At different points in his 1898 Thanksgiving Day sermon, pastor Henry Van Dyke

Question

made the following statements:
“To annex, by force . . . these distant, unwilling, and semi-barbarous islands [the
Philippines] is hailed as a new and glorious departure in American history. A new
word—imperialism—has been coined to define it.”
“The very question . . . is whether we have a right to . . . [conquer] unwilling
subjects.”
“Granting that the Philippines need a strong hand to set them in order, it has not
been shown that ours is the only hand.”
“It is the prospect of profit that makes those distant islands gleam before our fancy
as desirable acquisitions. The argument drawn from the supposed need of creating
and fortifying new outlets for our trade has the most practical force. It is the
unconscious desire of rivaling England in her colonial wealth and power.”
“It is contrary to the Constitution of the United States. . . . the Anglo-Saxon ideal of
the supremacy of law . . . is clearly against the legitimacy of a policy of colonial
expansion for this republic.”
—Pastor Henry Van Dyke, Thanksgiving Day Sermon, November 1898
Identify three examples found in Henry Van Dyke’s sermon that supported antiimperialist arguments on why the U.S. should not annex the Philippines. Explain why
these examples supported an anti-imperialist point of view.

Answer 1

Henry Van Dyke's Thanksgiving Day sermon in 1898 provides several arguments that align with anti-imperialist sentiments regarding U.S. annexation of the Philippines. Here are three key examples that support anti-imperialist arguments:

1. Questioning the Right to Conquer Unwilling Subjects:

   • Van Dyke posed the fundamental ethical question of whether the United States has the right to conquer "unwilling subjects." This challenges the moral justification for imperialism by suggesting that it is unjust to impose control over peoples who do not consent to it. Anti-imperialists often argued that the foundational principles of democracy and self-determination should extend not just to the United States, but also to territories and peoples beyond its borders. By highlighting the unwillingness of the Filipinos to be annexed, Van Dyke implicates a violation of core American values of freedom and democracy.

2. The Suggestion of Alternative "Strong Hands":

   • Van Dyke states, “it has not been shown that ours is the only hand” capable of bringing order to the Philippines. This implies that there are other potential leaders or governments that could provide stability and governance without American intervention. Anti-imperialists often argued that imposing American rule was not only unnecessary but also arrogant, as it disregards the agency and capability of the local populations. By underscoring that American intervention is not the sole solution, Van Dyke supports the notion of respecting the rights and abilities of the Filipino people.

3. Profit Motive and Colonial Comparisons:

   • Lastly, Van Dyke addresses the underlying motivations for imperialism, stating, “It is the prospect of profit that makes those distant islands gleam before our fancy as desirable acquisitions.” He connects this to a desire to rival England’s colonial power, which highlights economic gain as a primary driver of imperialism rather than altruistic motivations. Anti-imperialists contended that seeking territories for economic benefits leads to exploitation rather than genuine concern for the well-being of the colonized. By exposing imperialism as a pursuit of profit rather than a mission to civilize or assist, Van Dyke's words resonate with the anti-imperialist perspective that opposes such self-serving motives.

These examples collectively illustrate a principled and ethical stance against the expansion of American influence through annexation, reinforcing the anti-imperialist view that such actions are inconsistent with American values and the rights of other nations and peoples.