We have insisted on calling the attention of the government to the alleged cruel proceedings as they took place. At the end of last May, in consequence of the reconcentration which the Philippine commission authorized the constabulary to establish, or which it took leave to enforce, not only in Cavite, but also in the other provinces, we gave the matter a thorough examination. The civil commission has just approved a law giving the governor-general power to order reconcentration in the barrios of Cavite and wherever else it should be necessary. Our arguments against this stringent measure have had no influence with the government, and did not produce any amelioration of the conditions.
It seems that the magnanimous spirit which in the American Congress cried out so indignantly against the Weylerian proceedings in Cuba is unconcerned about conditions in the Philippines. The ordinance of the civil commission has fallen like a pestilence on the unfortunate people of Cavite. It is only natural that the present state of affairs should fill us with the gravest apprehension. We say frankly and with deep sorrow that this measure which causes so much suffering is not justified by the good at which it claims to aim. There are created by it feelings of animosity and rancor that will not be forgotten for many years,-- perhaps never. This same view of the situation was taken by a famous American, the son of Gen. Grant.
Does America desire to establish herself in the hearts of the Filipinos? Does she not at least desire to refrain from creating resentment in their minds? Then let her rectify these deeds! "Whoever sows hatred will reap wrath and hatred twofold." We are not ignorant of the object of this rigorous campaign to suppress the outlaws, but the people, especially the lower classes, do not reason, they can only feel, and what affects them are ruin, hunger and nakedness. We can only trust that the authority put into the hands of the governor-general may lie dormant, and especially that he will never employ it to distress the unfortunate townspeople of Cavite..
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 our part in the mission of our race, trustee, under God, of the civilization of the world. And we will move forward to our work, not howling out regrets like slaves whipped to their burdens but with gratitude for a task worthy of our strength and thanksgiving to Almighty God that He has marked us as His chosen people, henceforth to lead in the regeneration of the world.
This island empire is the last land left in all the oceans. If it should prove a mistake to abandon it, the blunder once made would be irretrievable. If it proves a mistake to hold it, the error can be corrected when we will. Every other progressive nation stands ready to relieve us.
But to hold it will be no mistake. 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. She is nearer to us than to England, Germany, or Russia, the commercial powers of the present and the future. They have moved nearer to China by securing permanent bases on her borders. The Philippines give us a base at the door of all the East. . . .
It has been charged that our conduct of the war has been cruel. Senators, it has been the reverse. I have been in our hospitals and seen the Filipino wounded as carefully, tenderly cared for as our own. Within our lines they may plow and sow and reap and go about the affairs of peace with absolute liberty. And yet all this kindness was misunderstood, or rather not understood. Senators must remember that we are not dealing with Americans or Europeans. We are dealing with Orientals. We are dealing with Orientals who are Malays. We are dealing with Malays instructed in Spanish methods. They mistake kindness for weakness, forbearance for fear. It could not be otherwise unless you could erase hundreds of years of savagery, other hundreds of years of Orientalism, and still other hundreds of years of Spanish character and custom. . .
Let men beware how they employ the term "self-government." It is a sacred term. It is the watchword at the door of the inner temple of liberty, for liberty does not always mean self-government. Self-government is a method of liberty - the highest, simplest, best - and it is acquired only after centuries of study and struggle and experiment and instruction and all the elements of the progress of man. Self-government is no base and common thing to be bestowed on the merely audacious. It is the degree which crowns the graduate of liberty, not the name of liberty's infant class, who have not yet mastered the alphabet of freedom. Savage blood, Oriental blood, Malay blood, Spanish example - are these the elements of self-government? . . .
The Declaration of Independence does not forbid us to do our part in the regeneration of the world. If it did, the Declaration would be wrong, just as the Articles of Confederation, drafted by the very same men who signed the Declaration, was found to be wrong. The Declaration has no application to the present situation. It was written by self-governing men for self-governing men. It was written by men who, for a century and a half, had been experimenting in self-government on this continent, and whose ancestors for hundreds of years before had been gradually developing toward that high and holy estate.
The Declaration applies only to people capable of self-government. How dare any man prostitute this expression of the very elect of self-governing peoples to a race of Malay children of barbarism, schooled in Spanish methods and ideas? And you who say the Declaration applies to all men, how dare you deny its application to the American Indian? And if you deny it to the Indian at home, how dare you grant it to the Malay abroad? . . .
The founders of the nation were not provincial. Theirs was the geography of the world. They were soldiers as well as landsmen, and they knew that where our ships should go our flag might follow. They had the logic of progress, and they 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. . . . "
Mr. President, this question is deeper than any question of party politics; deeper than any question of the isolated policy of our country even; deeper even than any question of constitutional power. It is elemental. It is racial. God has not been preparing the English-speaking and Teutonic peoples for a thousand years for nothing but vain and idle self-contemplation and self-admiration. No! He has made us the master organizers of the world to establish system where chaos reigns. He has given us the spirit of progress to overwhelm the forces of reaction throughout the earth. He has made us adepts in government that we may administer government among savage and senile peoples. Were it not for such a force as this the world would relapse into barbarism and night. And of all our race He has marked the American people as His chosen nation to finally lead in the regeneration of the world. This is the divine mission of America, and it holds for us all the profit, all the glory, all the happiness possible to man. We are trustees of the world's progress, guardians of its righteous peace. The judgment of the Master is upon us: "Ye have been faithful over a few things; I will make you ruler over many things. . . ."
That flag has never paused in its onward march. Who dares halt it now - now, when history's largest events are carrying it forward; now, when we are at last one people, strong enough for any task, great enough for any glory destiny can bestow? How comes it that our first century closes with the process of consolidating the American people into a unit just accomplished, and quick upon the stroke of that great hour presses upon us our world opportunity, world duty, and world glory, which none but the people welded into an invisible nation can achieve or perform?
...[J]ust beyond the Philippines are China's illimitable markets... We will not renounce our part in the mission of our race, trustee of God, of the civilization of the world... Where shall we turn for consumers of our surplus?... China is our natural customer... [England, Germany and Russia] have moved nearer to China by securing permanent bases on her borders. The Philippines gives us a base at the door of all the East... They [the Filipinos] are a barbarous race, modified by three centuries of contact with a decadent race [the Spanish]... It is barely possible that 1,000 men in all the archipelago are capable of self-government in the Anglo-Saxon sense... The Declaration [of Independence] applies only to people capable of self-government. How dare any man prostitute this expression of the very elect of self-government peoples to a race of Malay children of barbarism, schooled in Spanish methods and ideas? And you, who say the Declaration applies to all men, how dare you deny its application to the American Indian? And if you deny it to the Indian at home, how dare you grant it to the Malay abroad?
We hold that the policy known as imperialism is hostile to liberty and tends toward militarism, an evil from which it has been our glory to be free. We regret that it has become necessary in the land of Washington and Lincoln to reaffirm that all men, of whatever race or color, are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We maintain that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. We insist that the subjugation of any people is "criminal aggression" and open disloyalty to the distinctive principles of our government.
We earnestly condemn the policy of the present national administration in the Philippines. It seeks to extinguish the spirit of 1776 in those islands. We deplore the sacrifice of our soldiers and sailors, whose bravery deserves admiration even in an unjust war. We denounce the slaughter of the Filipinos as a needless horror. We protest against the extension of American sovereignty by Spanish methods.
We demand the immediate cessation of the war against liberty, begun by Spain and continued by us. We urge that Congress be promptly convened to announce to the Filipinos our purpose to concede to them the independence for which they have so long fought and which of right is theirs. . . .
Imperialists assume that with the destruction of self-government in the Philippines by American hands, all opposition here will cease. This is a grievous error. Much as we abhor the war of "criminal aggression" in the Philippines, greatly as we regret that the blood of the Filipinos is on American hands, we more deeply resent the betrayal of American institutions at home. The real firing line is not in the suburbs of Manila. The foe is of our own household. The attempt of 1861 was to divide the country. That of 1899 is to destroy its fundamental principles and noblest ideals. . . .
We deny that the obligation of all citizens to support their government in times of grave national peril applies to the present situation. If an administration may with impunity ignore the issues upon which it was chosen, deliberately create a condition of war anywhere on the face of the globe, debauch the civil service for spoils to promote the adventure, organize a truth-suppressing censorship, and demand of all citizens a suspension of judgement and their unanimous support while it chooses to continue the fighting, representative government itself is imperiled.
We propose to contribute to the defeat of any person or party that stands for the forcible subjugation of any people. We shall oppose for re-election all who in the white house or in congress betray American liberty in pursuit of un-American ends. We still hope that both of our great political parties will support and defend the declaration of independence in the closing campaign of the century.
We hold with Abraham Lincoln, that "no man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent. When the white man governs himself, that is self-government, but when he governs himself and also governs another man, that is more than self-government--that is despotism." "Our reliance is in the love of liberty which God has planted in us. Our defense is in the spirit which prizes liberty as the heritage of all men in all lands. Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves, and under a just God cannot long retain it."
We cordially invite the co-operation of all men and women who remain loyal to the declaration of independence and the constitution of the United States.
Students will examine how political cartoonists conveyed the arguments for or against the Philippine-American War and U.S. imperialism.
Students will create their own political cartoons about key aspects of the Philippine-American War.
Step 1: Students view Savage Acts.
Step 2: (Optional: Use "Lessons in Looking: Imperialism Cartoons" as an introduction to the activity.) Tell students that they will be creating their own political cartoons using symbols and words from the early twentieth century to tell about key aspects of the Philippine-American War. Pass out Cartoon Symbols and Cartoon Words handouts and go over them with students to make sure that everyone understands their meanings.
Step 3: Divide students into at least five pairs or groups. Each pair or group will be working on one of five topics about the Philippine-American War.
War in the Philippines fostered an anti-imperialist movement in the United States.
The sense of national greatness, industrial progress, and racial superiority that was celebrated at home at the 1893 World's Fair became the ideological basis for U.S. expansion overseas.
Led by Emilio Aguinaldo, Filipinos were fighting for an independent republic and viewed the U.S. as an extension of Spanish colonialism.
Racial and cultural superiority (i.e., "the white man's burden") helped to justify U.S. intervention in the Philippines.
The desire to expand U.S. commercial and military power motivated U.S. intervention in the Philippines.
Fold up copies of "Worksheet for Cartooning the Philippine-American War" and have each group choose one. Whichever one they choose will tell them which historical understanding they will be conveying in their cartoons. (Note: If more than 5 groups, then make sure there are duplicates of some planning worksheets so there are enough for each group.)
Step 4: Have students plan a political cartoon that conveys their historical understanding on the planning worksheet. Students should use at least some of the cartoon objects and cartoon words included in the activity, though they may also add some of their own phrases and objects. Students should plan their cartoons with paper, scissors, glue and markers, cutting things apart and laying them out as they would like them to appear projected on the screen. Students should write their own captions for their cartoons.
Step 5: If using Smartboard, students should mock up their cartoons on Smartboard so they can be conveyed to the entire group. If not using Smartboard, then students should create a finished draft of their cartoon large enough for the group to see. The cartoons must not indicate explicitly which historical understanding they are designed to illustrate.
Step 6: On Smartboard or with posters, the whole class should view and analyze each cartoon. (The group that created the cartoon should not analyze its own cartoon.) Then the group should decide which cartoon matches with which historical understanding. (To facilitate the judging, write all of the historical understandings on the blackgboard or pass out a sheet with the 5 historical understandings.)
Students will describe the issues surrounding the U.S. annexation of the Philippines from a variety of perspectives.
Students will debate with each other the various arguments for and against annexation and attempt to form consensus. Â
Americans divided sharply in 1899 over whether to annex the Philippines as part of the United States. In 1900 Democratic presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan, running for a second time against William McKinley, made anti-imperialism the central issue of his campaign. McKinley won easily and historian Walter LaFeber has argued that Bryan's defeat showed that the American public had reached a fundamental consensus in favor of American expansionism abroad. "By 1899," LaFeber concludes, "the United States had forged a new empire." Still, the conflict between imperialists, isolationists, and Filipinos who fought for their nation's independence would echo in debates over U.S. foreign policy for the rest of the twentieth century.
Step 1: Analyzing the Documents
Divide the class into small groups (3-8 students) and give each group a packet of all the documents. Â Each group member should choose ONE of the documents to closely examine. Â The group member will debate the annexation of the Philippines from the perspective of the writer of his or her document. Â Make sure that each group includes at least one pro-annexation view, one anti-annexation, and one Filipino perspective. Â After reading the document assigned to them, the students should skim the other documents in the packet. Â
Step 2: Preparing to Debate
Students prepare to debate from the perspectives of their characters, by answering the following questions:
What is the name of your character (i.e., the author of the document)?
What position is your character taking on the question of annexation (making the United States part of the Philippines)? What are his/her reasons?
What more would you like to know about your character?
Why do you think your character thinks the way he or she does? Â What would it take to change his or her thinking somewhat?
What are some of the reasons on the other side of the argument?
If your character had to try to reach a consensus or compromise with others who disagree, what kind of compromise would your character be willing to accept? Â What would he or she not be willing to compromise on?
Step 3: Choosing a Recorder
Each group should choose a person to record the debate. Â That person should make a chart with space for reasons for and against U.S. annexation of the Philippines.
Step 4: Presenting the Views from the Documents
Each group member, pretending to be the person who wrote their assigned document, should present that person's view on annexation to the rest of the group. Â The recorder should make note of pro and con arguments on the chart.
Step 5: Debate
When everyone has presented his or her view, students should continue discussing and debating the question of U.S. annexation. Â They should use the documents and their authors as the basis for the debate; they should strive to STAY IN CHARACTER.
Step 6: Reaching a Consensus
By the end of the debate, group members should try to reach a consensus--a compromise on which everyone can agree--about what position the U.S. should take on the question of annexing the Philippines. Â Participants should refer to their answers from Step 2. Â
Step 7: Report to the Class
Members of each group should share with their classmates what kind of consensus they reached. Â If the group was unable to reach a consensus, they should explain why not. Â