The Debate over the Philippines

550 Words3 Pages
The Debates over the Philippines “All Men Are Created Equal” is what our Declaration of Independence says. So why has our government not followed the law of the land. In 1898, the United States annexed the Philippines. With the annexation came many debates between Imperialists and Anti-Imperialists over whether acquisition of the Philippines would corrupt American values and undermine democracy. The purpose of this essay is to contrast the views of the Imperialists and the Anti-Imperialists The most notable difference between these two views was the Treaty of Paris that was signed on December 10, 1898. The Imperialistic view was that the United States needed to take control of the islands as an act of “benevolent assimilation,” (Tindall, George and David Shi. America: A Narrative History 8ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2010. Print.) The Imperialists believe that they were saving the Filipinos. They believe that by annexing the Philippines they are giving them national glory, providing many commercial possibilities, showing racial superiority, and educating others about Christianity. The Anti-Imperialists view on the matter was that the acquisition of the Philippines would corrupt American values and undermine democracy. Anti-Imperialists almost prevented the annexation of the Philippines through their lobbying efforts against the Treaty of Paris, which the Senate ultimately ratified by only one vote on February 6, 1899. [“Platform of the American Anti-Imperialist League,” in speeches, correspondence, and Political Papers of Carl Schurz, vol. 6, ed. Frederick Bancroft (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1913). pg.77, n.1.] The next issue is whether the annexation and takeover of the Philippines was constitutional or not. The Imperialists believe that with the destruction of self-government in the Philippines by American hands, all
Open Document