identify the claims presented by the anti-imperialists using the text
“Anti-Imperialist Platform”
At the National Conference of Anti-Imperialists in Chicago, October 17, the following address to the people of the United States was adopted:
“The War Is a Criminal Aggression”
“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 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 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 Philippines our purpose to concede to them the independence for which they have so long fought and which of right is theirs.
“The United States has always protested against the doctrine of international law which permits the subjugation of the weak by the strong. A self-governing state cannot accept sovereignty over an unwilling people. The United States cannot act upon the ancient heresy that might makes right.
“Imperialists assume that with the destruction by American hands of self-government in the Philippines all opposition here will cease. This is a grievous error. Much as we abhor the ‘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 enemy is of our own household. The attempt of 1899 is to destroy its fundamental principles and noblest ideals. Whether the ruthless slaughter of the Filipinos shall end next month or next year is but an incident in a contest that must go on until the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States are rescued from the hands of their betrayers.
“Those that dispute about standards of values while the foundation of the Republic is undermined will be listened to as little as those who would wrangle about the small economics of the household while the house is on fire.
“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 Congress betray American liberty in pursuit of un-American ends, and hope that both our great political parties will support and defend the Declaration of Independence in the closing campaign of the century.”
—In Freedom’s Name No. 3, Anti-Imperialist League, Washington, D.C., 1899
“The Opinion of Massachusetts on Imperialism”
Extract from the Speech of Senator George F. Hoar, to the Massachusetts Club, July 29, 1898.
Her opinions on such questions are the fruit of nearly 300 years of a great and honorable history. She will not depart from the Declaration of Independence. She will not depart from the doctrines of liberty laid down in her own Constitution. She will not consent to be the ruler over vassal States or subject peoples. She will enter upon no mad career of empire in distant seas. She will not seek to force her trade upon unwilling peoples at the cannon’s mouth. She will not exact tribute or revenues from men who have no voice in regard to them. She will not consent to enter with the powers of Europe into any partnership, alliance or contest for the plunder of China or the division of Africa, or for the subjugation of the eastern archipelagoes, or for compelling unwilling peoples to trade with her. If the American flag appear in the East, it will be as the emblem of their liberty and not of their dominion. She will desire to meet the great responsibilities which the end of the war seems likely to bring to the American people solely in the interests of the provinces we may deliver from Spain and not for our own. The power of the United States is to be exerted through example and influence, and not by force.
It will be a sad thing for the country, it will be a sad thing for mankind, if the people of the United States come to abandon their fundamental doctrine. We are giving it a hard strain in our dealing with the negro at the South. We are giving it a hard strain in our dealing with the great problem of immigration. But it cannot stand if this country undertake also to exercise dominion over conquered islands, over vassal States, over subject races; if in addition to the differences of race and the differences of education we attempt to govern great masses of people, aliens in birth, of strange language, of different religions. If we do it, our spirit will not, I am afraid—God grant that I may be wrong—the American spirit will not enter into and possess them, but their spirit will enter into and possess us.
An aristocracy or a monarchy may govern subject States. It never was done and never will be done successfully by a democracy or republic.
—Save the Republic: Anti-Imperialist Leaflet No. 13, Anti-Imperialist League, Washington, D.C., 1899
The Anti-Imperialist League: Apologia Pro Vita Sua
The League is now making an earnest, repeated demand for the passage of a resolution by Congress similar to the “Teller amendment” in the Cuban settlement, promising independence to the Filipinos, so that content and good order may be established in the Philippines and hopeful and legitimate progress be made toward the goal which is pointed out to them; the only real security for the fulfilment of the pledge “the Philippines for the Filipinos.” . . .
Those who oppose the end which the Anti-Imperialists have in view may be divided into three classes, leaving aside that inert mass of our citizenship which accepts any existing conditions, not concerning their immediate well being, as inevitable and irremediable.
The first class, the altruists, are, of course, as out-spoken as they are sincere. They believe that roads and bridges, sewers and docks, schools and missions, are vital benefits which make the demand for independence superfluous and vain. Why liberty, when you have bread and circuses? The things are done. What does it matter how or by whom they are done? The despot is benevolent. He points out with complacency the “cleaning up” to his subjects and to mankind! But, as Mr. Thomas Mott Osborne has recently said: “There are no places in the world so offensively and tragically clean as your prisons.” Nothing can palliate the wrong we are doing to the Filipinos in hindering their own national development, however slow it might be, through whatever social and political disturbances it might be brought about. The foreign graft is abnormal and cannot be persistent. No foreign civilization was ever successfully imposed upon a people, and the longer the effort is made, the more certain and the more serious will be the upheaval which must follow when the nation claims its own rights.
Those who believe that the predominance of the United States as a world-power is secured by our possession of the Philippine Islands, include the bureaucracy, the army, and navy classes, whose views and whose ambitions do not make for peace and are not characterized by any breadth of statesmanship. The proper influence of the United States, moral, commercial and social, is unchallengeable and unchallenged. The only serious threat to it lies in the retention of the Philippine Islands and not in our withdrawal from them. National power has been always undermined and will ever be undermined by remote and alien colonial possessions, the easy spoil of an antagonist, ready as opportunity offers to turn against the sovereign who has kept them in chains.
The third class, the class of exploiters, does not make itself so much heard, but it is probable that its influence against the cause of justice is the strongest and most persistent. It can not be converted—it must be attacked and exposed, with its grasping efforts after land grants, concessions and franchises. No benefit can be derived to the country at large from “possessions,” but, especially if they were included within the tariff wall of the United States, they may become profitable to the few capitalists who despoil the land of its wealth, ever clamorous (and often thus successful in destroying a native population), for the introduction of coolie or contract labor, the returns from which will alone satisfy their greed. Against this class appeal can be confidently made to those home industries which would be menaced or destroyed by competition with the products of such labor.
The Anti-Imperialist League has faith to believe that in spite of all that has come and gone, Senator Hoar’s prediction that the fall of the Republic would date from the seizure or purchase of the Philippine Islands may not be realized. As with an individual so with a nation, a new birth into righteousness may be accomplished through repentance and restitution. The atonement made in giving back their independence to the Philippine Islands might purge the United States from that treason to democracy into which it has been betrayed and from which it has suffered at home by the reaction of foreign imperialism, in the assumption by the Executive in the last few years that the end justifies the means, that any methods of procedure, however illegal and violent, may be taken to bring about the object of its desire.
—Erving Winslow, secretary, Anti-Imperialist League, Boston, 1908
1 answer
The Anti-Imperialist League presents several key claims against imperialism in the texts provided. Here’s a summary of those claims:
Violation of Fundamental Principles: The League emphasizes that all individuals, regardless of race or ethnicity, have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as stated in the Declaration of Independence. They argue that the subjugation of any people contradicts the fundamental principles of American democracy.
Criminal Aggression: The League condemns the war against the Philippines as “criminal aggression” and views it as a betrayal of American ideals. They argue that U.S. actions in the Philippines represent a needless and unjust sacrifice of lives and a moral failure.
Consent of the Governed: They assert that a legitimate government derives its power from the consent of the governed, and forcing sovereignty over unwilling peoples is an act of oppression. The idea that "might makes right" is rejected by the League.
Domestic Betrayal: The Anti-Imperialists claim that imperialism endangers American democracy and civil liberties at home. They argue that the real threat lies in the undermining of the Republic's foundational values rather than distant military conflicts.
Refusal of Vassal States: Senator George F. Hoar, in his speech, asserts that America should not assume the role of ruler over "vassal States" or subject peoples and should not engage in imperialist ambitions. He stresses that American power should be exercised through example and influence rather than through force.
Opposition to Altruistic Justifications for Imperialism: The League criticizes the altruistic rationale for imperialism—such as providing infrastructure or education—as insufficient justification for denying independence to the Filipinos. They argue that such actions hinder true national development.
Danger of Imperialism to Democracy: The claim is made that a democracy cannot successfully govern over subject states or foreign populations, and that attempts to do so will corrupt the American spirit and democratic ideals.
Historical Precedent and Moral Responsibility: The League invokes history and the importance of adhering to the foundational principles of liberty and democracy. They call for America to act righteously by granting independence to the Philippines as a means of atoning for its imperial actions.
Opposition to Exploitation: They argue against the economic motivations behind imperialism, asserting that it serves the interests of a small class of exploiters at the expense of both the native populations and American workers.
Political Accountability: The anti-imperialists demand political accountability, proposing to oppose any political figures or parties that support the subjugation of peoples, thereby linking domestic politics with foreign policy decisions.
These claims collectively argue for the immediate cessation of imperialist policies and the promotion of independence for the Filipino people, while simultaneously warning of the broader implications of such policies on American democracy and morality.
1 answer