The Anti-Imperialists On an early May morning in 1898, the American Pacific Fleet sailed into the blue waters

of Manila Bay. In a stunningly quick battle the Americans, under the command of Commodore George Dewey, annihilated all the Spanish naval forces in the Philippines. In the course of less than four months during 1898 the American military won an amazing victory over Spanish forces during the Spanish-American War. The war ushered in a new era for America; we were now considered a world power and no longer an isolationist nation. This success also gave rise to a new spirit of ultra-patriotism and caused a growing number of people to advocate imperialism back at home. Imperialism is a state policy, practice, or advocacy of extending power and dominion, especially by direct territorial acquisition or by gaining political and economic control of other areas.1 In the years leading up to the war, many American military and political leaders like Admiral Alfred Mahan, Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, and Assistant Secretary of the Navy Theodore Roosevelt had already been urging America to enter the imperialistic race or face being left behind by European powers. European nations such as France, Germany, and Great Britain were dividing up whole continents like Africa into colonies that they could exploit for natural resources and markets. Even before the Spanish-American War was over, many Americans were worried that the war to liberate Cuba might degenerate into a war of American conquest for colonies. Only a few days after Deweys lopsided victory in the Philippines, rumors began to circulate in America that the McKinley administration planned to keep the islands as an American colony after the war was over. In June 1898, the Filipino rebel, Emilio Aguinaldo, who had helped American forces fight the Spanish, declared the Philippines an independent nation. Back in America, the rumor continued to spread that the United States was going to ignore the Filipinos desire for freedom. Concerned citizens held a meeting at Faneuil Hall in Boston to discuss the current war and its purpose. The group declared that it did not oppose the war, but insisted that it must be waged as a war of liberation and not be turned into one for empire.2 They stated that America had enough problems to fix at home, and the government should focus its energies and resources on reform instead of taking alien people under their rule. This faction of prominent Bostonians expressed their opinion through many passing several resolutions, and last of all they created the Anti-Imperialist Committee of Correspondence. This smaller group was charged with advocating their anti-imperialist ideas to the government and the American people. Just like the Patriots Committee of Correspondence of old spread the word of British tyranny in colonial times, this committee mailed out pamphlets and letters to people all over America. The Faneiul Hall meeting concluded during the summer of 98 with very little national attention; the only newspapers that covered the event were local Massachusetts papers. Nevertheless, this meeting was the first move to organize anti-imperialist thought and protests in America. Two months later in August of 1898, the Spanish sued for peace ending the splendid little war. Soon American and Spanish delegates were sent to Paris, France, to formulate the treaty that would officially end the war. As the weeks went on, reports from Paris made it clear that America was turning to imperialism and intended to take control of the Philippines and other Spanish territories. Almost immediately, politicians and authors began to argue for or against such a move. The ultra-nationalistic and pro-imperialistic view was perhaps best expressed by Republican politician Albert Beveridge, a prominent lawyer in Indiana, who was running for the U.S. Senate in 1898. In his campaign speeches he made it clear that he felt that it was Gods plan (Providence) for America to take over lands from Spain:

Fellow Americans, we are God's chosen peopleHis power directed Dewey in the East and delivered the Spanish fleet into our hands We cannot retreat from any soil where Providence has unfurled our banner; it is ours to save that soil for Liberty and Civilization. For Liberty and Civilization and God's promise fulfilled, the [American] flag must henceforth be the symbol and the sign to all mankindthe flag!3 He continued by answering those people who said that Americans cannot rule people against their will because our system is based on the concept that government derives its power from the consent of the governed. Beveridge said with disdain, 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.4 The voters of Indiana sent Beveridge to the Senate! The Anti-Imperialist Committee of Correspondence felt the creation of a national organization was critical to opposing the imperialistic treaty being discussed in Paris. On November 19, 1898 they met in Boston and wrote a constitution for The Anti-Imperialist League. The constitution invited anyone who supported its views, irrespective of political party, to join the league. The league elected George Sewall Boutwell, 80 years old, to be their first president. Boutwell was a former Democratic senator, governor of Massachusetts, and Secretary of the Treasury. The league soon had forty-one vice-presidents (members) that came from many walks of life; they included many of the nations most prominent politicians, clergy, businessmen, authors, college presidents, writers, professors, social workers, and labor leaders. One of them was a strong Republican, named Carl Schurz, the former governor of Wisconsin, Civil War general, and Secretary of the Interior. Other famous members included Detroit Mayor H.S. Pringree, former Speaker of the House John Carlisle, author Mark Twain, millionaire Andrew Carnegie, union organizer Samuel Gompers, Rev. Theodore Cuyler of Brooklyn, the mother of social work Jane Addams, President James B. Angell of the University of Michigan, President David Starr Jordan of Standford, Senator Pitchfork Bill Tillman, author William Dean Howell, and editor of The Nation E.L. Godkin. The first act of the Anti-Imperialist League was to send an Address to the People of the United States which explained their opinions against imperialism and challenged Americans to sign the following petition: To the President and to the Congress of the United States: The undersigned, citizens of __________, in the State of _________, protest against any extension of the sovereignty of the United States over the Philippine Islands, in any event, or other foreign territory, without the free consent of the people thereof, believing such action would be dangerous to the Republic, wasteful of its resources,

in violation of constitutional principles, and fraught with moral and physical evils to our people. Name and residence. Occupation.5 Soon thousands of American citizens signed the petition as the debate over annexing the Philippines, Guam, and Puerto Rico raged in the Congress, in the press, and among the people. Each side gave many diverse arguments as to why America should or should not keep those islands as our colonies. The most important and prominent argument given by the anti-imperialists was that if the United States seized these islands and became an empire with colonies it would be a complete rejection of what this nation had stood for since its founding. The United States itself had begun as a group of colonies and had fought a revolution against its colonial masterthe British Empire. Anti-Imperialists asked, How can we now become the colonial masters? They pointed to the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence and stressed that imperialism was completely against the basic tenets of these cherished documentsthe law of the land. One news magazine of the day that explained this point-of-view to the people was Harpers Weekly: We cannot deny to the people of the Philippines the right to govern themselves without denying the assertions of our own Declaration of Independence. Our refusal to permit these foreign peoples to rule themselves would be an assault by the republic upon what it has declared to be a fundamental human right if we adopt imperialism as a national policy we will turn our backs upon all the principles which distinguished the republic from European governmentsWe will confess that the Declaration of Independence is a stupendous falsehood, that men are not created equal before the law, that governments do not derive their just powers from the consent of the governed We are asked to turn our backs upon our history, to step aside from the tracks of our forefathers. Let us not do it, however, under a mistaken notion that we are thereby advancing along the lines of Americanism. We will be doing nothing of the kindThe imperialists are advocating nothing less than a return to the methods and principles of England, against which we protested in 1776.6 Over and over the anti-imperialists stressed that by becoming imperialists and rejecting the ideas of our founding fathers we were becoming just like the European nations that were

ruled by despotic monarchs who deprived people of their rights and freedoms. They felt there was another way in which imperialism was making the United States like European countries: Europeans needed to maintain large standing armies and navies to control their colonies and they were very expensive to maintain. The anti-imperialists stressed that a large military would be wrong for America because it was against our tradition of a small military, it would cost millions and millions of dollars every year, and most ominously, a big military often leads to dictatorship and oppression.7 In addition, there was another American tradition/policy that the anti-imperialists felt was in danger from the course change in American foreign policy: the Monroe Doctrine. For over seventy-five years the Monroe Doctrine had been a cornerstone of American foreign policy. We felt it was our duty to stop any European interference or seizure of colonies in the Western Hemisphere. The Anti-Imperialists reasoned that if America seized colonies in the Caribbean and Pacific it could no longer legitimately tell the Europeans that they could not do the same thing!8 The first place where these anti-imperialists focused their attention was on the Treaty of Paris, which officially ended the Spanish-American War. Although the fighting ended in August of 1898 it took until December before the treaty was written and signed. To the chagrin of the anti-imperialists the Treaty of Paris stated that the Spanish had to cede Puerto Rico and Guam as an indemnity to the United States. Additionally, the Philippines were turned over to the United States for a payment of $20,000,000 to cover the Spanish buildings and public works in the archipelago. To the anti-imperialists, their worst nightmare had been realized, but their hope was that they could convince enough senators to vote against the treaty that it would not receive the two-thirds majority necessary for ratification. Immediately they began their campaign of public pressure against the treaty. They began to spread more and more articles, editorials, and pamphlets against ratification. One point of their arguments was that in Americas actual declaration of war on Spain it promised that the war would not be for territorial gain.9 William Graham Sumner, a Yale University professor, saw that the treaty in one sense was an actual victory for Spain: Spain was the first, for a long time the greatest, of the modern imperialistic states. The United States, by its historic origin, its traditions, and its principles, is the chief representative of revolt and reaction against that kind of state. I intend to show that, by the line of action now proposed to us, which we call expansion and imperialism, we are throwing away some of the most important elements of the American symbol and are adopting some of the most important elements of the Spanish symbol. We have beaten Spain in a military conflict, but we are submitting to be conquered by her on the field of ideas and policies.10 As the New Year 1899 dawned and Congress reassembled for their new session, the antiimperialists redoubled their efforts against the treaty. They also sent their petitions to Congress. They brought up new arguments against the dangers of annexing these lands from Spain. One

new argument concerned economics. The anti-imperialists warned that the treaty would mean turning our backs upon the American worker by exposing him to competition from millions of Filipinos, Malays, and others who would work for low wages and take American jobs.11 The anti-imperialists also attacked one of the most common arguments that imperialists gave for annexation: we must take this island so we can convert these people to Christianity and save their souls. Republican anti-imperialist Carl Schurz observed, Are we not ingenious and charitable enough to do much for their civilization without subjugating and ruling them by criminal aggression?12 Another anti-imperialist who felt that force was not the best way to covert people to Christ noted: The Anglo-Saxon advances into the new regions with a Bible in one hand and a shotgun in the other. The inhabitants of those regions that he cannot convert with the aid of the Bible and bring into his markets, he gets rid of with the shotgun.13 Despite their efforts, the Treaty of Paris was ratified by one vote on Feb. 6, 1899. However, the anti-imperialists did not feel that their struggle was over at all. Just two days before the vote on the treaty an insurrection broke out in the Philippines. Soon what developed was a difficult guerilla war in a tropical land that killed thousands of Filipinos and Americans. The American-Philippine Conflict, which most average people have never heard about, killed more Americans than the Spanish-American War, which gave the U.S. the Philippines in the first place.14 As this guerrilla conflict dragged on, the anti-imperialists pointed to the war as proof that imperialism was turning America into an oppressive and cruel power.15 As reports of atrocities committed by American troops would filter back to the U.S., the anti-imperialists were provided with more ammunition for their attacks. On the other hand, those who supported this new policy by the McKinley administration soon counterattacked by questioning the patriotism of the anti-imperialists; they accused them of being traitors who by their words were giving aid and encouragement to the enemies of America in a time of war.16 During this same period the anti-imperialists worked on becoming more organized. On October 17, 1899, a conference of anti-imperialists from all over the nation began in Chicago, Illinois; an estimated 10,000 supporters attended. The main goal of the meeting was to try to unite all the different anti-imperialist organizations in the country. To achieve this objective, they founded the American Anti-Imperialist League, and the other organizations became smaller chapters under this central organization. The original mother league, the Anti-Imperialist League, which was founded the year before in Boston, changed its name to the New England Anti-Imperialist League to assume its role as a smaller chapter of the national league. However, when the new American Anti-Imperialist League elected its president, they chose George S. Boutwell, the president of the New England league. While the American Anti-Imperialist League lasted four years it was not very active; the main organization and the most energetic league continued to be the original New England Anti-Imperialist League. Boutwell served as president of both groups at the same time. Most of the anti-imperialists arguments against the United States conquering its own colonies were very noble. They discussed ideas of freedom, liberty, fairness, and holding on to traditional American values. However, there were some anti-imperialist arguments that were far from noble. Many of the imperialists who supported taking over the Philippines used racist ideas like our obligation to civilize and Christianize the savages.17 There were some antiimperialists who used racism and fear as reasons why we should not take over the Philippines. They warned that these foreigners were too strange and different to really become Americans.18 Others not only stressed that they could not be changed and assimilated into American culture, but that they would change us. Senator George Hoar stated it this way: I am afraidthe

American spirit will not enter into and possess them, but their spirit will enter into and possess us.19 One anti-imperialist reporter described what he felt happens to a civilized race that attempts to keep a turbulent lower race in order. He continued, They begin by de-civilizing themselves. They become subdued to the element in which they work. It is one of the forms of terrible revenge which the conquered take. They perish, but in their death they poison the life of their conquerors.20 The anti-imperialists had one major fight left and that was the 1900 presidential election. In that contest, the Democratic Party nominated an avowed anti-imperialist, William Jennings Bryan of Nebraska, as their candidate for president. They also put in their official party platform statements that condemned the imperialism of President McKinley, their Republican opponent: The burning issue of imperialism growing out of the Spanish-American War involves the very existence of the Republic and the destruction of our free institutions. We regard it as the paramount issue of this campaignWe condemn and denounce the Philippine policy of the present Administration. It has embroiled the Republic in an unnecessary war, sacrificed the lives of many of its noblest sons and placed the United States, previously known and applauded the world as the champion of freedom, in the false and un-American position of crushing with military force the efforts of our former allies to achieve liberty and self-government.21 This platform became the rallying point for the anti-imperialists. They threw all their support behind Bryans candidacy. Many raised money for Bryans campaign, went around the country speaking on his campaign, and continued to use the written word to argue their point-of-view to the American people. The anti-imperialists themselves did not know at the time that Bryans anti-imperialist credentials had some serious blemishes. Back in 1899, Bryan had actually gone to Washington to convince Democratic senators to vote for the Treaty of Paris. Knowing that he was going run for president a second time in 1900, he knew he needed a new hot issue to motivate the voters and set him apart from McKinley so he secretly convinced enough democrats to vote for the treaty that it passed by just one vote creating the controversy about the Philippines. Thus a year later, Bryan had his issue and he used it to attack McKinley unmercifully. Again and again, he warned Americans about the paralyzing influence of imperialism and how it would destroy the very fabric of America.22 Despite his and the anti-imperialists vigorous campaigning, they never really had a chance. The economy had recovered from the Panic of 1893 depression and was booming, and McKinley had won his splendid little war. Additionally, McKinleys running mate was none other than the Spanish-America War hero, Teddy Roosevelt. When the final election returns had came in McKinley had won in the largest landslide in 28 years. He had won in the popular vote, 52% to Bryans 46%, and in the electoral college, 292 to Bryans 155. After this disappointing defeat, most anti-imperialists became resigned to the fact that most Americans were fine with this new shift in foreign policy. Many of the most prominent and

active members of the movement quit and moved on to different endeavors. Nevertheless, there were a few crusaders that continued the crusade for another twenty years. One dejected antiimperialist, Harvard Professor Charles Elliot Norton, summed up the feeling of loss that all the anti-imperialists felt: I reach one conclusion that I have been too much of an idealist about America, had set my hopes too high, had formed too fair an image of what she might become. Never had a nation such an opportunity; she was the hope of the world.23

Online Encyclopedia Britannica, http://search.eb.com/eb/article-9042213?query=imperialism&ct=eb, accessed February 13, 2006 2 Barbara Tuchman, The First Anti-Imperialists quoted in Forging the American Character Volume II, John R. M. Wilson, ed. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentis Hall, 2003), p. 65. 3 Albert Beveridge, The March of the Flag, quoted in The Annals of America, Vol. 12 1895-1904. (Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1976), p. 202. 4 Ibid. 5 Address to the People of the United States by the Anti-Imperialist League 11/18/1898, http://www.boondocksnet.com/ai/ailtexts/ailadd98.html, accessed Feb. 17, 2006. 6 Harpers Weekly, Oct. 1, 1898 & Jan. 28, 1899. 7 Morrison I. Swift, Imperialism and the Threat to Liberty, quoted in The Annals of America, Vol. 12 18951904. (Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1976), p. 240-243. 8 Harpers Weekly, Jan. 28, 1899. 9 Harpers Weekly, Oct. 1, 1898. 10 Dr. William G. Sumner, quoted in The American Journey Document Se,t Volume 2, Micheal Les Benedict, ed. (Simon & Schuster Custom Publishing, 1998), p. 169-170. 11 Harpers Weekly, Jan. 28, 1899. 12 Carl Schurz Address at the University of Chicago, Jan. 4, 1899, quoted in Dissent in America, Vol. 2, Ralph Young (New York: Pearson Education: 2005), p. 76. 13 Charles Francis Adams, Imperialism and the Tracks of Our Forefathers, a paper read before the Massachusetts Historical Society. Accessed online at http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pagevieweridx?c=philamer;cc=philamer;q1=Charles%20Francis%20Adams;rgn =full%20text;view=image;seq=3;idno=abz6706.0001.001;didno=ABZ6706.0001.001;page=root;size=s;frm=frames et; accessed on Feb. 21, 2006. Charles Francis Adams was the great-great grandson of founding father & President of the United States John Adams. 14 It is estimated that the Philippine-American War killed over 4,200 American soldiers and over 16,000 Filipino soldiers. Civilian deaths are even estimated at higher levels. 15 Maria Lanzar-Carpio, The Anti-Imperialist League, http://www.boondocksnet.com/ai/lanzar/index.html, accessed February 23, 2006/, Swift, 240-241. 16 Swift, p. 242, Maria Lanzar-Carpio, The Anti-Imperialist League, http://www.boondocksnet.com/ai/lanzar/index.html, accessed February 23, 2006/ 17 Schurz, p. 82, General James Rusling, Interview with President William McKinley, The Christian Advocate 22 January 1903, 17. Reprinted in Daniel Schirmer and Stephen Rosskamm Shalom, eds., The Philippines Reader (Boston: South End Press, 1987), 2223. Maria Lanzar-Carpio, The Anti-Imperialist League, http://www.boondocksnet.com/ai/lanzar/ai03b.html, accessed February 24, 2006. 18 Schurz, p. 75. 19 Senator George Hoar, The Opinion of Massachusetts on Imperialism, http://www.boondocksnet.com/ai/ailtexts/hoar980729.html, accessed February 23, 2006. 20 The Nation, Oct. 18, 1900. 21 Maria Lanzar-Carpio, The Anti-Imperialist League, http://www.boondocksnet.com/ai/lanzar/index.html, accessed February 23, 2006/ 22 William Jennings Bryan, Address at the Democratic National Convention, quoted in Dissent in America, Vol. 2, Ralph Young (New York: Pearson Education: 2005), p. 78. 23 Charles Eliot Norton, quoted in Barbara Tuchman, The First Anti-Imperialists quoted in Forging the American Character Volume II, John R. M. Wilson, ed. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentis Hall, 2003), p. 65.