Anthony, Andrew, Jack

Why and Why not the US Should Keep the Philippines

-Historical Context-

Spanish-American War (April 25-August 16) 1898 ● US gains: Puerto Rico, Guam, Philippine Islands ● Treaty of Paris (Ratified in 1898 with Spain and in 1899 with the US Senate)

○ Anti-Imperialist League created- Imperialism is immoral- didn’t want to keep Philippines- Beveridge (the author) was a part of the anti-anti-imperialist movement■ Called for withdrawal of American Troops during the Philippine War

○ Philippine War: 1899-1902 ■ WAR: Philippine Nationalists led by Emilio Aguinaldo vs USA

● Involved 200,000 US soldiers- 4,300 died ● 50,000 Filipino insurgents died ● July 4, 1946 the Philippines gained Independence

Intended Audience: US Senate- January 9, 1900

Money!

Keep the Philippines!

American Empire- America Should Retain The Philippines (1900)

Economic: ● China is closer to Philippines- faster/more trade.

○ That trade is needed to keep up in competition with Europe. ● Island has mineral riches- unexploited Island means more money● The Island can be used a Military Base

○ “The Power that Rules the Pacific Rules the World” ○ Need to establish American Supremacy if US wants to survive

Moral: ● Don’t let the soldiers death to gain the Island be in vain

○ Side Note: Says it is the fault of the Anti-War people for the soldiers death ● The “Mission of Our Race”- “White Man’s Burden” to bring peace to the World

○ Said the Filipinos are barbarous- Giving them a new Government under the US would help “civilize” and free them.-- Doing this will create peace.

○ God is calling the US to help the Filipinos by “civilizing” them

Author: Albert J. Beveridge (1862-1937)

Purpose ● The purpose in this speech was to

persuade the US Senate to keep the Philippines.

● The purpose in keeping the Philippines itself, in the argument, are categorized into two parts: Economic gain- through more efficient trade with China, as well as Military control of the Pacific, leading to more power, and Moral gain/ an obligation to “civilize” the Philippines to bring peace and freedom to the world.

● Beveridge hoped to convince the Senate with these arguments because he believed the US would gain from keeping the Philippines

Point of View Background on Beveridge: He began his political career (Republican) in 1884 (lasting until 1911) and was a deep rooted imperialist and a professional orator.

Beliefs: He believed America was God’s chosen nation. He deeply believed in the “White Man’s Burden”- the right to “civilize” a nation and give them an Anglo-Saxon government to create peace and freedom for those being colonized.

He was known as one of the most outspoken progressive senators of his era.

- He was a big supporter of Child Labor Laws- He sponsored the Meat Inspection Act of 1906

He believed in reform and social activism hoping to create a more Direct Democracy for the people. Imperialism was controversial among the Progressives- some agreed, some didn’t.

Outside Information ● Foreign Trade important to the USA

○ 1870: Exports total $392 Million ○ 1900: Exports total $1.4 Billion ○ Many Americans believe acquiring colonies=more

markets= more money=more power ● Darwinism expanded to countries: US wanted power and

didn't want to be left out of European “Imperialism spree”● Alfred Thayer Mahan- The Influence of SeaPower upon

History (1890)- whoever controls Pacific controls the World● McKinley’s Open Door Policy in China: 1900- Europe was

“carving” up China for their own trade- The US didn’t want to miss out.- John Hay’s “Open Door Notes” were accepted by China and allowed the US to freely trade without interference or having to interfere (militarily)

Questions and Answers: 1. Are the reasons for retaining the Philippines primarily economic, moral, or both, according to Beveridge?

I believe Beveridge mainly wants the Philippines for their economic wealth they could provide. He wants supremacy in the Pacific- something that military bases on the island could provide. Plus because he wants to be able to use the Philippines as a way to gain more resources and money from trade with China. I believe he is using his “moral” “White Man’s Burden” to help the people get liberty as a front to get more people on board. Regardless of whether its true or not, it is still a major argument- so both

2. Is racial prejudice important to his arguments?Yes. Beveridge clearly believes the United States and other Anglo-Saxon like governments are better than who he essentially calls “savages”. I feel he may be using his ideas of moral and political superiority and burden to aid the “lesser” countries to attract more people to the desire in keeping the Philippines just so he can benefit from its economic gain. Beveridge is considered one of the most progressive senators of his era. What does this say about Progressivism? The definition of Progressivism is advocacy for social reform. A key belief in Social reform of this time included providing for the poor, and those who, commonly believed at the time, could not govern themselves; people like the Filipinos. By extending American Liberty to third world countries, Progressive politicians believed they were making a difference, arguing that it was America’s duty as a well developed nation to bring liberty and freedom to them. Through this they hoped to create a better world. A side effect and a possible deeper motive to “liberating” these people is the ability to control them on a deeper level. If America could bring a new government to the Philippines, they could control the people, their way of life, their trade, and their economy- all things important to gaining more power, and as said at the time, “Who ever controls the Pacific controls the World.”

America’s Should Not Rule The Philippines (1900) ● The U.S cannot trample the rights of others even if they live outside America.● The democratic ideals America holds dearly can’t hold up if U.S creates colonies and dominate

others. ● Expansionist claim that U.S imperialism prevents anarchy in other lands, but in reality America

causes anarchy: killing 200,000 filipino civilians, burned and destroyed infrastructure and agriculture while accomplishing nothing of importance.

● The national policy of imperialism wasn’t shaped on humanity, democratic ideals, or morality, but on the urge for more power and domination.

● The common man doesn’t benefit from imperialism, the only ones who do is the rich and powerful● New immigrants to the U.S from new territory would eventually taking the jobs of white males● the expansion of military rule, commercialism and colonization in a wrongful way is not true

expansion which our founding fathers envisions during manifest destiny, which expanded Americas free institutions and spread our republican ideals throughout world.

● American flag should symbolize American institutions and liberty, not a mockery to the world, bringing shame and representing tyranny

Historical context ● U.S Anti-imperialist league founded in 1898, when the U.S was

beginning to extend its power in places like Cuba and Latin America.● They felt that imperialism went against the republican ideals of the

U.S and the less moral idea of the fear of “polluting” the U.S with “inferior races.”

● The anti-imperialist movement argued that the U.S is getting entangled with European/world affairs, going against isolationism.

Intended Audience + Purpose

● The doc was meant to go against the blind patriotism of the imperialist and to reach the American people to make them go against imperialism.

● The doc is persuasive in trying to convince the public to become hostile to imperialist policies, specifically to end the Philippine war and leave the Philippines independent.

● The intended audience is the American public to argue that ruling Philippines and the U.S becoming imperialist is a problem

● This doc was printed in pamphlets and meant to spread the anti-imperialist sentiment.

Point of ViewJoseph Henry Crooker was a clergyman who wrote books on several different religious issues so It would make sense why he has strong moral issues with U.S imperialism and why he points the “moral decay” of the nation. Crooker is also a member of the Anti-Imperialist League. This would show why he is against the annexation of the Philippines and why he believes the U.S should stop adding new colonies and remain isolationist.

Outside Information● Anti-Imperialist League: 1898, gained following of prominent people such

as Andrew Carnegie, Mark Twain, and Samuel Gompers. Senators apart of League argued against ratification of Treaty of Paris.

● During Philippine war, U.S used some of the same tactics that Spain used in the prelude to the Spanish-American War: tactics the public thought were brutal and inhumane. Included Camps where many died from disease

● 200,000 Filipino civilians died during war.● Isolationism: Americans didn’t want to get tied into European affairs and

foreign alliances. Wanted U.S to remain isolated from world affairs and focus on domestic problems.

● Treaty of Paris (1898): concerned Guam, Cuba, Puerto Rico, and something not included in original armistice: the Philippines, which was given up after U.S offered 20 Million.

QuestionsWhat does Crooker see as most alarming about American acquisition of the Philippines?

Cocker believes the selfishness on gaining profit has made America a shameful country and he states that we have to solve these problems or our country will be a mess, still some believe is a goal for conquest and dominion is a form of exalted patriotism and what they are doing is patriotic, but the expansion was not necessary as it has no benefit on financial gain and is only a burden for common taxpayers and costs too much money for paying for islands. He states that American citizens are selfish on gaining economical growth, and thus forgetting the morals as American citizens. He believes there were only two times where normal and natural growth of America actually occurred

How does he differentiate between continental and overseas expansion?

Crooker supports the expansion of the U.S during Manifest Destiny, but opposes the new type of imperialism which he refers to as a more British type of imperialism. The old imperialism spread the U.S’s free institutions and spread republicanism throughout the continent. The new imperialism however, was meant to subjugate the people into colonists and make their countries under rule of the U.S. The new imperialism was oppressive and harmful to the people living in the colony. It was not what the founding fathers envisioned, but was tyrannical and showed that the U.S wanted domination and power.