Industrialize The Philippines Dbq Analysis

Why is it that the nation of freedom finds the will of the people as its greatest foe? In the Imperialistic time of 1870-1914, western countries built their empires by taking over other territories. The United States, previously isolationists, debated partaking in foreign affairs during and after the Spanish-American war of 1989. Originally, Americans helped the Cubans which were rebelling against Spanish control for their independence. After four months, the U.S. won substantially; Americans acquired Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines with the Treaty of Paris. Imperialists wanted to annex the Philippines to sell goods and extract resources to progress industrialization. Although there was a possibility of economic benefit, the United

States should not have annexed the Philippines to preserve its reputation, limit corruption, and saving lives.
The insincerity of America with adding the Philippines would undo all the respect citizens had fought for in the first place. If the Philippines were annexed when Americans knew that Filipino people fought for independence, the U.S. would turn into the nation it originally escaped from. The hypocrisy would be clearly seen through ignoring the will of the people and only seeing money against the Constitution’s values. This would easily prevent future alliances and third parties trading with America by not wishing for their reputation to be turned into the same. Furthermore, Washington’s Farewell Address stated, “let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity,” (Document E). Since this was from his final Presidential speech, the audience must know that these words were highly important to a revered man. Other than applying to permanent alliances, it was understood that America was helping the Filipino people fight for freedom; the nation cannot turn its back on the people when it feels greedy. According to Charles Denby, the United States had absolutely no reason why the Filipino and American people cannot both be pleased by U.S. control (Document G). The unmissable fault in the statement was the ignorance by the Minister to China. He neglected to rebuttal the many oppositions to annexing; the trend of allowing officials to dismiss the other argument without facts leads to irrational arguing and decisions.
With hopes of limiting corruption, the U.S.

could not rightfully seize the Philippines. McKinley, an imperialist presidential candidate against Bryan, gave a speech to clergymen in 1899. McKinley attributed his will to annex the Philippines to God for guiding him (Document C). At an opposition to those words. Christianity is truly against violence and injustice yet the Filipino people were at crystal clear unrest with not being free. Since McKinley was speaking to clergymen instead of nonreligious individuals, he could have used religion as a way to snatch votes against the anti-imperialist Bryan. In his speech to like-minded citizens of the same political party, Bryan stated that God’s order to preach the gospel “has no Gatling gun attachment” (Document D). At the Democratic National Convention, he knew many people would vote for him as a Democrat; Bryan did not need to be corrupt and lie about his opinion. Beyond this, these words opposed Imperialism as a whole which strongly emphasized military, particularly the Navy. Using force to steal land would further ruin a nation’s image and could hurt existing trade relationships. Promoting unfair power usage only makes light of political machines, monopolies, and other greediness. Progressives could have been discouraged by the government’s lack of care about morality and not strive for it. To preserve its morals since its birth and prevent corruption, America should not have annexed the

Philippines.
In order to save the lives of both territories’ people, the Philippines should not have been stolen from the Filipinos. For example, the opposing Albert J. Beveridge said governing territories without approval is justified if they are incapable of self-government (Document B). Here, Beveridge heavily implied the incompetency of the Filipinos through the imperialist debate. Controlling others to their opposition appears very similar to slavery which America had fought a self-destructing battle over. The Civil War began as a population which claimed superiority over another and wanted economic power from it. Since imperialists did not take heed to these or other words, lives were lost when Aguinaldo organized a rebellion against American rule. 205,000 people—Filipino and American—died in fights during 1901 (United States History: Reconstruction to the Present). War under preventable conditions would be equivalent to burning thousands of dollar bills, too. Before this happened, the Platform of the American Anti-Imperialist League had detested the deaths of American soldiers and Filipinos in 1899 (Document A). There were many warnings to annexation yet they were dismissed due to unfounded reasons like religion.
In conclusion, the United States should not have annexed the Philippines to preserve its reputation, stop corruption, and prevent death. Naturally, the opposition would cite religion and financial benefit as a reason to annex. Religion is unfactual so irrelevant to this debate, and economic gain from hypocrisy is unjustifiable. America needs to focus on upholding its principles so as to fulfill an honorable life.