2015: Section 2---2 pro, 2 anti; 1 senateSection 1: 5 pro, 5 anti, 3 senate

Pro-Imperialism:1. Theodore Roosevelt Ken, Emilio

2. Josiah Strong J.J.3. Henry Cabot Lodge Diego

4. Senator Albert J. Beveridge

Gabriel

5. William McKinley Gaby, Mateo

Anti-Imperialism1. Queen Liliuokalani Kathryn

2. William Jennings Bryan Jeanine; Jovanna3. Emilio Aguinaldo

(Philippines)Christian

4. Anti Imperialist League Drew; Angelo5. Mark Twain Jesse

Senators A: AshwiniB: Abby, G.L, Isa

Decide whether the U.S. should build a canal through Panama.Listen to the testimonies and arguments of the

countries/people who have experienced it or led it.

Goal: Persuade the U.S. Senate to vote for your opinion.Make Card with Nametag (white paper, with character name on

one side and stance)

Time Limit: 2 min per personOpening Statement: 1 side

Write notes.

2nd side: RebuttalWrite notes

ResponseClosing statement.

Pro-imperialism/annexationhttp://wps.ablongman.com/long_nash_ap_6/9/2312/592049.cw/

index.html

1. What is the name of your character (i.e., author of your document)?2. What position is your character taking on the question of annexation (making the United States part of the Philippines)? What are his / her reasons?3. What more would you like to know about your character?4. Why do you think your character thinks the way he / she does? What would it take to change his / her thinking somewhat? 5. What are some of the reasons on the other side of the argument? 6. 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? What would he /she not be willing to compromise on?7. What principles should govern American foreign policy?8. When should the United States interfere in the internal affairs of a foreign country?

Theodore RooseveltPro-imperialism/annexation

If we seek merely swollen, slothful ease and ignoble peace, if we shrink from the hard contests where men must win at the hazard of their lives and at the risk of all they hold dear, then bolder and stronger peoples will pass us by, and will win for themselves the domination of the world.Theodore Roosevelt, 1900

There is a homely adage which runs, "Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far." If the American nation will speak softly and yet build and keep at a pitch of the highest training a thoroughly efficient navy, the Monroe Doctrine will go far. Theodore Roosevelt, 1901

It is not true that the United States feels any land hunger or entertains any projects as regards the other nations of the Western Hemisphere save such as are for their welfare. All that this country desires is to see the neighboring countries stable, orderly and prosperous....Chronic wrongdoing, or an impotence which results in a general loosening of the ties of civilized society, may in America, as elsewhere, ultimately require intervention...[and] force the United States, however reluctantly, in flagrant cases of such wrongdoing or impotence, to the exercise of an internal police power.Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, 1904

Josiah StrongPro-Imperialism/Annexation

To Christianize:The two great needs of mankind, that all men may be lifted into the light of the highest Christian civilization, are, first, a pure, spiritual Christianity, and, second, civil liberty....It follows then, that the Anglo-Saxon, as the great representative of these two ideas, the depository of these two great blessings, sustains peculiar relations to the world's future, is divinely commissioned to be, in a peculiar sense, his brother's keeper. Josiah Strong, 1885

Josiah Strong, Our Country (1885)

It seems to me that God, with infinite wisdom and skill, is training the Anglo-Saxon race for an hour sure to come in the world's future. Heretofore there has always been in the history of the world a comparatively unoccupied land westward, into which the crowded countries of the East have poured their surplus populations. But the widening waves of migration, which millenniums ago rolled east and west from the valley of the Euphrates, meet to-day on our Pacific coast. There are no more new worlds. The unoccupied arable lands of the earth are limited, and will soon be taken. The time is coming when the pressure of population on the means of subsistence will be felt here as it is now felt in Europe and Asia. Then will the world enter upon a new stage of its history--the final competition of races, for which the Anglo-Saxon is being schooled. …What if it should be God's plan to people the world with better and finer material?Certain it is, whatever expectations we may

indulge, that there is a tremendous overbearing surge of power in the Christian nations, which, if the others are not speedily raised to some vastly higher capacity, will inevitably submerge and bury them forever. These great populations of Christendom--what are they doing, but throwing out their colonies on every side, and populating themselves, if I may so speak, into the possession of all countries and climes? To this result no war of extermination is needful; the contest is not one of arms, but of vitality and of civilization…Every civilization has its destructive and preservative elements. The Anglo-Saxon race would speedily decay but for the salt of Christianity. Bring savages into contact with our civilization, and its destructive forces become operative at once, while years are necessary to render effective the saving influences of Christian instruction. Moreover, the pioneer wave of our civilization carries with it more scum than salt. Where there is one missionary, there are hundreds of miners or traders or adventurers ready to debauch the native….Thus, while on this continent God is training the Anglo-Saxon race for its mission, a complemental work has been in progress in the great world beyond. God has two hands. Not only is he preparing in our civilization the die with which to stamp the nations, but, by what Southey called the "timing of Providence," he is preparing mankind to receive our impress.” –Josiah Strong

Albert J. BeveridgePro-Imperialism

View that these nations are not capable of Self Government:“God has not been preparing the English-speaking and Teutonic peoples for a thousand years for nothing but vain and idle self-admiration. No....He has made us adept in government that we may administer government among savage and senile peoples....He has marked the American people as His chosen nation to finally lead in the redemption of the world.”

“The opposition tells us that we ought not to govern a people without their consent. I answer, the rule of liberty that all just government derives its authority from the consent of the governed, applies only to those who are capable of self-government.

We govern the Indians without their consent; we govern the territories without their consent; we govern our children without their consent. I answer, would not the natives of the Philippines prefer the just, humane, civilizing government of the Republic to the savage, bloody rule of pillage and extortion from which we have rescued them?”From a speech in Congress on January 9, 1900. . . . [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.Congressional Record, 56th Congress, 1st session, 704-711. Full speech available at http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/ajb72.htm.

Henry Cabot Lodge

Pro-ImperialismFor Commerce/Business Reasons/For Their Resources: What He’s Really SayingThus...duty and interest alike, duty of the highest kind and interest of the highest and best kind, impose upon us the retention of the Philippines, the development of the islands, and the expansion of our Eastern commerce.Henry Cabot Lodge

"The Business World vs. the Politicians" (1895)

If the Democratic party has had one cardinal principle beyond all others, it has been that of pushing forward the boundaries of the United States.

Thomas Jefferson, admitting that he violated the Constitution while he did it, effected the Louisiana purchase, but Mr. Cleveland has labored to overthrow American interests and American control in Hawaii. Andrew Jackson fought for Florida, but Mr. Cleveland is eager to abandon Samoa. . . . It is the melancholy outcome of the doctrine that there is no higher aim or purpose for men or for nations than to buy and sell, to trade jack-knives and make everything cheap. …

It is time to recall what we have been tending to forget: that we have always had and that we have now a foreign policy which is of great importance to our national well-being.

The foundation of that policy was Washington's doctrine of neutrality. To him and to Hamilton we owe the principle that it was not the business of the United States to meddle in the affairs of Europe. When this policy was declared, it fell with a shock upon the Americans of that day, for we were still colonists in habits of thought and could not realize that the struggles of Europe did not concern us. Yet the establishment of the neutrality policy was one of the greatest services which Washington and Hamilton rendered to the cause of American nationality.

The corollary of Washington's policy was the Monroe doctrine, the work of John Quincy Adams, a much greater man than the President whose name it bears. Washington declared that it was not the business of the United States to meddle in the affairs of Europe, and John Quincy Adams added that Europe must not meddle in the Western hemisphere. As I have seen it solemnly stated recently that the annexation of Hawaii would be a violation of the Monroe doctrine, it is perhaps not out of place to say that the Monroe doctrine has no bearing on the extension of the United States, but simply holds that no European power shall establish itself in the Americas or interfere with American governments.

The neutrality policy and the Monroe doctrine are the two great principles established at the outset by far-seeing statesmen in regard to the foreign relations of the United

States..

But Washington never for an instant thought that we were to remain stationary and cease to move forward. He saw, with prophetic vision, as did no other man of his time, the true course for the American people. He could not himself enter into the promised land, but he showed it to his people, stretching from the Blue Ridge to the Pacific Ocean. We have followed the teachings of Washington.

We have taken the great valley of the Mississippi and pressed on beyond the Sierras. We have a record of conquest, colonization, and territorial expansion unequalled by any people in the nineteenth century. We are not to be curbed now by the doctrines of the Manchester school which have never been observed in England, and which as an importation are even more absurdly out of place here than in their native land.

..We desire no extension to the south, for neither the population nor the lands of Central or South America would be desirable additions to the United States. But from the Rio Grande to the Arctic Ocean there should be but one flag and one country. Neither race nor climate forbids this extension, and every consideration of national growth and national welfare demands it.

In the interests of our commerce and of our fullest development we should build the Nicaragua canal, and for the protection of that canal and for the sake of our commercial supremacy in the Pacific we should control the Hawaiian Islands and maintain our influence in Samoa.

..Commerce follows the flag, and we should build up a navy strong enough to give protection to Americans in every quarter of the globe and sufficiently powerful to put our coasts beyond the possibility of successful attack.

…For more than thirty years we have been so much absorbed with grave domestic questions that we have lost sight of these vast interests which lie just outside our borders. They ought to be neglected no longer. They are not only of material importance, but they are matters which concern our greatness as a nation and our future as a great people. They appeal to our national honor and dignity and to the pride of country and of race.”

President William McKinleyPro-Imperialism/Annexation

“First. In the cause of humanity and to put an end to the barbarities, bloodshed, starvation, and horrible miseries

now existing there [in Cuba], and which the parties to the conflict are either unable or unwilling to stop or mitigate....

Second. We owe it to our citizens in Cuba to afford them that protection and indemnity for life and property....

Third. The right to intervene may be justified by the very serious injury to the commerce, trade, and business of our people and by he wanton destruction of property and devastation of the island.”-President McKinley's call for war against Spain, 1898In an interview with a visiting church delegation published in 1903, President William McKinley defends his decision to support the annexation of the Philippines in the wake of the U.S. war in that country:“When next I realized that the Philippines had dropped into our laps I confess I did not know what to do with them....I walked the floor of the White House night after night until midnight; and I am not ashamed to tell you, gentlemen, that I went down on my knees and prayed Almighty God for light and guidance....And one night late it came to me this way....

(1) that we could not give them back to Spain--that would be cowardly and dishonorable;

(2) That we could not turn them over to France or Germany--our commercial rivals in the Orient--that would be bad business and discreditable; (3) That we could not leave them to themselves--they were unfit for self-government--and they would soon have anarchy and misrule worse than Spain's war;

(4) That there was nothing left for us to do but to take them all, and to educate the Filipinos, and uplift and civilize and Christianize them as our fellow men for whom Christ also died.”

Source: General James Rusling, “Interview with President William McKinley,” The Christian Advocate 22

William Jennings Bryan Anti Imperialism/Annexation

(Democratic presidential candidate in 1896 and 1900)

“Imperialism is the policy of an empire. And an empire is a nation composed of different

races, living under varying forms of government. A republic cannot be an empire, for a republic rests upon the theory that the government derive their powers from the consent of the government and colonialism violates this theory.

We do not want the Filipinos for citizens. They cannot, without danger to us, share in the government of our nation and moreover, we cannot afford to add another race question to the race questions which we already have.

Neither can we hold the Filipinos as subjects even if we could benefit them by so doing. . . .

Our experiment in colonialism has been unfortunate. Instead of profit, it has brought loss. Instead of strength, it has brought weakness. Instead of glory, it has brought humiliation.  "Speeches of William Jennings Bryan," Michigan State University Voice Library. Audio version available on the CD-ROM Who Built America?, 1876-1914, by the American Social History Project. For historical commentary and links to many of Bryan's speeches on imperialism, see http://www.boondocksnet.com/ail/bryan.html.

[38] If we have an imperial policy we must have a great standing army as its natural and necessary complement.  The spirit which will justify the forcible annexation of the Philippine islands will justify the seizure of other islands and the domination of other people, and with wars of conquest we can expect a certain if not rapid, growth of our military establishment….

[41] A large standing army is not only a pecuniary burden to the people, and, if accompanied by compulsory service, a constant source of irritation, but it is ever a

menace to a republican form of government.

[42] The army is the personification of force, and militarism will inevitably change the ideals of the people and turn the thoughts of our young men from the arts of peace to the science of war. The government which relies for its defense upon its citizens is more likely to be just than one which has at call a large body of professional soldiers.…[51] If the Porto Ricans, who welcomed annexation, are to be denied the guarantees of our constitution, what is to be the lot of the Filipinos, who resisted our authority?

If secret influences could compel a disregard of our plain duty toward friendly people, living near our shores, what treatment will those same influences provide for unfriendly people 7,000 miles away?

If, in this country where the people have a right to vote, republican leaders dare not take the side of the people against the great monopolies which have grown up within the last few years, how can they be trusted to protect the Filipinos from the corporations which are waiting to exploit the islands?

[52] Is the sunlight of full citizenship to be enjoyed by the people of the United States, and the twilight of semi-citizenship endured by the people of Porto Rico, while the thick darkness of perpetual vassalage covers the Philippines? The Porto Rico tariff law asserts the doctrine that the operation of the constitution is confined to the forty-five States.…[58] Let us consider briefly the reasons which have been given in support of an imperialistic policy. Some say that it is our duty to hold the Philippine islands. But duty is not an argument; it is a conclusion.

To ascertain what our duty is, in any emergency, we must apply well settled and generally accepted principles. It is our duty to avoid stealing, no matter whether the thing to be stolen is of great or little value. It is our duty to avoid killing a human being, no matter where the human being lives or to what race or class he belongs.

[71] “Can we not govern colonies?” we are asked. The question is not what we can do, but what we ought to do. This nation can do whatever it desires to do, but it must accept responsibility for what it does. 

If the constitution stands in the way, the people can amend the constitution.  I repeat, the nation can do whatever it desires to do, but it cannot avoid the natural and legitimate results of its own conduct.”

http://voicesofdemocracy.umd.edu/william-jennings-bryan-imperialism-speech-text/

Emilio Aguinaldo (President of the Independent Philippine Republic)

Anti imperialism/annexation Perspective

From "To the Philippine People" in Major-General E.S. Otis, Report of Military Operations and Civil Affairs in the Philippine Islands, 1899 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1899), 95-96.

What He’s Really Saying

“I published the grievances suffered by the

Philippine forces at the hand of the [U.S] army of occupation. The constant outrages and taunts, which have caused misery of the people of Manila, and, finally, the useless conferences and the contempt shown the Philippine government prove the premeditated transgression of justice and liberty. . . . I have tried to avoid, as far as it has been possible for me to do so, armed conflict, in my endeavors to assure our independence by pacific means and to avoid more costly sacrifices. But all my efforts have been useless against the measureless pride of the American government. .” Reprinted in D. Schirmer and S.R. Shalom (eds.), The Philippines Reader (Boston: South End Press, 1987), 20-21.

Letter to U.S. Government, June 1900.

“God Almighty knows how unjust is the war which the Imperial arms have provoked and are maintaining against our unfortunate country!

If the honest American patriots could understand the sad truth of this declaration, we are sure they would, without the least delay, stop this unspeakable horror.

When we protested against this iniquitous ingratitude, then the guns of the United States were turned upon us; we were denounced as traitors and rebels; you destroyed the homes to which you had been welcomed as honored guests, killing thousands of those who had been your allies, mutilating our old men, our women and our children, and watering with blood and strewing with ruins the beautiful soil of our Fatherland.

… the Spanish government, whose despotic cruelty American Imperialism now imitates, and in some respects surpasses, denied to us

many of the liberties which you were already enjoying when, under pretext of oppression, you revolted against British domination.

Why do the Imperialists wish to subjugate us? What do they intend to do with us? Do they expect us to surrender -- to yield our inalienable rights, our homes, our properties, our lives, our future destinies, to the absolute control of the United States?

What would you do with our nine millions of people? Would you permit us to take part in your elections? Would you concede to us the privilege of sending Senators and Representatives to your Congress? Would you allow us to erect one or more federal states? Or, would you tax us without representation? Would you change your tariff laws so as to admit our products free of duty and in competition with the products of our own soil?”

Anti-Imperialist League"The Real White Man's Burden" by Ernest Howard Crosby

Take up the White Man's burden;

Send forth your sturdy sons,And load them down with whiskyAnd Testaments and guns …

And don't forget the factories.On those benighted shoresThey have no cheerful iron-millsNor eke department stores.They never work twelve hours a day,And live in strange content,

Altho they never have to payA single cent of rent.

Take up the White Man's burden,And teach the PhilippinesWhat interest and taxes areAnd what a mortgage means.Give them electrocution chairs,And prisons, too, galore,And if they seem inclined to kick,Then spill their heathen gore.

They need our labor question, too,And politics and fraud,We've made a pretty mess at home;Let's make a mess abroad.And let us ever humbly prayThe Lord of Hosts may deignTo stir our feeble memories,Lest we forget -- the Maine.

Take up the White Man's burden;To you who thus succeedIn civilizing savage hoardsThey owe a debt, indeed;Concessions, pensions, salaries,And privilege and right,With outstretched hands you raise to blessGrab everything in sight.

Take up the White Man's burden,And if you write in verse,Flatter your Nation's vicesAnd strive to make them worse.Then learn that if with pious wordsYou ornament each phrase,In a world of canting hypocritesThis kind of business pays.

Nations Must Want the U.S. to Help“A self-governing state cannot accept sovereignty over an unwilling people. The United States cannot act upon the ancient heresy that might makes right.”

Imperialism goes against U.S. view of freedom and democracy

Mark Twain was an avid anti-imperialist. He commented frequently on his opposition to the annexation of the Philippines (See Twain's Comments on Imperialism). His executors suppressed some of his more controversial social and political writings after his death. One of these, To the Person Sitting in Darkness, is a satire of the American-Filipino war. Here is an excerpt.

The plan developed, stage by stage, and quite satisfactorily. We entered into a military alliance with the trusting Filipinos, and they hemmed in Manila on the land side, and by their valuable help the place, with its garrison of 8,000 or 10,000 Spaniards, was captured -- a thing which we could not have accomplished unaided at that time. We got their help by -- by ingenuity. We knew they were fighting for their independence, and that they had been at

it for two years. We knew they supposed that we also were fighting in their worthy cause -- just as we had helped the Cubans fight for Cuban independence -- and we allowed them to go on thinking so. Until Manila was ours and we could get along without them. Then we showed our hand. Of course, they were surprised -- that was natural; surprised and disappointed; disappointed and grieved. To them it looked un-American; uncharacteristic; foreign to our established traditions. And this was natural, too; for we were only playing the American Game in public -- in private it was the European. It was neatly done, very neatly, and it bewildered them. They could not understand it; for we had been so friendly -- so affectionate, even -- with those simple-minded patriots! We, our own selves, had brought back out of exile their leader, their hero, their hope, their Washington -- Aguinaldo; brought him in a warship, in high honor, under the sacred shelter and hospitality of the flag; brought him back and restored him to his people, and got their moving and eloquent gratitude for it. Yes, we had been so friendly to them, and had heartened them up in so many ways! We had lent them guns and ammunition; advised with them; exchanged pleasant courtesies with them; placed our sick and wounded in their kindly care; entrusted our Spanish prisoners to their humane and honest hands; fought shoulder to shoulder with them against "the common enemy" (our own phrase); praised their courage, praised their gallantry, praised their mercifulness, praised their fine and honorable conduct; borrowed their trenches, borrowed strong positions which they had previously captured from the Spaniard; petted them, lied to them -- officially proclaiming that our land and naval forces came to give them their freedom and displace the bad Spanish Government -- fooled them, used them until we needed them no longer; then derided the sucked orange and threw it away. We kept the positions which we had beguiled them of; by and by, we moved a force forward and overlapped patriot ground -- a clever thought, for we needed trouble, and this would produce it. A Filipino soldier, crossing the ground, where no one had a right to forbid him, was shot by our sentry. The badgered patriots resented this with arms, without waiting to know whether Aguinaldo, who was absent, would approve or not. Aguinaldo did not approve; but that availed nothing. What we wanted, in the interest of Progress and Civilization, was

the Archipelago, unencumbered by patriots struggling for independence; and the War was what we needed. We clinched our opportunity. http://www.historywiz.com/primarysources/marktwain-darkness.htm

What is Mark Twain’s opinion?

What reasons does he give for the U.S. imperializing and the negative effects of these?

1. What is the name of your character (i.e., author of your document)?2. What position is your character taking on the question of annexation (making the United States part of the Philippines)? What are his / her reasons?3. What more would you like to know about your character?4. Why do you think your character thinks the way he / she does? What would it take to change his / her thinking somewhat? 5. What are some of the reasons on the other side of the argument?

6. 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? What would he /she not be willing to compromise on?4. What principles should govern American foreign policy?5. When should the United States interfere in the internal affairs of a foreign country?http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/historyonline/us27.cfm