The
second grouping of articles that we have studied from the Imperial Surge focus around the group of men and women who were
known as the Anti-Imperialists. Throughout the articles, different perspectives
were shown about these people, from social reformers to popular writers and
even to psychologist such as William James. The anti-imperialist movement
spread through the upper ranks of society and penetrated many social groups.
Through the writings of Robert Beisner, Teodoro Agoncillo, Thomas Osborne,
Allen Davis, and Richard Welch, we may better understand the foundational
arguments to the anti-imperialist positions; thereby, allowing us to understand
the rational, logical, precedence for the positions these persons took at a
time when going against the United States polices, for most, would have been
social and career suicide. More
importantly, we may grasp an understanding of what drove the founding of major
political groups such as the Anti-Imperial League; in addition to understanding
why perhaps the U.S. may in part have subscribed to the policies in the manner
it did.
The
first three essays that we will analyze focus on providing a better understanding
of who the anti-imperialists were, and why they held the social and political
positions they are now known for defending. In Robert Beisner’s paper “The
Anti-Imperialists Case and Failure”, he begins by showing a parallel between
the anti-imperialist and that of a social, political group, unofficially known
as the “mugwumps”[1].
He characterized those in this group as individuals who held high intellectual
intelligence, high social positions, were not tied to any specific political
party, and above all promoted complex debate on social issues. They promoted
individualism, and viewed issues through a high moral lens. The most important
rule to a Mugwump per Beisner was,
“Above all, the mugwump
thought that his first duty in politics was to be true to himself. He did not look to successful
results for justification of his position. He believed that as long as he pursued the right as he saw it, no other defense of his conduct was necessary.”[2]
Two prominent names that he promotes in the
paper are those of Mark Twain, a famous novelist and writer, and William James
who was a philosopher and psychologist. Beisner continues by providing more
evidence to why the “mugwumps” did not support the imperial policies of the
United States. Quoting form his article, “They held that the price of expansion
abroad would be the repudiation of America’s past and the abandonment of her
special place in the world- a coin too valuable to pay”[3].
Many of those who held this view
believed that imperialist policies were in direct contradiction the both the
Monroe Doctrine and the U.S. Constitution, and by moving away from these, the
U.S. will only hurt American’s moral position in the world. Beisner addresses many other arguments in his
paper pertaining to economic and business issues, ethnic issues, right to
independence and annexation issues, and a great deal more. His article is the
best outline to who to the “mugwumps” were ideologically.
A
second paper that deals quite heavily with explaining who this group of
anti-imperialist were, was the essay by Richard Welch Jr. His article “American
Writers as Anti-Imperialists” dove into more detail about how those in the
writing profession expressed their political ideology through the use of their
works. Poets, essayist, and novelist were the primary make up Welch discusses.
Poets being the most loose worded with their writing. He makes a key point when
talking about how the writers were more prone to emphasize how horrible the
McKinley administration was rather than focusing on the indigenous people’s
independence or struggles. In addition, rather than the peoples being portrayed
as the victim, often times the concept of America or Freedom was victimized
making it seem that America needed to be saved.
Welch shows us that the anti-imperialists were not able to make any
difference when it came to the United States foreign policy pertaining to the
annexations of several small countries such as the Philippines and Guam;
however, these writers did leave a lasting impact. One that would be shown in
later years.
The
Last of the first three articles is written by Allen Davis and presents an
in-depth biography of Jane Addams. Davis article titled, “Jane Addams’s Dissent
from Militaristic Patriotism” provides a more individualistic approach to many
of the anti-imperial arguments and I believe tries to provide some component
allowing the reader to identify with key features of Addams’s ideological
positions. We learn that Jane Addams’s was not born or raised as a pacifist but
was rather lead to the conclusion by the works of a prominent Russia writer,
Leo Tolstoy most famous for his work War
and Peace. We also learn that she was an activist for reform pertaining to
the streets of Chicago. Other than Tolstoy she also read into the works of G.
Stanley Hall and William James. Addams’s and James both were intrigued by the
ideas of a “moral equivalent for war”[4]
and a “predatory spirit”[5].
Although much more is to be said, arguments have been postulated, that in a
truly free capitalist market place these two conceptions can be found in a
non-violent manor. James believes that the predatory spirit is much more
ingrained in human biology; whereas, Jane Addams argues that it is more
socially constructed by the romanticizing of war. Addams pacifistic beliefs can
be strongly seen when Davis quotes here as saying, “That the spectacle of war
has been a great setback to the development and growth of the higher impulse of
civilization”[6].
Although Addams’s provides arguments and a pleasant overall outcome, most of
her psychological arguments toward the “nature” of human beings has been shown
to be wrong, in comparison to James’s theory which argues a stronger more
biological case.
The
last two article focus on a slightly different aspect of the anti-imperialist.
Rather than focusing on who they were and their arguments, Teodoro Agoncillo
and Thomas Osborne take a more historical and political approach. They provide the
narrative and backdrop that these anti- imperialists were seeing and interacting
with politically during the time.
Agoncillo article, “The Filipino Plea for Independence” outline the
political unrest and world affairs that happened immediately following the
French releasing the Philippines from their control. The author walks the reader through
Aguinaldo’s plea with both the United States and the Paris Peace Conference.
The point of this was to show that the Filipino people had established a
legitimate government which held control over the people. This was needed to
secure Independence for the people of the Philippines. Agoncilla also provides
evidence that although the U.S. was supposed to accept this new government; the
Mckinley administration did not. Furthermore, the administration would not
remove military personnel and equipment from the island. As time moved forward, relations became
stretched and degraded to the point of a full military conflict between U.S.
soldiers, led by General MacArthur, and the standing Filipino army led by the
new Filipino government. By the time the conflict ended in 1902, 5,000 U.S.
soldier and 200,000 Filipino soldiers lay dead[7].
Agoncilla’s arguments and outline of events provide an exceptionally clear
picture of this time, and is the most conclusive article in this set. The way
he presents his facts and evidence of how the U.S pushed for the French to
relinquish control over the island and then not follow through on any of the
promises, such as a free and independent nation for the Filipino people, is a blatant
lie to an American ally. In addition to showing that the U.S. could not follow
through on its promises, a negative message was sent worldwide to all U.S.
allies. This is in fact exactly what the “mugwumps” were talking about when
they argued that imperialism would leave a dark stain on the moral fabric of
American foreign policy.
The
finial article for part two of Imperial
Surge, was titled “President Cleveland’s Opposition to the Annexation of
Hawaii”. Osborne’s paper argues that the
“Great Debate” did not begin in 1898, but rather in 1893 with the annexation on
Hawaii to the United States. His argument goes along the line that this event
set a pretext to the American collection of Guam, the Philippines, Puerto Rico,
and Wake Island. The author continues by presenting economic, moral,
constitutional, strategic, racial, and historical arguments to why President
Grover Cleveland was in opposition to imperial foreign policies. The president’s
big two arguments were that first, the Hawaiian government was overthrown
wrongfully with help provided by the USS Boston, and the power should be returned
to Queen Liliuokalani. The second reason is quoted as, “it contemplated a
departure from unbroken American tradition in providing for the addition to our
territory of islands of the sea more than two thousand miles removed from our
nearest coast”[8]. Osborne makes a strong argument that this was
the first-time American law makers had to face the dilemma of annexation and
what the U.S. would be willing to do in such a situation. According to the
anti-imperialist, Congress over reached its role and the annexation of Hawaii should
not have been done. Thereby, lowering the probability that Guam, the
Philippines, Puerto Rico, and Wake Island would have been annexed too.
In
conclusion, the strongest of these articles was “The Filipino Plea for
Independence” by Teodoro Agoncillo. This paper was solid both factually, and
chronologically. Data was presented and his rational arguments were well
organized and defended. Agoncillo also made excellent use of first person
quotations; once again, backing up his timeline of events. In his conclusion
paragraph, he did not make any wide speculations and stuck mostly to his
thesis. This group of articles presented the anti-imperialist arguments and
social political groups that went against the changing sphere of international
politics and the immerging U.S. super power of the 1900s. Anti-imperialistic
rhetoric was not popular and these papers have presented a unique perspective
on U.S. foreign policy of the 1890s to the early 1900s.
2.
Robert Beisner, “The Anti-Imperialists Case and Failure,” in Imperial Surge the
United States Abroad The 1890s – Early 1900s, ed. Thomas Paterson, Stephen Rabe
(Lexington, Toronto: D.C. Health and Company, 1992), pp. 112
3.
Robert Beisner, “The Anti-Imperialists Case and Failure,” in Imperial Surge the United States Abroad The
1890s – Early 1900s, ed. Thomas Paterson, Stephen Rabe (Lexington, Toronto:
D.C. Health and Company, 1992), pp. 113
4.
Allen Davis, “Jane Addams’s Dissent from Militaristic Patriotism,” in Imperial Surge the United States Abroad The
1890s – Early 1900s, ed. Thomas Paterson, Stephen Rabe (Lexington, Toronto:
D.C. Health and Company, 1992), pp. 128
7.
Teodoro Agoncillo, “The Filipino Plea for Independence,” in Imperial Surge the United States Abroad The
1890s – Early 1900s, ed. Thomas Paterson, Stephen Rabe (Lexington, Toronto:
D.C. Health and Company, 1992), pp. 98.
8.
Thomas Osborne, “President Cleveland’s Opposition to the Annexation of Hawaii,”
in Imperial Surge the United States
Abroad The 1890s – Early 1900s, ed. Thomas Paterson, Stephen Rabe
(Lexington, Toronto: D.C. Health and Company, 1992), pp. 95.
Back to Essays
Back to Essays
No comments:
Post a Comment