
annexing the Philippines and eventually, perhaps extending rights to its
people.
Document # 8
Samuel Gompers,
President of the American Federation of Labor, Speech given in December 1898.
What problems did Gomper believe annexation of the Philippines would bring
about?
If the Philippines
are annexed what is to prevent the Chinese, the Negritos and the Malays [from]
coming to our country. How can we prevent the Chinese coolies from going to the
Philippines and from there swarm into the United States and engulf our people
and our civilization? If these new islands are to become ours, it will be
either under the form of Territories or States. Can we hope to close the
flood-gates of immigration from the hordes of Chinese and the semi-savage races
coming from what will be part of our own country?
Document # 9
Carl Shurz, U. S.
Senator from Missouri (R), speech at University of Chicago, January 4, 1899.
According to Shurz, how were the Philippines different from other territory
already acquired by the United States?
Only look with an
unclouded eye, and you will soon discover differences enough warning you to
beware. There are five of decisive importance.
1). All the former
acquisitions were on this continent and, excepting Alaska, contiguous to our
borders.
2). They were
situated, not in tropical, but in the temperate zone, where democratic
institutions thrive and where our people could migrate in mass.
3). They were but
very thinly peopled - in fact, without any population that would have been in
the way of new settlements.
4). They could be
organized as territories in the usual manner, with the expectation that they
would presently come into the Union as self - governing States with populations
substantially homogeneous to our own.
5). They did not
require material increase of our Army and Navy, either for their subjection to
our rule or for their defense against any probable foreign attack provoked by
their being in our possession.
Document # 10
Senator George F.
Hoar (R - Massachusetts) and Senator Orville H. Platt (R - Connecticut)
Speeches in the U. S. Senate, January 9, 1899. U. S. Congressional Record 55th
Congress, Third Session, p. 501. What pro - and con - arguments did the
Senators present with regard to annexing the Philippines?
Senator Platt: ...I
believe that back of it all was the hand of Providence.... I believe the hand
of Providence brought about the conditions which we must either accept or be
recreant to duty. I believe that those conditions were a part of the great
development of the great force of Christian civilization on earth. I believe
the same force was behind ... our ships in Manila Bay that was behind the
landing of Pilgrims on Plymouth Rock. I believe that we have been chosen to
carry forward this great work of uplifting humanity on earth. From the time of
the landing on Plymouth Rock in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence,
in the spirit of the Constitution, believing that all men are equal and endowed
by their Creator with inalienable rights, believing that governments derive
their just powers from the consent of the governed, we have spread that
civilization across the continent until it stood at the Pacific Ocean looking
ever westward....
Senator Hoar:
...You have not right at the cannon's mouth to impose on an unwilling people
your Declaration of Independence and your Constitution and your notions of
freedom and notions of what is good.... The Senator [Platt] says, "Oh, we
governed the Indians against their will when we first came here," long
before the Declaration of Independence. I do not think so. I am speaking of
other people. Now the people of the Philippine Islands are clearly a nation --
a people three and one-third times as numerous as our fathers were when they
set up this nation.
If gentlemen
say that because we did what we did on finding a great many million square
miles of forest and a few hundred of thousands of men roaming over it without
any national life, without the germ of national life, without the capacity for
self-government, without desiring self-government, was a violation of your
principle, I answer if it was a violation of our principle it was wrong....
But read the
account of what is going on in (the Philippines). The people there have got a
government, with courts and judges better than those of the people of Cuba, who
it was said, had a right to self-government ... and it is proposed to turn your
guns on them and say, "We think that our notion of government is better
than the notion you have got yourselves."
Document # 11
Theodore Roosevelt,
Governor of New York, "Expansion and Peace," The Independent,
December 21, 1899. According to Roosevelt, why would the United States be
justified in annexing the Philippines?
...Nations that
expand and nations that do not expand may both ultimately go down, but the one
leaves heirs and a glorious memory, and the other leaves neither. The Roman
expanded, and he has left a memory which has profoundly influenced the history
of mankind.... Similarly, today it is the great expanding people which bequeath
to future ages the great memories and materials results of their achievements,
and the nations which shall have sprung from their loins, England standing as
the archetype and best exemplar of all such mighty nations. But the peoples
that do not expand leave, and can leave, nothing behind them...
Document # 12
William Jennings
Bryan, "New Peoples Must be Raised," New York Journal,
February 11, 1900. According to Bryan, what would be the only acceptable manner
for annexing the Philippines?
When this nation
incorporates new peoples within its limits, the new peoples must be raised to
the level of our own people. The line between citizen and subject is the line
between republic and empire....
This republic can
have no higher destiny than to be a light unto the oppressed in every land.