Personal notes: This is a work in progress, this page will be updated as the work progresses. I'm sharing it as is albeit it is not a final draft, and there's still a lot of work ahead to complete it. 10/2014
20/10/2014 succumbing to the manifest dangers of lengthy and numerous quotes...
25/10/2014 this work needs to be more chronological and address the policies implemented by successive presidents and other officials,
5/11/2014 It's taking shape
11/11/2014 lots of re organizing of existing content to make it more chronological.
18/11/2014 must address treaty of Paris and McKinley's arguments for occupation.
30/05/2017 I have stopped writing anything new before I read the work of Vic Hurley, A Swish of a Kris. The perspective from the ground is always different then Congress declarations.
The Kurtz Papers
11/2014
JOURNAL OF SE ASIAN AFFAIRS, Vol IX,
Mars 7th 1975.
Reprinted from original January 25th 1950
Masters Degree, Harvard University,
History Thesis
The Philippines Insurrection: American Foreign Policy in Southeast Asia, 1898-1905
By Colonel Walter E. Kurtz U.S Army.
In memory of my Father, whose shining example I could never attain, but whose course I have dutifully followed.
Introduction
Venturing into the World
The Case for Imperialism
A Few Determined Men
At Hands Reach
The Treaty of Paris
The Katipunan
Benevolent AssimilationOur Forgotten War
The Aftermath
Repercussions for U.S Foreign Policy
Between a Rock and a Hard Place
Conclusion
"Among precautions against ambition, it may not be amiss to take one precaution against our own. I must fairly say, I dread our own power and our own ambition. [...] that we shall not abuse this astonishing and hitherto unheard of power."
Edmund Burke on the perils of ambition
Introduction
"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness." United States Declaration of Independence, 1776.
These words, "the most potent and consequential words in American history" [1], and through them the American ideals of self-government and non-intervention echoed by George Washington's Farewell Address and Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, not only laid the moral foundation of the fledgling nation but also shaped its foreign policy for more than a century. Around the world, the declaration itself became a source of inspiration for many other declarations of independence, including the one drafted by Filipino revolutionary leaders on June 12, 1898 in Cavite el Viejo proclaiming the sovereignty and independence of the Philippine Islands from the colonial rule of Spain. [2]
The Treaty of Paris on December 10th 1898 which saw the United States acquire the Philippines from an occupying power for US$20 million in the aftermath of the Spanish American War ensued in the Philippines Insurrection, that promptly broke out as we attempted to establish control over the islands. Little known and labeled at some time as America's forgotten war, the Philippines Insurrection lasted for more than 10 years, resulting in the death of more than forty two hundred Americans and 600,000 Filipinos [3].
It's impact however was much greater than the place it occupies in our history books and collective conscience as Americans, it is a both a point of departure and of no return.
As Andre Carnegie put it in his reaction to this annexation, was the Republic to remain steadfastly attached to its political creed of democratic self rule, "Triumphant Democracy", that made it an exception in the world or to endeavor in other lands to establish "the rule of the foreigner over the people, Triumphant Despotism?" [3]
Our involvement in the Philippines, whether some deemed mistaken or necessary at the time, has come at the cost of an increasing entanglement into that distant region, in the absence of sound national interests; at the cost of American lives and resources culminating with that improbable, impossible exercise of conciliating foreign policy with the occupation of a foreign people. The Benevolent Assimilation doctrine put in place by President McKinley sought to convince domestic public opinion that Filipinos welcomed American rule whereas the suppressed realities on the ground pointed overwhelmingly to the contrary.
At home it gave birth to the Anti Imperialist movement of whom Carnegie was one of the leading figures and that will number at some time 25 000 members. Many of whom leading intellectual and political figures. Abroad it marks a new era in American foreign policy ushering the image, that is still lingering nowadays, of an Imperialistic country no different in that regard from other Colonial powers of the time.
As the United States embarked at the end of the 18th century into uncharted territory, bent on becoming a Great Nation which according to many politicians at the time could only come about through its expansion overseas, the question of how is Colonialism or Imperialism for that matter compatible with what had been said and etched in stone to be the guiding principles of American foreign policy became centerpiece to what the United States stood for in the world. And consequently defined the tone and shape of its foreign policy from then on.
Venturing into the World
Key to understanding America's foreign policy at its inception is the nation's geopolitical situation, which provided a strategical advantage that both offset the fledgling nation's weakness and provided "the time to gain strength" [5], that is to ensure the means of protecting the nation and its interests by force of arms.
Shielded on the East and West by two large oceans, with no foe to worry about except occasionally Mexico at its Southern border, America resolutely kept to its policy of non-intervention. "Straight, absolute, and peculiar [...] which could not be abandoned without the most urgent occasion, amounting to manifest necessity." [6]
Independence had profound implications for how the Republic viewed itself as a nation both domestically and on the world stage. It signified the opportunity to stand in the world for the right of self determination, for justice, and the universal principles of liberty and equality, that are at the heart of our national identity. The development of early American foreign policy was thus a means of asserting a growing American nationalism and also of promoting national security .
While these fundamental and universal principles where to be a strong and a necessary foreign policy component, "to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a People always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence." [7], that very same inclination should be checked against the necessary caution when venturing in a world fraught with difficulties, prejudice and changing circumstances.
For if America "is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own" would she take part in the European political power plays that the Founders sought so carefully to avoid "the fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force." [7]
Deciding on an appropriate foreign affairs course during the early years of the republic stirred deep divides amongst American Founders. Divides that led to the establishment of the first political parties.
In respect to other nations, the Republic's claim to a separate and equal status translated into a general obligation to respect other nations sovereignty and not intervene in their affairs as long as our security or vital interests were not threatened. This emanated from our own right of self determination, and its extension to other nations was both a mean to affirm our own right and to strengthen it as we sought reciprocity if not recognition from other parts of the world.
"A nation has a right to manage its own concerns as it thinks fit," Hamilton wrote, and it "ought to have a right to provide for its own happiness." [8]. Not only established sovereign states fell under this consideration, but also future claims of sovereignty manifested by the "self-evident right" of a nation to determine its own affairs, "which can be denied to no independent nation." [9]
America stood decisively against denying others that to which it itself felt entitled, but had no intention of exporting its model abroad. Being neither Utopian idealists nor vulgar realists, the Founders view of the world at large in regard of the specific conditions of the Republic at the time was pragmatist, emphasizing prudence as the preeminent virtue of statesmanship.
Prudence firstly in securing the fledgling nation against foreign intervention and influence and in taking the utmost care not to intervene in any manner in foreign conflicts that could draw upon the Republic unforeseen consequences.
Although the Declaration of Independence stipulated the universality of the right to liberty, not only endowed on Americans but equally on all men, the question of how to advance the cause liberty in the world found its answer in a determination of serving as an example to the rest of the world through domestically upholding the rule of law, majority rule, and securing civil and religious liberty, rather then by military adventures abroad to establish for other peoples that which they ought to establish for themselves.
For liberty and self rule judging from our own experience were not things to be granted but came at the cost of sacrifice, struggle and eventual, certain, loss of lives.
The Republic should be content with "observing good faith and justice towards all nations", though acting honestly and fairly in dealing with other countries, fulfilling its contractual obligations, and keeping its word while avoiding any "entangling alliance". Relations between nations being necessarily based on self-interest they sought to make peace and commerce, not war and conquest, the primary vectors of the Republic's interests.
Sound commercial interests were to provide a guiding moral principle in foreign affairs for our merchant nation, to be "ever be found inseparable from our moral duties." and thus did not undermine the importance of justice but strengthened it, for it was in the true interest of America to act with justice toward other peoples. Contrasted with the non interventionism in the political affairs of the world advocated by a host of founding fathers it became a cornerstone of American foreign policy.
In a context mired by a long history of constant infighting of European powers between themselves and their vying abroad for colonial expansion, having recently freed itself from the shackles of British rule, America wanted no part in it, nor did the government have any right to spend the taxes or lives of its own citizens in imperialistic hegemony.
Up until the end of the colonization of the Great west, the United States had much to concern itself with, a God given country as large as a continent to be settled, with vast unending skies and land stretching seemingly without end to the west forming “an empire of liberty as she has never surveyed since the creation”[51] Jefferson.
The question of Expansionism was thus addressed through commerce and not conquest by buying territories from European powers who had a legal claim to them, with the notable exception later on of Hawaii, and was both conditioned by territorial contiguity and continentalism.
Even then, the idea of Manifest Destiny, that the United States was bound to ever expand its territory and that had became in retrospect so prevalent, was outright rejected by figures such as Lincoln and Ulysses Grant.
With the Last Frontier gone, a lingering question of sense of destiny remained unaddressed and a debate about the future of the nation became commonplace not only in political circles but also a daily concern of the common American. America realized that the benefits of free land and unlimited resources were irremediably lost.
For a nation built on the spirit of conquest and whose abundance of wealth largely shaped its institutions, this was no small matter. "The colonization of the Great West did indeed furnish a new field of opportunity. But never again will such gifts of free land offer themselves. The frontier has gone, and with its going has closed the first period of American history." [7]
Contrary to colonialism practiced by European powers, the sparsely populated areas purchased by the U.S Government were bound to become integral parts of the Republic, duly represented for they ought to be "no taxation without representation", and indeed American citizenship had been bestowed on all inhabitants of territories acquired by the U.S government.
The later prevalence of the Monroe doctrine since 1823 limiting its sphere of influence to the Americas, and the high trade tariffs put in place to protect the domestic market effectively insulated the United States from the world at large, furthering a sense of entrapment between the two great oceans of the Atlantic and the Pacific that the nation would come to resent by the end of the century.
The United States foreign policy became thus characterized by an almost autarcic tendency both in scope and shape, whether we admit or not to the fact that it was in fact isolationism.
The Case for Imperialism
Take up the White Man’s burden
And reap his old reward
The blame of those ye better
The hate of those ye guard
Rudyard Kipling
Washington's farewell address is often cited as having laid the foundation for a tradition of American non-interventionism, others later mitigated this view by stating that it was formulated to address the given context of the nation at the time and was by no means to be interpreted as a permanent state of affairs.
At the turn of the 18th century, the United States Navy and merchant marine lied in shambles although having emerged as a nation of great riches and industry as the world has been made aware during the 1893 World Columbian Exposition in Chicago. More than 27 millions gathered to celebrate American innovation and the promises of its new industrial age.
American Exceptionalism was a firm belief, deeply ingrained in the conscience of the American people and its elect. However internationally the United States lacked the means to project its power or shield its national interests, namely a well armed and seaworthy Navy, thus making it a giant with feet of clay on the world scene.
Abroad, its diplomats where regarded as less relevant to the affairs of the world than lesser states because of this inadequacy between the domestic strength of the nation and its weakness abroad.
With that realization came an increasing discontent of the unpreparedness of the nation to assert itself outside its final frontiers, and the conviction that its growth if limited to the domestic market marked the beginning of the end of that great enterprise that is the United States. It had "dawned upon the American mind that the international policy suitable to our infancy and our weakness was unworthy of our maturity and our strength" [8], that the foreign policy which prevailed since a century ago was unfit for the present times, and that it was in Americas primary and vital interests to bring about a reform as regards its standing in the concert of nations.
One cannot deny that the shift in paradigm leading to an increasing assertion of an Imperialist American foreign policy had been brewing for quite some time, however only a few days after the opening of the World Exposition a crucial event would come to further precipitate that course of action.
In what became known as the Panic of 1893 the nation was hit by the worst financial crisis in its history . Stocks plummeted, people rushed to withdraw their money from banks and causing them to collapse, businesses went bankrupt, and millions of Americans lost their jobs leading up an economic depression that lasted until 1897.
As foreign investors sold their holdings of American stocks, liabilities totaled a staggering $357 millions forcing the United States to sell gold continuously from 1892 to 1896 in order to meet its balance of payments deficit.
It was a defining period of the history of the nation, the first time when the land of plenty suddenly found itself in such dire financial straights, leading to a new political balance domestically and with it a major rethinking of American foreign policy in the coming century.
The Progressive movement emerged, calling for domestic political and foreign policy reforms. The justifications ranging from religious zeal and moral doctrines of superiority, righteousness, and manifest destiny. The sole pursuit of self-interest was found not only to be narrow in scope, but also became the most criticizable aspect of the Founders foreign policy.
Liberating, democratizing, civilizing foreign peoples ought to be the primary goal of a more noble and selfless foreign policy fitting for a Great Nation. The security and prosperity of the United States would be achieved as a result of promoting what the good of others, even of the world as a whole.
Under these seemingly benevolent ideals prominent Progressive statesmen under three successive U.S administrations. President Mc Kinley, Roosevelt and Taft embraced a much more active stance, voting for major naval expenditures.
As then Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Theodore Roosevelt spared no efforts in preparing the Navy for an intervention, at one point stating "I should welcome almost any war, for I think this country needs one".[12]
On September 23, 1897 in his address to the Spanish government of Her Majesty conveying the concern of the United States government with the incidents in Cuba and its fight for independence from Spain, Stewart L. Woodford then American legate in San Sebastian, declared that :
"In the true interest of peace and friendship the Government of the United States believes that a policy of mere inaction can not be safely prolonged. "[11]
Through the subtleties of diplomatic talk is a clear statement reflecting the mindset of U.S decision makers, and what began as continental expansion turned into the seizure of overseas territories including Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines.
Roosevelt later wrote in "Expansion and Peace"
published in the Independent on December 21st, 1899 that "the cause of expansion is the cause of peace", the only course of action for a great civilized power was thus according to him, and to many others who shared his views, a policy of Imperialism on a grand scale.
As much as it is the general consensus amongst historians that the abandonment by the United States of its policy of isolation is closely tied to the the 1898 Spanish-American War, the first significant foreign intervention with ramifications as far as South East Asia, this abandonment took place in a more general context of missed economical opportunities as signaled the considerable wealth that European nations derived from their colonies. And the ever growing trade of the U.S with China.
The case for Imperialism, or the newly found doctrine of the United States foreign policy at the end of the century could not be delayed any further. Both by the realization of the American people that they being one of the foremost nations of the world, it was their calling to play a much more consequent role, and by the state of financial affairs. Undoubtedly the conjunction of the two has made more appealing "ventures" abroad, if that be a fitting description.
Frederick Jackson Turner then a young historian who would come to exert a major influence in the U.S tell us that "American democracy [...] gained new strength each time it touched a new frontier." [10] suggesting that the solution for the United States could be found beyond its borders.
But where? Would it extend the reach of our foreign policy or narrow it to more selfish interests and motives? Would it strengthen democracy or unravel it?
One cannot in all fairness doubt wholesomely of the motivations and sentiments, perhaps truly unselfish and well meaning, universalist in nature... that inspired many of the proponents of a redefinition of the goals of our foreign policy
However these same arguments became the basis for an Imperialism whose aims, regardless of the extent to which we sought to embellish them, could not otherwise be considered as a just cause to be embraced by the Republic in virtue of our own national heritage and values as a nation, and of "seeking our interest, guided by our justice"
Annexing the Philippines stood at odds with a whole range of what we came to consider as the fabric of our political exception in the world, namely the rights of self determination, of consent of the governed, and equality of rights. Not to mention the questions of taxation without representation and the outright exploitation of other's people's mineral resources, sea lanes and such.
Not only a complete reversal of the non interventionist foreign policy that prevailed until then, but also of the Monroe doctrine which the doctrine's authors, chiefly future-President and then secretary-of-state John Quincy Adams, saw as a proclamation by the United States of its moral opposition to colonialism.[13]
"But with the Governments who have declared their independence and maintained it, and whose independence we have, on great consideration and on just principles, acknowledged, we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any other manner their destiny"[14]
Crucial to our understanding of the extent of this departure from these, and other views previously exposed, is that the United States would intervene militarily even after the Filipino nation had declared its independence.
The United States did not formally recognize this independence, or plainly chose to ignore it. Thus raising the unsolvable moral dilemmas for our foreign policy of what great considerations took place, and on what just principles was it denied. What manifest necessity justified our crushing of the aspirations of the Filipino people at independence and self determination. The very "government of the people, by the people, for the people." [4] to which we ourselves felt entitled,
Filipino revolutionary and later first President of the Philippines Emilio Aguinaldo insisted that several U.S diplomats and chief military representative Admiral Dewey had repeatedly promised that independence would be recognized. The Filipinos considering the United States an ally in its fight against Colonialism, venturing as far, out of naivety or pragmatism, to consider an American protectorate for a limited time preceding full fledged Independence.
The words of Quincy Adams should have been a stark reminder of steering clear from any imperialist venture for America’s glory lied "not in dominion, but in liberty" [x]. But already, ominously, another course of action prevailed, the unforeseen consequences of which ought to be our first concern, and the need for caution were now drowned by the tumultuous clamoring for more territory and more expansion abroad.
The time had come for "The fundamental maxims of her policy" to change from liberty to force in a context of a rising militarism. A path she will thread until nowadays. There in that very context of expansionist designs and delusions of self aggrandizement, America lost her soul.
Senator Albert J. Beveridge's lengthy speech delivered on January 9th 1900 during the 56th tenure of the U.S Congress
is in retrospect the reflection of a broader mindset which prevailed
amongst many U.S decision makers and politicians at the time, if not the
majority then at least in sufficient numbers to have weighted on the
course of events leading up to and legitimizing the colonization of the
Philippines.
In it are laid bare the rationales of Imperialism, a conjunction of opportunism, mercantilism, and plain greed and of shouldering Kipling's White's man burden, regardless of what is in the Constitution.
The Philippines he argues are "ours forever", referring to the Constitutional point that in territories purchased by the United States, the Congress had all power to establish rules and regulations. Which ought not to stand in the face of the fact that Filipinos had declared their independence and that their nation ought not to be sold like someone's property.
Not only adds Beveridge, are the Philippines the door to China's illimitable markets but are valuable in themselves for their command of the Pacific and their vast vegetable and mineral wealth. Exposing plainly the mercantilism now practiced as a foreign policy by the U.S Government.
The Filipinos are "children" who cannot rule themselves and it is our sacred duty to civilize them. The right of consent of the governed stipulated in the constitution does not apply for "The Declaration (of Independence) applies only to people capable of self-government", nor does the Declaration stipulate that all government must have the consent of the governed.
However dubious and of little credence such words might seem in retrospect, one has to know and understand that Beveridge and others like him were enough of a mainstream at the time to precipitate the United States into an occupation war with the fledgling Phillipino Government.
The legal grounds themselves justifying any such purchase by the U.S Government from Spain on the basis that they own the Phillipines in their dominion are fallacious. "The opening gun of the Spanish-American War found Spain holding a few precarious positions in Mindanao, Palawan and Sulu."[15] On what grounds was the purchase made then if Spain held "precarious positions" itself.
bios in contest
Mc Kinley
the commission
Roosevelt
rebuilding the navy
Dewey
stuck on the ground between politics and reality
Aguinaldo
bio
Carnegie
bio
At Hands Reach
Swish of the Kris
Situated in the south eastern portion of Asia, the Philippines is an archipelago made up of more than seventy thousand islands over an area of 300,000 square kilometers. The distance from the north to the south is 1,840 kilometers and the widest area measures 1,000 kilometers. The farthest island to the north is Y'ami Isle in Batanes, while the Salauag Isle in Tawi-Tawi is the farthest to the south.
The location of the Philippines in the Southeast Asian region also bears diplomatic and military significance. The country proved to be strategic for military installations of countries that were expanding their influence across Asia Pacific. It is bound by Taiwan on the north, on the west by the South China Sea and Vietnam, on the east by the Pacific Ocean, on the south by the Celebes Sea and Indonesia, and on the southwest by Malaysia and Singapore.
The country has a tropical climate, the dry season is from December to May, while the wet season begins in June and last until November. There are an estimated 19 typhoons that pass through the country in each year.
Yearning to be free after more than 3 centuries of Spanish rule, repulsed and irritated by the almost daily exactions of Spanish oppressors and their control over their daily lives, having lost their rights and living as second class citizen, Filipinos held sporadic revolts before 1896. Through these revolts, the tremors of an ethnically and religiously diverse people scattered in an archipelago of more than 20 large islands and thousands of smaller ones, came about the realization and the strengthening of a sense of unity, of common destiny and struggle.
The Katipunan
"The Kris may be of any length and two
or three inches wide. All of the knives,
no matter what shape, are encased in
wooden scabbards, and have a keenness
of edge equaling that of a Damascus blade."
The gathering together that took place in Manila on the night of July 7th 1892 , is the story of a few determined men namely Andrés Bonifacio, Teodoro Plata and Ladislao Diwa.
August 24, 1896,
As they tore their Spanish Cedulas or tax certificates, they started a major nationwide uprisal against the Spaniards.
Led by General Emilio Aguinaldo, Filipino revolutionaries gained steady support rallying other Filipinos around the cause of independence. Within weeks of Dewey's victory, they had succeeded at expelling much of Spain's troops and controlled most of the archipelago. Spanish dominion was reduced to the capital Manila where besieged on land by Filipino forces, and from sea by U.S vessels led by Admiral Dewey, they where effectively cut off from any means of resupply. (x)
Indeed, Independence was at hand's reach more then ever before.(David R. Kohler and James Wensyel, 23).
U.S. forces in the Philippines and Filipino forces led by revolutionary leader Emilio Aguinaldo had a common enemy in Spain. As hostilities came to a close and the United States emerged from the war victorious, Aguinaldo and his supporters were eager for Philippine independence.
General Aguinaldo had great esteem for the United States and was not overly preoccupied with the presence of U.S troops. Present in his mind was the fact that Admiral Dewey arranged for him to be transported aboard a U.S ship from Honk Kong and reunited with his troops, arriving in Manila with thirteen of his staff on May 19 aboard the American revenue cutter McCulloch, Philippine-American War, 1899-1902 by Arnaldo Dumindin
The Filipinos were preoccupied by the fact that they could not protect their shores from other imperialistic powers, even from Spain itself should it decide to resume its occupation. Closely following the events in Cuba, they likewise welcomed the idea of an American protectorate as an alternative to full fledged sovereignty that would be difficult if not impossible to protect. Albeit in retrospect it is the stuff of wishful thinking, the United States would recognize the independence of the islands, provide naval protection for an allotted time, and assist the Filipinos in the establishment of their government.
Having received repeated assurances by several American Consuls, in Hong Kong,Singapore and Manila, and by Dewey himself, of the willingness of the nation they represented to recognize the independence of the islands and provide naval protection during a transitional period to a full fledged Filipino rule, Aguinaldo considered their presence as a an aid to his country who was very much going through the same condition, having the same considerations, hopes and aspirations as the pre-revolutionary United States.
"The Americans...extend their protecting mantle to our beloved country...When you see the American flag flying, assemble in numbers: they are our redeemers!'"(David R. Kohler and James Wensyel, 24).
Turot wrote that Aguinaldo and Consul Pratt had agreed on 13 points to guarantee the US intentions of respecting Philippine sovereignty. Four of the most significant were:
Aguinaldo’s narration of the events published in “Reseña Veridica de la Revolucion Filipina” (True Version of the Philippine Revolution), stated that Consul Pratt was evasive of the US acquiescence to the agreement and telegraphed Admiral Dewey for advice: “Between 10 or 12 in the forenoon of the next day, the conference was renewed and Mr. Pratt then informed me that the admiral had sent him a telegram in reply to the wish I had expressed for an agreement in writing. He said the admiral’s reply was that the United States would at least recognize the independence of the Philippines under the protection of the United States Navy.
The Consul added that there was no necessity for entering into a formal written agreement because the word of the admiral and of the United States consul were in fact equivalent to the most solemn pledge, that their verbal promises and assurance would be fulfilled to the letter and were not to be classed with Spanish promises or Spanish ideas of a man’s word of honor. In conclusion the consul said, ‘The government of North America is a very honest, just, and powerful government.’”
Having been reprimanded by the State Department upon his report of having received a serenade in Manilla for having made promises that would be impossible to fulfill, Consul Pratt will be quietly retired from office upon his return to the United States.
On his arrival in the Philippines on May 19, 1898, aboard the ship McCulloch, Aguinaldo recounted that he was immediately conveyed to Admiral Dewey’s flagship Olympia, where Dewey continued to assure him that “…the United States had come to the Philippines to protect the natives and free them from the yoke of Spain. He said, moreover, that America is exceedingly well off as regards territory, revenue and resources and therefore needs no colonies, assuring me finally that there was no occasion for me to entertain any doubts whatever about the recognition of the independence of the Philippines by the United States.”
Even after the declaration of Philippine Independence in Kawit on June 12, 1898, Admiral Dewey, during a visit to Aguinaldo in Cavite a month later, would point out: “Have faith in my word, and I assure you that the United States will recognize the independence of the country. But I recommend you to keep a good deal of what we have said and agreed secret at present…”.
Aguinaldo and the rest of Filipino leaders were no dupes however, in the absence of a written recognition by the government of the United States and with the presence of a sizable contingent of U.S troops on Filipino soil, suspicion of American motives sunk in.
This ambivalent attitude of neither affirming through an act of its legislative body, although as we have seen the general body of material points to the fact that promises have been made, neither infirming the idea of independence for the Philippines meant planting the seeds of untrustworthiness in our relations with the Filipinos and our foreign policy at large.
One is left with the impression, believed in retrospect by Filipinos to be a fact that the promises made by American officials where empty and facetious, a ploy to gain the Filipinos support to hasten the defeat of the Spanish colonizers.
Aguinaldo maintained later that the Philippines had been promised independence in return for helping the U.S. defeat the Spanish, something all the U.S protagonists will come to deny, including Dewey the moment he took Manila and garrisoned it with American troops.
What is also certain is that practical military necessity conflicted with moral values, Dewey waiting for additional troops to arrive found it worthwhile to treat the Filipinos as de facto allies in the war against Spain, later on having been questioned upon his return at the U.S Senate about having made such statements to Aguinaldo, he went on the defensive refusing to answer the question any further. Indeed the buck didn't fall with him, but with President McKinley, so those very same senators let go of this crucial issue so as not to embarrass the government any further.
A few months later as a result of the Treaty of Paris, December 10, 1898, the United States would acquire the Philippines as a U.S. territory.
On January 20, 1899 President McKinley appointed a five-person group headed by Dr. Jacob Schurman. The Schurman Commission also known as the First Philippine Commission , to study the situation in the Philippines and make recommendations on how the U.S should proceed after the sovereignty of the Philippines was ceded to the U.S. by Spain
Findings, recommendations, controversy
On 24 December 1898, general Ewell Otis announced in no uncertain terms that the United States “intends to establish among them an efficient and most stable form of government.” 375
The Aguinaldo government quite rightly saw this pronouncement as a challenge to its authority. On 5 January 1899, Aguinaldo published a protest against the proclamation of Otis: “Protesto contra ese acto tan inesperado de la soberania de America en estas islas,” or “Protest against this unexpected act [imposing] American sovereignty on these islands.”376 At 373 R8F53D2, Act of the Hong Kong Junta. Hong Kong, 15 May 1898.
Many in the islands were not eager to see one colonial power replaced by another. This desire for independence soon resulted in armed resistance against the United States. The Philippine Insurrection began with a skirmish on the night of February 4, 1899, just outside of Manila.
A few months later, the Philippine Insurrection would erupt, resulting in the death of roughly 20,000 Filipino soldiers, 600,000 Filipino civilians and 4,000 American soldiers.
Although it became the general agreed on denomination by U.S government officials and foreign representatives, and later by historians, regarding the events in the subsequent to U.S involvement, we should carefully consider the implications and consequences of using the term "insurrection" and referring to Filipinos as "insurgents", rebelling against our legal authority as it is fallacious to claim that 20 millions of US treasury bought us legal authority over a foreign people, rather than admitting to the fact that these were revolutionaries fighting to free their fledgling nation from oppression.
It is indeed a very different matter in international law and diplomacy to quell an insurrection, implying a struggle conducted solely by force of arms versus ignoring a revolution led by representatives having formed a government, the First Philippine Republic established January 23rd 1899, having formally declared their Independence on June 12th 1898 and established a Constitution, The Malolos Constitution enacted on 21 January, 1899.
In it are laid bare the rationales of Imperialism, a conjunction of opportunism, mercantilism, and plain greed and of shouldering Kipling's White's man burden, regardless of what is in the Constitution.
The Philippines he argues are "ours forever", referring to the Constitutional point that in territories purchased by the United States, the Congress had all power to establish rules and regulations. Which ought not to stand in the face of the fact that Filipinos had declared their independence and that their nation ought not to be sold like someone's property.
Not only adds Beveridge, are the Philippines the door to China's illimitable markets but are valuable in themselves for their command of the Pacific and their vast vegetable and mineral wealth. Exposing plainly the mercantilism now practiced as a foreign policy by the U.S Government.
The Filipinos are "children" who cannot rule themselves and it is our sacred duty to civilize them. The right of consent of the governed stipulated in the constitution does not apply for "The Declaration (of Independence) applies only to people capable of self-government", nor does the Declaration stipulate that all government must have the consent of the governed.
However dubious and of little credence such words might seem in retrospect, one has to know and understand that Beveridge and others like him were enough of a mainstream at the time to precipitate the United States into an occupation war with the fledgling Phillipino Government.
The legal grounds themselves justifying any such purchase by the U.S Government from Spain on the basis that they own the Phillipines in their dominion are fallacious. "The opening gun of the Spanish-American War found Spain holding a few precarious positions in Mindanao, Palawan and Sulu."[15] On what grounds was the purchase made then if Spain held "precarious positions" itself.
A Few Determined Men
bios in contest
Mc Kinley
the commission
Roosevelt
rebuilding the navy
Dewey
stuck on the ground between politics and reality
Aguinaldo
bio
Carnegie
bio
At Hands Reach
Swish of the Kris
Situated in the south eastern portion of Asia, the Philippines is an archipelago made up of more than seventy thousand islands over an area of 300,000 square kilometers. The distance from the north to the south is 1,840 kilometers and the widest area measures 1,000 kilometers. The farthest island to the north is Y'ami Isle in Batanes, while the Salauag Isle in Tawi-Tawi is the farthest to the south.
The location of the Philippines in the Southeast Asian region also bears diplomatic and military significance. The country proved to be strategic for military installations of countries that were expanding their influence across Asia Pacific. It is bound by Taiwan on the north, on the west by the South China Sea and Vietnam, on the east by the Pacific Ocean, on the south by the Celebes Sea and Indonesia, and on the southwest by Malaysia and Singapore.
The country has a tropical climate, the dry season is from December to May, while the wet season begins in June and last until November. There are an estimated 19 typhoons that pass through the country in each year.
Yearning to be free after more than 3 centuries of Spanish rule, repulsed and irritated by the almost daily exactions of Spanish oppressors and their control over their daily lives, having lost their rights and living as second class citizen, Filipinos held sporadic revolts before 1896. Through these revolts, the tremors of an ethnically and religiously diverse people scattered in an archipelago of more than 20 large islands and thousands of smaller ones, came about the realization and the strengthening of a sense of unity, of common destiny and struggle.
The Katipunan
"The Kris may be of any length and two
or three inches wide. All of the knives,
no matter what shape, are encased in
wooden scabbards, and have a keenness
of edge equaling that of a Damascus blade."
Major O. J. Sweet
22nd Infantry
U.S. Army
The gathering together that took place in Manila on the night of July 7th 1892 , is the story of a few determined men namely Andrés Bonifacio, Teodoro Plata and Ladislao Diwa.
August 24, 1896,
As they tore their Spanish Cedulas or tax certificates, they started a major nationwide uprisal against the Spaniards.
Led by General Emilio Aguinaldo, Filipino revolutionaries gained steady support rallying other Filipinos around the cause of independence. Within weeks of Dewey's victory, they had succeeded at expelling much of Spain's troops and controlled most of the archipelago. Spanish dominion was reduced to the capital Manila where besieged on land by Filipino forces, and from sea by U.S vessels led by Admiral Dewey, they where effectively cut off from any means of resupply. (x)
Indeed, Independence was at hand's reach more then ever before.(David R. Kohler and James Wensyel, 23).
U.S. forces in the Philippines and Filipino forces led by revolutionary leader Emilio Aguinaldo had a common enemy in Spain. As hostilities came to a close and the United States emerged from the war victorious, Aguinaldo and his supporters were eager for Philippine independence.
General Aguinaldo had great esteem for the United States and was not overly preoccupied with the presence of U.S troops. Present in his mind was the fact that Admiral Dewey arranged for him to be transported aboard a U.S ship from Honk Kong and reunited with his troops, arriving in Manila with thirteen of his staff on May 19 aboard the American revenue cutter McCulloch, Philippine-American War, 1899-1902 by Arnaldo Dumindin
The Filipinos were preoccupied by the fact that they could not protect their shores from other imperialistic powers, even from Spain itself should it decide to resume its occupation. Closely following the events in Cuba, they likewise welcomed the idea of an American protectorate as an alternative to full fledged sovereignty that would be difficult if not impossible to protect. Albeit in retrospect it is the stuff of wishful thinking, the United States would recognize the independence of the islands, provide naval protection for an allotted time, and assist the Filipinos in the establishment of their government.
Having received repeated assurances by several American Consuls, in Hong Kong,Singapore and Manila, and by Dewey himself, of the willingness of the nation they represented to recognize the independence of the islands and provide naval protection during a transitional period to a full fledged Filipino rule, Aguinaldo considered their presence as a an aid to his country who was very much going through the same condition, having the same considerations, hopes and aspirations as the pre-revolutionary United States.
"The Americans...extend their protecting mantle to our beloved country...When you see the American flag flying, assemble in numbers: they are our redeemers!'"(David R. Kohler and James Wensyel, 24).
Turot wrote that Aguinaldo and Consul Pratt had agreed on 13 points to guarantee the US intentions of respecting Philippine sovereignty. Four of the most significant were:
-
The independence of the Philippines would be proclaimed.
- A centralized republic with a government would be created, with members provisionally named by Aguinaldo.
- The government would recognize a temporary intervention American and European commissioners to be designated by Admiral Dewey.
- The American protectorate would be established under the same terms and conditions that were accepted in Cuba.
Aguinaldo’s narration of the events published in “Reseña Veridica de la Revolucion Filipina” (True Version of the Philippine Revolution), stated that Consul Pratt was evasive of the US acquiescence to the agreement and telegraphed Admiral Dewey for advice: “Between 10 or 12 in the forenoon of the next day, the conference was renewed and Mr. Pratt then informed me that the admiral had sent him a telegram in reply to the wish I had expressed for an agreement in writing. He said the admiral’s reply was that the United States would at least recognize the independence of the Philippines under the protection of the United States Navy.
The Consul added that there was no necessity for entering into a formal written agreement because the word of the admiral and of the United States consul were in fact equivalent to the most solemn pledge, that their verbal promises and assurance would be fulfilled to the letter and were not to be classed with Spanish promises or Spanish ideas of a man’s word of honor. In conclusion the consul said, ‘The government of North America is a very honest, just, and powerful government.’”
Having been reprimanded by the State Department upon his report of having received a serenade in Manilla for having made promises that would be impossible to fulfill, Consul Pratt will be quietly retired from office upon his return to the United States.
On his arrival in the Philippines on May 19, 1898, aboard the ship McCulloch, Aguinaldo recounted that he was immediately conveyed to Admiral Dewey’s flagship Olympia, where Dewey continued to assure him that “…the United States had come to the Philippines to protect the natives and free them from the yoke of Spain. He said, moreover, that America is exceedingly well off as regards territory, revenue and resources and therefore needs no colonies, assuring me finally that there was no occasion for me to entertain any doubts whatever about the recognition of the independence of the Philippines by the United States.”
Even after the declaration of Philippine Independence in Kawit on June 12, 1898, Admiral Dewey, during a visit to Aguinaldo in Cavite a month later, would point out: “Have faith in my word, and I assure you that the United States will recognize the independence of the country. But I recommend you to keep a good deal of what we have said and agreed secret at present…”.
Aguinaldo and the rest of Filipino leaders were no dupes however, in the absence of a written recognition by the government of the United States and with the presence of a sizable contingent of U.S troops on Filipino soil, suspicion of American motives sunk in.
This ambivalent attitude of neither affirming through an act of its legislative body, although as we have seen the general body of material points to the fact that promises have been made, neither infirming the idea of independence for the Philippines meant planting the seeds of untrustworthiness in our relations with the Filipinos and our foreign policy at large.
One is left with the impression, believed in retrospect by Filipinos to be a fact that the promises made by American officials where empty and facetious, a ploy to gain the Filipinos support to hasten the defeat of the Spanish colonizers.
Aguinaldo maintained later that the Philippines had been promised independence in return for helping the U.S. defeat the Spanish, something all the U.S protagonists will come to deny, including Dewey the moment he took Manila and garrisoned it with American troops.
What is also certain is that practical military necessity conflicted with moral values, Dewey waiting for additional troops to arrive found it worthwhile to treat the Filipinos as de facto allies in the war against Spain, later on having been questioned upon his return at the U.S Senate about having made such statements to Aguinaldo, he went on the defensive refusing to answer the question any further. Indeed the buck didn't fall with him, but with President McKinley, so those very same senators let go of this crucial issue so as not to embarrass the government any further.
A few months later as a result of the Treaty of Paris, December 10, 1898, the United States would acquire the Philippines as a U.S. territory.
On January 20, 1899 President McKinley appointed a five-person group headed by Dr. Jacob Schurman. The Schurman Commission also known as the First Philippine Commission , to study the situation in the Philippines and make recommendations on how the U.S should proceed after the sovereignty of the Philippines was ceded to the U.S. by Spain
Findings, recommendations, controversy
On 24 December 1898, general Ewell Otis announced in no uncertain terms that the United States “intends to establish among them an efficient and most stable form of government.” 375
The Aguinaldo government quite rightly saw this pronouncement as a challenge to its authority. On 5 January 1899, Aguinaldo published a protest against the proclamation of Otis: “Protesto contra ese acto tan inesperado de la soberania de America en estas islas,” or “Protest against this unexpected act [imposing] American sovereignty on these islands.”376 At 373 R8F53D2, Act of the Hong Kong Junta. Hong Kong, 15 May 1898.
Many in the islands were not eager to see one colonial power replaced by another. This desire for independence soon resulted in armed resistance against the United States. The Philippine Insurrection began with a skirmish on the night of February 4, 1899, just outside of Manila.
A few months later, the Philippine Insurrection would erupt, resulting in the death of roughly 20,000 Filipino soldiers, 600,000 Filipino civilians and 4,000 American soldiers.
Although it became the general agreed on denomination by U.S government officials and foreign representatives, and later by historians, regarding the events in the subsequent to U.S involvement, we should carefully consider the implications and consequences of using the term "insurrection" and referring to Filipinos as "insurgents", rebelling against our legal authority as it is fallacious to claim that 20 millions of US treasury bought us legal authority over a foreign people, rather than admitting to the fact that these were revolutionaries fighting to free their fledgling nation from oppression.
It is indeed a very different matter in international law and diplomacy to quell an insurrection, implying a struggle conducted solely by force of arms versus ignoring a revolution led by representatives having formed a government, the First Philippine Republic established January 23rd 1899, having formally declared their Independence on June 12th 1898 and established a Constitution, The Malolos Constitution enacted on 21 January, 1899.
Thus disposing of the constitutive elements of sovereignty, a flag and territory under a representative government, with the said government having declared the independence of a nation whose constitution laid the ground for its self rule, the Filipinos stood ready to join the concert of independent countries and had viewed the United States and the values it represented as an ally in its quest for freedom.
The central tragedy of that chapter of history is that the imperialist venture of a nation that stood for liberty and human rights collided head on with the aspirations of the Filipino people who had wrenched their independence from Spain at the cost of hefty sacrifices and loss of lives.
In 1898, when Admiral Dewey read in the papers that we were going to give Cuba independence, he wired home from Manila:
"These people are far superior in their intelligence, and more capable of self-government than the people of Cuba, and I am familiar with both races."
Now Americans stood as the new power to be removed, and so the very men that uprooted the Spaniards decided to turn against Americans as well. This is what happened, yes, not lawless men, not insurgents, but freedom fighters who succeeded freeing their land from Spain at the cost of hefty sacrifices, battle hardened men who knew battlegrounds, whose leaders like Felipe Agoncillo knew the fine points of international law and diplomacy and could eloquently make their case.
"If the Spaniards have not been able to transfer to the Americans the rights which they did not possess; if the latter have not militarily conquered positions in the Philippines; if the occupation of Manila was a resultant fact, prepared by the Filipinos; if the international officials and representatives of the Republic of the United States of America offered to recognize the independence and sovereignty of the Philippines, solicited and accepted their
alliance, how can they now constitute themselves as arbiters of the control, administration and future government of the Philippine Islands?
If the Treaty of Paris there had simply been declared the withdrawal and abandonment by the Spaniards of their domination --if they had such --over Filipino territory, if America, on accepting peace, had signed the Treaty, without prejudice to the rights of the Philippines, and with a view to coming to a subsequent settlement with the existing Filipino National Government, thus recognizing the sovereignty of the latter, their alliance and the carrying out of their promises of honor to the said Filipinos, no protest against their action would have been made. But in view of the terms of the Article III of the Protocol, the attitude of the American Commissioners, and the imperative necessity of safeguarding the national rights of my country, I take this protest, for the before-mentioned reasons but with the proper legal reservations, against the action taken and the resolutions passed by the Peace Commissioners at Paris and in the Treaty signed by them." Protest on the Injustice of the Treaty of Paris December 1898
Men who in the absence of international fairness in their case decided to continue their fight.
McKinley's Explanation:
"Hold a moment longer! Not quite yet, gentlemen! Before you go I would like to say just a word about the Philippine business.... The truth is I didn't want the Philippines, and when they came to us as a gift from the gods, I did not know what to do with them.... I sought counsel from all sides - Democrats as well as Republicans - but got little help. I thought first we would take only Manila; then Luzon; then other islands, perhaps, also. I walked the floor of the White House night after night until midnight; and I am not ashamed to tell you, gentlemen, that I went down on my knees and prayed Almighty God for light and guidance more than one night." "And one night late it came to me this way - I don't know how it was, but it came: (1) That we could not give them back to Spain - that would be cowardly and dishonorable; (2) that we could not turn them over to France or Germany - our commercial rivals in the Orient - that would be bad business and discreditable; (3) that we could not leave them to themselves - they were unfit for self-government - and they would soon have anarchy and misrule over there worse than Spain's was; and (4) that there was nothing left for us to do but to take them all, and to educate the Filipinos, and uplift and civilize and Christianize them, and by God's grace do the very best we could by them, as our fellow men for whom Christ also died. And then I went to bed and went to sleep and slept soundly."
Sources:
[1]Stephen
E. Lucas, "Justifying America: The Declaration of Independence as a
Rhetorical Document", in Thomas W. Benson, ed., American Rhetoric:
Context and Criticism, Carbondale, Illinois: Southern Illinois
University Press, 1989, p. 85
[2]David Armitage, The Declaration of Independence: A Global History (Harvard University Press, 2007)
[3] http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1981/dec/17/death-in-the-philippines-3/.
[3] http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1981/dec/17/death-in-the-philippines-3/.
[3] Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg Address, 1863
[4] Distant
Possessions: The Parting of the Ways By Andrew Carnegie. Originally
published in the North American Review (Aug. 1898).
[5] U.S. Congress. Senate. Washington's Farewell Address. 105th Congress,
2d sess., 1998. S. Doc.105-22.
[6] Secretary of State William H Seward "American Foreign Policy — The
Turning Point, 1898–1919," The Future of Freedom Foundation, 1995.
[7] Frederick Jackson Turner, "The
Significance of the Frontier in American History" public address at the
Colombian Exposition (1893)
[8] Richard Olney, "The Growth of Our Foreign Policy," Atlantic
Monthly, March 1900
[9] Democracy in Desperation: The Depression of 1893 by Douglas Steeples
and David O. Whitten,
[10] Turner, Frederick Jackson (1920). "The Significance of the
Frontier in American History". The Frontier in American History. p. 293.
[11 U.S. Department of State, Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of
the United States, 1898 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1901), pp.
568-573
[12] Theodore Roosevelt 1897 (in a letter to a friend) Transcript For
"Crucible Of Empire". Timeline. PBS Online. Retrieved July 26, 2007.
[13] New Encyclopedia Britannica 8 (15th ed.). Encyclopedia Britannica. p. 269.2
[14] The Monroe Doctrine. Source : J.D. Richardson, ed., Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, vol. 2 (1907), 287.
[14] The Monroe Doctrine. Source : J.D. Richardson, ed., Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, vol. 2 (1907), 287.
[15] Dr. Ricardo T. Jose, Filipino history scholar and professor. Transcript
For "Crucible Of Empire". Timeline. PBS Online. Retrieved July 26,
2007.
[14] President Monroe's seventh annual message to Congress, December 2, 1823
[15] A Swish of the Kris, by Vic Hurley
ALBERT J. BEVERIDGE : In Support of an American Empire
Source: Record, 56 Cong., I Sess., pp. 704-712.
Links
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vic_Hurley
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=172959
http://www.academia.edu/1170330/Progressivism_and_imperialism_The_progressive_movement_and_American_foreign_policy_1898-1916
http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/franciscofirstvietnam.html
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=172959
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1895006?uid=3739256&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=21105310632293
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/09/remaking-the-world-progressivism-and-american-foreign-policy
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/07/the-progressive-movement-and-the-transformation-of-american-politics
http://vi.uh.edu/pages/buzzmat/antiimp.html
http://www.jstor.org/stable/25119035?seq=7 Seward
http://www.royalsulu.com/history.html Sulu
http://falcon.arts.cornell.edu/prh3/257/classmats/papertip.html
http://www.geraldschlabach.net/about/relationships/benedictine/courses/handouts/historical-writing/
http://history.fas.harvard.edu/people/sugata-bose
http://www.americanforeignrelations.com/E-N/Isolationism-America-s-foreign-policy-in-the-nineteenth-century.html
http://books.google.ie/books?id=Udd1AwAAQBAJ&pg=PA109&lpg=PA109&dq=American+Foreign+Policy+in+Southeast+Asia,+1898-1905&source=bl&ots=6u_9ijyDpP&sig=eNKZ3UiER6lZqBoyWkrcoEh9AXc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=4V1rVN2TC4q9ygOV_IHACQ&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=American%20Foreign%20Policy%20in%20Southeast%20Asia%2C%201898-1905&f=false
https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/garrity.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vic_Hurley
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=172959
http://www.academia.edu/1170330/Progressivism_and_imperialism_The_progressive_movement_and_American_foreign_policy_1898-1916
http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/franciscofirstvietnam.html
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=172959
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1895006?uid=3739256&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=21105310632293
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/09/remaking-the-world-progressivism-and-american-foreign-policy
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/07/the-progressive-movement-and-the-transformation-of-american-politics
http://vi.uh.edu/pages/buzzmat/antiimp.html
http://www.jstor.org/stable/25119035?seq=7 Seward
http://www.royalsulu.com/history.html Sulu
http://falcon.arts.cornell.edu/prh3/257/classmats/papertip.html
http://www.geraldschlabach.net/about/relationships/benedictine/courses/handouts/historical-writing/
http://history.fas.harvard.edu/people/sugata-bose
http://www.americanforeignrelations.com/E-N/Isolationism-America-s-foreign-policy-in-the-nineteenth-century.html
http://books.google.ie/books?id=Udd1AwAAQBAJ&pg=PA109&lpg=PA109&dq=American+Foreign+Policy+in+Southeast+Asia,+1898-1905&source=bl&ots=6u_9ijyDpP&sig=eNKZ3UiER6lZqBoyWkrcoEh9AXc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=4V1rVN2TC4q9ygOV_IHACQ&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=American%20Foreign%20Policy%20in%20Southeast%20Asia%2C%201898-1905&f=false
https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/garrity.htm
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/10/americas-founders-and-the-principles-of-foreign-policy-sovereign-independence
http://archive.org/stream/ack8437.0001.001.umich.edu/ack8437.0001.001.umich.edu_djvu.txt
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/36542/36542-h/36542-h.htm#ch8
http://books.google.co.ma/books?id=hHzvx94oiUgC&pg=PA47&lpg=PA47&dq=Howard+W.+Bray&source=bl&ots=jxXxC95gEj&sig=gvswsuNOlE58tSz5z_s7sdGWI0Q&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Js9PVKCTIcXuaMSQgfgK&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Howard%20W.%20Bray&f=false
little
brown brother
https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1794/17888/Angeles_oregon_0171A_10852.pdf?sequence=1
http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~histlit/forms/SeniorThesisGuide2010.pdf
https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/to1914.htm
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1900/03/the-growth-of-our-foreign-policy/304994/
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/36542/36542-h/36542-h.htm Title: The
American Occupation of the Philippines 1898-1912 Author: James H. Blount
Release Date: June 28, 2011
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/36542/36542-h/36542-h.htm
https://archive.org/stream/filipinojuntainh00bell/filipinojuntainh00bell_djvu.txt
The islands have been exploited for the benefit of Spain, against whom they have twice rebelled, like the Cubans. But even Spain has received little pecuniary benefit from them. The estimated revenue of the Philippines in 1894-95 was £2,715,980, the expenditure being £2,656,026, leaving a net result of about $300,000. The United States could obtain even this trifling sum from the inhabitants only by oppressing them as Spain has done. But, if we take the Philippines, we shall be forced to govern them as generously as Britain governs her dependencies, which means that they will yield us nothing, and probably be a source of annual expense. Certainly they will be a grievous drain upon revenue if we consider the enormous army and navy which we shall be forced to maintain upon their account.
Approximately 125,000 troops served in the Philippines during the war. After more than three years of fighting, at a cost of 400 million dollars and approximately 4,200 American dead and 2,900 wounded, President Theodore Roosevelt proclaimed an end to the insurrection in the Philippines on July 4, 1902.3
Despite Roosevelt's proclamation, isolated and sporadic guerilla activity continued throughout the period of American rule, which lasted until 1946, when the Philippines finally gained their independence
The reaction domestically.
One of the reasons why the United States should not acquire the Philippines was that the Filipinos themselves were fighting the Americans in the Philippines. Such an act, they said, showed that the Filipinos did not want to be under American rule. They also reasoned that it was inconsistent for the United States to disclaim—through the so-called Teller Amendment—any intention of annexing Cuba and then annex the other Spanish colonies, such as the Philippines.
A true republic of free men must rest upon the principles that all its citizens are equal under the law, that a government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed, and that there must be
no taxation without representation. These principles abandoned, a republic exists but in name, and its people lose their rights as free men.
Planting itself upon these lasting truths, the people of the United States solemnly declared in their Constitution that the citizens of each State should have the privileges and immunities of citizens of
the several States; that all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction should be citizens of the United States and of the several States; and that the rights of
none should be abridged on account of race, color, or previous conditions of servitude. The Constitution gives to the United States, no more than to the individual, the right to hold slaves or vassals,
and recognizes no distinction between classes of citizens,--one with full rights as free men, and another as subjects governed by military
force.
We are in full sympathy with the heroic struggles for liberty of the people in the Spanish Islands, and therefore we protest against depriving them of their rights by an exchange of masters. Only by recognizing their rights as free men are all their interests protected. Expansion by natural growth in thinly-settled contiguous territory, acquired by purchase for the expressed purpose of ultimate
statehood, cannot be confounded with, or made analogous to, foreign territory conquered by war and wrested by force from a weak enemy. A beaten foe has no right to transfer a people whose consent has not been asked, and a free republic has no right to hold in subjection a people so transferred.
Address to the People of the United States
Issued by the Anti-Imperialist League
November 19, 1898
In "Expansion and Peace" (1899), Theodore Roosevelt wrote that the best policy is imperialism on a global scale: "every expansion of a great civilized power means a victory for law, order, and righteousness." Thus, the American occupation of the Philippines, T.R. believed, would enable "one more fair spot of the world's surface" to be "snatched from the forces of darkness. Fundamentally the cause of expansion is the cause of peace."
Having defeated the Spanish fleet in Cuba, U.S vessels where promptly dispatched to the Philippines where they sunk the fleet of the Spanish navy, blockaded Manila by way of sea and
Foreign policy actions are accompanied, as a matter of course, by justifications in terms of precedent, consistency, and resolve. The proposition developed in this paper is that
the necessity of justifying foreign policy decisions acts as a constraint on what counts as an acceptable alternative. Proposed courses of action which cannot be plausibly justified are considered, ceteris paribus, unacceptable.
This constraint is supported by the nature of international politics and the politics of the policy setting. The uncertainty of international politics results in a premium on the appearance of consistency. The importance of justifications and precedents is reinforced within policymaking settings because of the shared belief in the importance of consistency.
The Progressive movement was a turn-of-the-century political movement interested in furthering social and political reform, curbing political corruption caused by political machines, and limiting the political influence of large corporations. Although many Progressives saw U.S. power in a foreign arena as an opportunity to enact the Progressive domestic agenda overseas, and to improve foreign societies, others were concerned about the adverse effects of U.S. interventions and colonialism.
The Progressive movement began with a domestic agenda. Progressives were interested in establishing a more transparent and accountable government which would work to improve U.S. society. These reformers favored such policies as civil service reform, food safety laws, and increased political rights for women and U.S. workers. In the 1890s, the Progressive movement also began to question the power of large businesses and monopolies after a series of journalistic expos�s that revealed questionable business practices.
Throughout the 1890s, the U.S. Government became increasingly likely to rely on its military and economic power to pursue foreign policy goals. The most prominent action during this period, the Spanish-American War, resulted in U.S. rule of the former Spanish colonies of Puerto Rico and the Philippines, as well as increased influence over Cuba. These territories captured in the Spanish-American war had a varied response toward U.S. occupation. In the Philippines, American forces faced armed insurgency, while in Puerto Rico, working-class and Progressive Puerto Ricans saw the United States as a successful counterweight to local sugar industry elites.
Many Progressives, including U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt, saw no conflict between imperialism and reform at home -to them, both were forms of uplift, reform and improvement, and so they saw in these new colonies an opportunity to further the Progressive agenda around the world. However, especially after the violence of the Philippine-American War, other Progressives became increasingly vocal about their opposition to U.S. foreign intervention and imperialism. Still others argued that foreign ventures would detract from much-needed domestic political and social reforms. Under the leadership of U.S. Senator Robert La Follette, Progressive opposition to foreign intervention further increased under the Dollar Diplomacy policies of Republican President William Howard Taft and Secretary of State Philander Knox. However, Progressives remained mostly interested in domestic issues, and Republican Progressives sometimes hesitated to break party lines on foreign policy, hoping to ensure greater influence on domestic matters within the Republican Party. Similarly, after the election of Democratic President Woodrow Wilson, Democratic Progressives also tended to follow Wilson's lead on foreign policy issues, while the partisan reaction against them was led by Republican Progressives. Wilson also faced opposition from John Barrett, Director-General of the Pan-American Union, whom Wilson eventually forced out of office in 1919.
President Wilson may have had greater reservations about U.S. foreign intervention in the Americas than President Theodore Roosevelt, but he was willing to intervene in the Mexican Revolution. Concerns about possible German submarine warfare also caused him to order U.S. military interventions in Haiti and the Dominican Republic, and also led to the purchase of the U.S. Virgin Islands from Denmark. The military occupations incorporated elements of the Progressive program, attempting to establish effective local police forces, reform land laws, build public infrastructure, and increase public access to education. However, these programs were hampered by local opposition to U.S. occupation and U.S. policies that inadvertently proved counterproductive. Where Progressive policies threatened to destabilize U.S. authority, U.S. officials in charge of occupying forces opted for stability rather than authentic Progressive changes.
In foreign policy, the Progressive movement also split over the ratification of the Treaty of Versailles. Progressive U.S. Senator William Borah led the campaign against ratification, and he would increasingly become the champion of the isolationist movement until his death in 1940. Other Progressives viewed the treaty more favorably.
In the 1920s, the Progressive movement began to be supplanted by several different movements. In some cases, such as women's suffrage, Progressive victory caused activists to lose momentum to push for further change. The Progressive wing of the Republican Party was weakened by the party splits of 1912 and 1924, which were attempts to form a third, Progressive party. The Progressive wing of the Democratic Party would eventually be subsumed under the broader New Deal coalition of Franklin Roosevelt. Foreign policy matters would increasingly be focused on the buildup to the Second World War, and Progressive issues took a back seat to the interventionist/isolationist split.
How then would we come to crush the aspirations of the Filipino people at independence and self determination, to deny them the very "government of the people, by the people, for the people." [4] to which we ourselves felt entitled, and what led our foreign policy to digress in such a drastic manner from the values on which this nation was founded.
The United States foreign policy became thus characterized by an almost autarcic tendency both in scope and shape, whether we admit or not to the fact that it was in fact isolationism.
with the United States bent on seizing the Spanish colony of the Philippines as means of repayment for the incurred prejudice and cost of war in Cuba,
The American occupation of the Philippines would result "in a victory for law, order, and righteousness." for "one more fair spot of the world's surface" to be "snatched from the forces of darkness"
due as we have seen due to both the realization that further growth called for further expansion of territory and international trade, and the onset of the 1893 depression that would plague the U.S economy for a decade.
our part in the mission of our race, trustee, under God, of the civilization of the world.
world will finally acknowledge as the arbiter, under God, of the destinies of mankind
"Mr. President, the times call for candor. The Philippines are ours forever, "territory belonging to the United States," as the Constitution calls them. And just beyond the Philippines are China's illimitable markets. We will not retreat from either. [...]
We will not repudiate our duty in the archipelago. We will not abandon our opportunity in the Orient. We will not renounce [...]
We will not repudiate our duty in the archipelago. We will not abandon our opportunity in the Orient. We will not renounce [...]
Our largest trade henceforth must be with Asia. The Pacific is our ocean. More and more Europe will manufacture the most it needs, secure from its colonies the most it consumes. Where shall we turn for consumers of our surplus? Geography answers the question. China is our natural customer. [...] The Philippines give us a base at the door of all the East.[...]
Most future wars will be conflicts for commerce. And, with the Philippines, that power is and will forever be the American Republic. [...]
But if they did not command China, India, the Orient, the whole Pacific for purposes of offense, defense, and trade, the Philippines are so valuable in themselves that we should hold them. I have cruised more than 2,000 miles through the archipelago, every moment a surprise at its loveliness and wealth. I have ridden hundreds of miles on the islands, every foot of the way a revelation of vegetable and mineral riches. . .[...]
That man little knows the common people of the republic, little understands the instincts of our race who thinks we will not hold it fast and hold it forever, administering just government by simplest methods. [...]
It would be better to abandon this combined garden and Gibraltar of the Pacific, and count our blood and treasure already spent a profitable loss than to apply any academic arrangement of self-government to these children. They are not capable of self-government. How could they be? They are not of a self-governing race. [...]
Mr. President, self-government and internal development have been the dominant notes of our first century; administration and the development of other lands will be the dominant notes of our second century. [...]
The Declaration (of Independence) applies only to people capable of self-government. [...]
The Declaration does not contemplate that all government must have the consent of the governed. [...]
The founders of the nation [...] knew that the republic they were planting must, in obedience to the laws of our expanding race, necessarily develop into the greater republic which the world beholds today, and into the still mightier republic which the world will finally acknowledge as the arbiter, under God, of the destinies of mankind. And so our fathers wrote into the Constitution these words of growth, of expansion, of empire, if you will, unlimited by geography or climate or by anything but the vitality and possibilities of the American people: "Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory belonging to the United States."
Source: Record, 56 Cong., I Sess., pp. 704-712.
