1. Senator Henry Cabot Lodge
Argument: After the United States restores order and peace in the Philippines, we shall establish a democratic government there. As a result, the Filipinos will be able to manage their own affairs.
BIO: The powerful and distinguished senator from Massachusetts, Henry Cabot Lodge, is informed of the Kansas City debate. He cannot resist the opportunity to appear, especially since one of his arch-opponents c;m the annexation issue, Carl Schurz, will be in attendance. Lodge has very strong views on foreign affairs, which is his true political passion. He favors a strong navy, aggressive nationalism, and the acquisition of new American territories. At the age of 48, he "cuts a handsome figure" with his tall stature, his carefully tended beard and mustache, and his gentle facial features. But this does not give away his fervent ambition to acquire the Philippine Islands in the name of the United States.
Argument Breakdown:
A. .Every person on earth should know the fruits of democracy.
, Our task will not be easy since the Filipinos have known only despotism.
After hostilities have ended, we will return the land to the people, land which was stolen from them in the past.
We will establish a comprehensive system of free education.
We will guarantee the free exercise of religion.
Our goal is eventual self-rule for these islands. This is a principle we have applied in all of our past territorial acquisitions. We will not forget the key idea in our Declaration of Independence: people should choose the government that controls some of their lives.
Our task will require time, patience, honesty, and ability but, in time, the Philippine Islands will likely be ready for statehood.
2. Reverend Josiah Strong
Argument: God is speaking to America. His is telling us to bring these people the light of Christianity.
|
BIO: The Reverend Josiah Strong is one of the most influential Protestant missionary leaders in the United States. He believes strongly in the "social gospel"; that Christians prepare themselves for the hereafter by first making life more bearable for others living in this world. Central to his theme is the idea that the Anglo-Saxon race, "the race of unequaled energy, with all the majesty of numbers and the might of wealth behind it," must "civilize and Christianize" the less civilized lands of the earth. He is an emotionally demonstrative speaker, and though many at the debate may have convictions as strong as his, few can match the passion and volume of his delivery.
Argument Breakdown:
A. The hand of God in history has always·been plain, and it is very clear at this moment: Christians have a duty to send missionaries to these islands in order to lead the Filipinos to God.
B. The Protestant church is a powerful and influential ally. This church's clergy is most anxious to send out thousands of missionaries.
C. The Filipinos are a heathen people , but sincere, dedicated missionaries will touch their hearts and lead them to accept the blessings of God and Christ.
D. So far providence has been indulgent with us Americans, but we will be sinful if we do not accept the responsibility He has asked us to assume.
E. God has not been preparing the English-speaking and Teutonic peoples for a thousand years for nothing. How can we shrink from this responsibility without hanging our heads in shame?
3. Senator Albert J. Beveridge
Argument: Acquiring the Philippines - making these fertile islands a part of our growing American civilization - why it's a once-in-a-lifetime economic opportunity! Are we cowards who hesitate when a door is there only waiting for us to open it? Are we so feeble we lack the strength?
Bio: Albert J. Beveridge is from Indiana and one of the most articulate spokesmen for American commercial expansion. His position is quite simple: Since he believes Americans are the "chosen people" of the earth, our commercial , political, and moral virtues should be exported to other countries and territories. In a famous campaign speech he once delivered, he expressed these ideals quite well: "Shall we conduct the mightiest commerce in history with the best money known to man, or shall we use the pauper money of Mexico?" (He was referring to America's traditional policy of trading primarily this hemispheric countries.) As you face re election to the Senate in November , it is not coincidence that a trip to Kansas City will afford you national exposure and a news item for fellow Hossiers to identify with.
Argument Breakdown:
A. Our raising industry requires more imports. We need the raw materials these islands have.
B. The Philippines are more than 100,000 square miles of the richest and most fertile land.
c. . Think of developing and importing the following:
Forests are untouched, with a variety of hardwoods, such as poplar and pine;
Every tropical product known to man, including all citrus plants and palm products, can be grown there;
The Philippines are the hemp capital of the world;
There is gold throughout the islands; and
Luzon has valuable deposits of copper.
D. At the present time, the United States is a debtor nation, importing more than we export.
E. Economic experts predict that within 10 years the United States could export $25,000,000 in commodities to the Philippines. This would mean wage increases for laborer and farmer alike.
F. The shipping, manufacturing, railroad, banking, and sales industries are only a few that would benefit by annexation.
G. Unemployed Americans, many still reeling from the 1893 depression, could finally hop.e to work again.
4. Conrad Wilkins:
Argument: Once we make the Philippines a part of American territory, the "door' to the entire Far East will be wide open to our vibrant, growing nation.
BIO: Conrad Wilkins is a close, personal friend of Secretary of State, Jo on Hay. Because Secretary Hay is deeply involved in "drafting notes" to ma}or powers, such as :E:nglaiid and Germany, regarding an Open Door Policy in China, he sent Wilkins a telegraph in which he asked Wilkins to represent his views in the Kansas City debate. The only specific instruction received from John Hay was fo- impress upon those people assembled the strategic importance of the Philippine Islands in their relationship to the "vast and untapped" resources of China.
Argument Breakdown:
A. A trade route from Hong Kong to Manila to Honolulu to San Francisco would become a reality.
B. The richest prize of any trading nation is China. This nation, with its countless millions, is a land of limitless commercial opportunities.
Chinese trade has been becoming more and more crucial to the American economy. In the last decade this trade has increased 256%.
If the United States is to continue to grow economically, we must awaken to our opportunities when they present themselves. Increased trade with the Orient is of paramount importance to American capitalism .
E. If you look back through the commercial history of the world, you find that the people who controlled the trade of the Orient have been the people who held the purse strings of nations.
5. Admiral Alfred Thayer Mahan
Argument: Annexing the Philippines will further demonstrate to the world that America has become a first-rate military power that intends to live up to its world-wide responsibilities.
BIO: Alfred Thayer Mahan, at the age of 58, is experiencing the pinnacle of his popularity as the world's foremost authority on naval strategy and naval power. The motives of most annexationists has previously been economic self-interest until his argument favoring a program of strong national defense and military superiority gained importance. He is firmly convinced that the nation must annex the Philippines to firm up its Far Eastern chain of defense.
Argument Breakdown:
Our army's rapid victory in Cuba and our navy's stupendous victory at Manila Bay proved America's new military power .
In order to achieve world power status, Americans must continue to demonstrate attitudes of self-assertion and aggressiveness, qualities that God has given to the citizens of only a few superior nations.
All the great masterful races of history have been fighting races .
No nation will respect America unless we continue to demonstrate our new military might. We must have a strong army and a strong navy, and we must use them whenever necessary.
We must protect our Pacific and Far Eastern interests.
Countries, such as England and Germany, are watching us carefully.
To have the power but then to shrink from using it is cowardly, and Americans have been a cowardly people.
6. Robert Michelson
Argument: This moment in history demands that we Americans be both realistic and opportunistic. For if we do not act now to annex the Philippines -- islands that are rightfully ours -- some other world power assuredly will. And the result? American power in the Far East will fade.
BIO: Robert Michelson is an attache' to Theodore Roosevelt and the assistant secretary of the navy . Roosevelt has given him express instru to alert the assembly in Kansas City to the necessity of seizing this moment to annex the Philippine Islands. Mr. Roosevelt fears that the United States will continue to grow, even if the nation doesn't increase its military defense. In such case, he has said, America would "become an easy prey for any people which still retain those most valuable of all qualities, the soldierly virtues." Mr. Roosevelt points to Germany, France, Japan, and even our ally, England, all nations with Far Eastern ambitions. He has ordered Michelson to relay his convictions that America must assert herself in the Far East. Michelson also realizes that Teddy Roosevelt would gladly go to war to assure America's footing in the Far East.
Argument Breakdown:
Germany and Japan have already expressed strong interest in the Philippines. They would love to have us call our navy home so they could take over.
China will close up fast, as will Korea, Burma, Indochina, and Siam. If our potent American power leaves the Far East, other nations will close China's port to use. And then Korea's ... and then Burma's ... and then Indochina's ... and then Siam's. For the Germans, French, Dutch, Russians, British, and Japanese are scrambling for colonies all over the world. Why should we be left out?
We must join our new military power with England sea power in claiming the Far East in the name of Anglo-Saxon virtue.
Don't listen to the womanish arguments of the weak-willed anti-imperialists.
7. Commodore George Dewey:
Argument: It is not American's duty and destiny to look beyond our shores to new lands. American "destiny" no longer stops on our west coast.
Bio: Commodore George Dewey was made a national war hero because of his most successful naval victory at Manila Harbor earlier this year. At the age of 61 he is just now reaping the rewards of a 40-year career in the United States Navy. (Congress will soon highlight his career by giving him the rank of admiral .for his distinguished naval accomplishments.) He has never been known as a man who placed much stock in providence; however, after he so easily crushed the Spanish fleet in Manila Bay, he was inspired to exclaim that "the hand of God was in it," and that the victory was a token of divine reassurance. This reassurance underlines for him America's right to assert herself in the Philippines.
Argument Breakdown:
A. In the 1840s, American backbone was strengthened by belief in "Manifest Destiny." The result? We spread across this glorious continent from seas to shining sea, filling Texas, the Southwest, and the fertile fields, valleys, and mountains of Oregon and California.
Now our continent is filling up. The frontier experience is over. We need outlets for our surplus population.
The virility of our national character must not fade. The spirit of American rugged individualism and the adventurous nature of Americans both require new challenges.
We cannot continue to wallow in the stagnation of our internal affairs. We must not overly concern ourselves with the problems of economic recession, labor strikes, and foreign immigration.
This moment represents a crossroad in American history. Are we going to limp timidly into a dismal future, or are we going to cast away our fears and seize the opportunity to expand?
Never forget that a large majority of the American public supports the imperialist position that our destiny is to expand into the world.
8. Samuel S. McClure
Argument: We must take up "the white man's burden."
Samuel S. McClure is the publisher of McClure's Magazine and noted for introducing to American readers such new writers as Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and Mark Twain. While the debate over the Philippines rages, his periodical has published a poem by a British poet, Rudyard Kipling, entitled, "The White Man's Burden." Perhaps it is the title more than the content that has captured the fancy of many Americans. The poem is very popular. Kipling's poem presents such deep rooted, nationalistic feeling such as racial superiority and American self-assertion as justification for
desiring the Philippines. .!
Argument Breakdown:
A. Whether we like it or not, we have a responsibility to lead inferior races. We must help our little "brown brothers."
B. Without our leadership the Filipinos will perish from the face of the earth. For if we don't lead, the less civilized Germans and Japanese will conquer them. Do you want this legacy on your conscience?
To tum our backs on those who are less civilized when they need us would be dastardly and inhumane.
Our brown brethren will appreciate our gift of civilization. Hear now the message of Rudyard Kipling:
Take up the white man's burden- Send forth the best ye breed--
Go, bind your sons to exile To serve your captives' need; To wait, in heavy harness,
On fluttered fold and wild- Your new-caught sullen peoples,
Half devil and half child. --.
ANTI-IMPERIALIST CON ARGUMENTS
1. Carl Schurz
Argument: Americans should not interfere with the growth and development of the Philippine Islands people.
BIO: Carl Schurz in one of the notable debaters present today. His brilliant careers as a soldier, statesman, diplomat, and author have caused him to be known throughout America . He has spoken out for many liberal causes. During the years moving toward the Civil War, he condemned slavery. Following that war he favored lenient treatment for the defeated South. As secretary of the interior from 1877 to 1881, he led the reform movement for the American Indians. Having viewed first hand the ill-treatment Americans have given defeated populations in the past, he now has no confidence in the imperialists' promises to bring justice , education, and equality to the people of the Philippine Islands.
Argument Breakdown:
They claim that assimilation of the Filipino people will be similar to past United States' acquisitions and experiences is false:
All former acquisitions of territory were on this continent. Here we were familiar with land, climate, populations, and potentials of those acquisitions.
All former acquisitions were situated in climates that were temperate and thus tolerable to white men , in areas where democracy had flourished for
centuries.
3. Thus far during the Philippine war with our country, America has killed more than 8,000 of their number. Is this the mode of "civilization" the McKinley administration has in mind?
.The distance between the islands and the North American continent -- plus the differences in language and culture -- both are so great that the Filipinos simply cannot become a state of the United States. The Philippine Islands are even too far removed from us in distance and culture to become a territorial possession.
Annexation of these islands without the consent of the Filipinos themselves goes against every principle in the Declaration of Independence and, therefore, every principle that our country stands for: freedom, self-determination, sovereignty.
Has anyone ever considered asking the Filipinos if they want American civilization crammed down their throats? What right does America have to "civilize" another nation by conquering its citizens with weapons?
We are told that through American efforts the Filipinos will eventually control their own affairs. But imperialists cannot be trusted now just as slave holders 60 years ago could not be trusted. Imperialists are trying to create a subservient nation of second class citizens just as slaveholders did prior to the Civil War.
2. Father Roberto Sanchez:
Argument: What kind of God do you believe in? The Christian God Fr. Sanchez believes in does not sanction the brutal and inhumane work of zealous, misled imperialists who want to force a religious viewpoint on people by pointing rifles in their faces.
BIO: Father Roberto Sanchez is a Spaniard and a Catholic priest who was attached to the Spanish occupational force in the Philippines until 1896. While working closely with the Filipino people, he as found them to be a warm, hard-working, gentle people, many of whom he considers more "civilized" than his own native countrymen. He has become particularly upset with America's Protestant clergy because of their pompous claims that the Filipinos are "heathens" and the only Protestant missionary work has received God's sanction to Christianize them.
_....._Argument Breakdown:
A. American Protestant clergymen call the Filipinos "heathens," yet they are predominantly Roman Catholics. Aren't Catholics Christians?
'B. Imperialists are trying to disguise naked, self-serving, greedy imperialism behind acts of "Christian" humanitarianism .
c. Christian teachings · praise the meek and condemn the mighty, a lesson Americans should not forget.
- _,
How successful have Christian missions really been? Look at Africa. How many African nations have really accepted Christianity since the big push to send missionaries began in the late 1860s? And never forget the experience of the Crusades. Think of all the thousands who died trying to win coverts with the sword.
Shame upon those blasphemers who use the church to advance the cause of annexation -- all in the holy name of Almighty God.
3. Robert Schwarz :
Argument: Because of their greed, the imperialists have forsaken the American economic system in favor of the Philippine Islands, which they call a "coveted economic prize." In doing so they have dissolved their pact with American labor, renounced their faith in the American economy while promoting false hope in the economic potential of an island chain we know nothing about.
BIO: Robert Schwarz is a close associate of Samuel Gompers and one of the pioneers of trade and labor unionism in the United States and Canada. Like Gompers, he is a member of the Anti Imperialist League, and he has come to Kansas City on the express orders of Mr. Gompers. His primary concern is the security of the American laborer, whom he believes would be in grave danger should the Philippines be annexed. He has two concerns: IIf Filipino immigrants flood the American job market, native American unemployment will iIf American industry imports cheap manufactured goods into the American market, wages will be drastically affected. While a disciple of Samuel Gompers for 20 years, he has witnessed the bloody struggles to bring American laborers higher wages, better working hours, and a measure of respect. He is not about to see this hard work undermined by greedy industrialists who would welcome Filipinos and their business with open arms.
Argument Breakdown:
Foreign investments will not bring profits to all Americans, but only to a handful of millionaires who will make new trusts.
Immigration of Filipino laborers will cost Americans their jobs.
The voice of the American business community is skeptic.al toward annexation. Heed their skepticism. Be responsive to the popular will!
D. Americans have been mislead. Brutal economic expansionism is not absolutely necessary for American capitalism to succeed. Annexation is the self-serving strategy developed by men like Rockefeller and J.P. Morgan. These men need imperialism, not for the American economy, but as a source of investment for their millions in surplus capital. Wouldn't that capital be better served if it were put back into the domestic economy?
E. Must the United States own the countries we wish to trade with? Such ownership can lead first of all to native dissatisfaction and eventually to wars of rebellion .
4. Edward -Dangerfield
Argument: Proclaiming that the acquisition of the Philippines will "open a door" to the Far East is dangerous.
Edward -Dangerfield is the editor of the periodical "Commercial and Financial Chronicle." As an expert on finance, he has been cautioning his readers (mostly investors and business owners) not to fall into the "Spanish trap." Believing that Spain's commercial ambitions also include opening trade in the Orient, he has pointed out in several editorials that their possession of the Philippine Islands did not prove advantageous. Instead, Spanish bases in the Philippines were so far removed from Spain that they were always vulnerable to attack. To prove his point he has only to mention what happened when Commodore Dewey easily crushed the Spanish fleet in Manila Bay. His purpose at this debate is to warn those present that the United States need not learn a similar lesson. Obviously, the Far East is too far away from the North American continent for the United States to control the area effective.
Argument Breakdown:
Imperialists demonstrate a basic lack of faith and trust in our American economy. This economy is beginning to grow again, and it will continue to grow without our nation owning thousands of islands thousands of miles away.
If we let the imperialists seduce us into a fascination with the Far East, we will be turning our back on our European friends.
Chinese imports, though they have been growing, measured only two percent of American foreign trade in the last decade.
The Orient is too far removed to be of any real economic value to the United States.
We do not know enough about the peoples, culture, societal structure, climate, or governments of the Far Eastern or Philippine regions to act intelligently there. Imperialists would have us stumble forward blindly, hoping we will make economic gains while we are stumbling. Have any imperialists ever been to the Orient?
If we take over these islands, they will become our "Achilles' heel." They are too far away for us to defend. Look at what happened to Spain
5. Morrison I. Swift:
Argument: What really increases a nation's trade? What really improves a nation's relationship with other nations? Is it guns and ships? No! The nation with the best merchants has the best trade and the best international relations.
BIO: Morrison I. Swift is so upset by the Imperialists's outcry for America to increase her military power that he is writing a book entitled Imperialism and the Threat to Liberty . Contained in his book is a section called "Business Enterprise and Generals." In this chapter he depicts the American military establishment as having undergone a transformation from "mere mortals" to a group of men seeking glory, deification, and inflated respect through military conquest. Here is a short excerpt from this chapter: "But times have changed and he (military personnel) thinks that if he throws a little more business enterprise into his trade he may wind the privilege to expand and swagger and become a tinseled deity. Will he stint his arguments to convince his darling countrymen how good for them will be the owning of islands and the invading of Asia? He looks forward to the time when he will not have to beg and argue with those countrymen . . . ."
Argument Breakdown:
In the past, our nation has never increased the size of its military forces after we have acquired new territory.
B If we annex the Philippines we will be blatantly violating the Monroe Doctrine and straying from our fundamental American principles of desiring only regional influence and isolationism.
Don't overlook the great, undetermined cost in developing the imperialists's grandiose military scheme.
Although our government says we fought a defensive war with Spain, we are now behaving like war-mongers! Someone is beating the war drum to get us to march unnecessarily into the jungles of the Philippines where thousands of American boys will die.
lf we annex the Philippines without the consent of the Filipinos, the world from this day onward will always be suspicious of American intentions throughout the world.
Don't forget the fate of other greedy empires. Remember what happened to Rome after she overextended herself.
It is probable that there is a handful of militarists in Washington right now that are manipulating the wishy-washy thoughts of President McKinley to take a strong pro military stance. We must never forget that the Constitution provides for civilian control of the military.
6. Senator George Hoar
Argument: When imperialists express fears of losing America's present influence in the Far East, they are acting paranoid. Actually, their fears are groundless.
BIO: Senator George Hoar is a Republican from Massachusetts. At the age of 72 he remains a vigorous member of the U.S. Senate. Fellow Congressmen look to him for advice concerning the Philippine annexation issue. His stated position is based, to a large extent, on Constitutional arguments, and in his forthcoming book The Lust for Empire, he writes that it is unconstitutional for the United States to acquire new territory against the expressed will of the Filipino inhabitants. He is also deeply concerned that his government is tempting tradition and fate by creating rivalries with our allies, England and France, for Far Eastern markets and territories - markets and territories that America doesn't really need! He is concerned that, as England's Lord Salisbury predicts, the future of Asiatic affairs will be "one of wars and rumors of wars. . . ."
A. American status and good relations in the Far East have never been stronger. This situation give credit to the hard-working civilian diplomats and consuls, not the war mongering militarists.
B. U.S. consuls in China report that American trade is increasing. Business has never been better.
C.British and German trade is actually declining in some areas.
D. Our government is guilty of planting seeds of anxiety in the public mind at a time when there is no real need for anxiety. The American press should be ashamed, for all in the name of "a story" they have irresponsibly cast doubt upon American status in the world. This next statement could be considered slanderous, but the press is also censoring events in the Far East to slant toward the imperialist position
E. Have faith in Yankee merchants and Yankee ingenuity. We won't lose our Far Eastern markets.
7. Gerald Woltzen
Argument: The words "duty and destiny" are emotional, vague words. They only have real meaning when they are clearly defined as recommending a specific course of action for Americans to follow.
BIO: Gerald Woltzen is a close, personal friend of William Jennings Bryan. As the undisputed leader of the Democratic Party and its unsuccessful nominee for the presidency in 1896, Bryan is too important a national figure to be caught in the web of a politically explosive debate that could hurt his presidential hopes in 1900. Therefore, he has asked Woltzen to speak in his behalf against annexation in the name of "Manifest Destiny". (Woltzen did not know it at this time, but Mr. Bryan was working behind closed doors to persuade Democrats in the Senate to favor annexation! Although Bryan is an avowed anti-imperialist, his most important crusade centers around the free coinage of silver. He hopes to trade his support for annexation to certain Republicans if they will support his free silver platform. Such is the world of politics!) Nevertheless, Bryan has often taken issue with the concept of Manifest Destiny when used to justify American expansion beyond her natural borders. He feels that such an emotional appeal to American is nothing more than a rationalization for cold and calculating imperialist politicians to use in their greedy pursuit of power. As Mr. Bryan once said in a speech, "Avarice paints destiny with a dollar mark before it; militarism equips it with a sword."
Argument Breakdown:
"Manifest Destiny" had a strong influence in the settlement of our continent. However, our experiences with Manifest Destiny in Texas and California in the 1840s are not at all the experiences we will have if we re-interpret destiny to mean that we are to cross a wide ocean and try to subjugate persons on countless islands thousand of miles from our westernmost shores.
_ I
Americans must not let themselves panic under the emotional onslaught of the
imperialists. They cry out that our continent is filling up and overcrowded and we must expand. But just look around you. Are we really overcrowded?
Woltzen says, "If 'duty and destiny' require a major change in the way America has thus far developed,.J want no part of it. Ifthe imperialist position becomes the policy of our nation, “I will hang my head in profound shame."
Before he left the office of the presidency , our nation 's first president, George Washington, said that our nation should avoid foreign entanglements at all costs. We must remember his wise advice.
8. Samuel Clemens AKA Mark Twain.
Argument: The imperialists confuse the "white man's burden" with the burdens and responsibilities of all mankind toward one another.
BIO Samuel Clemens is to the majority of native Missourians their beloved Mark Twain. A staunch member of the Anti-Imperialist League, as are many of his literary colleagues, he is here today to discuss the anti-civilizing aspects of imperialism. To say he is shocked by American action to militarily suppress the Filipino people would be an understatement. His published accusations against American activity there have included charges of treachery , lies, deceit, and greed against the imperialists - a far cry from the gentle, folksy themes in his books. His intent is to conclude the anti-imperialist side of the debate by preaching shame on his country's abrupt change of direction.
Argument Breakdown:
Americans seem to have the egotistical notion that because they have been able to successfully govern themselves for above 130 years, they have to right to govern any other people on earth. ·
The "burden" of all freedom-loving Americans is this: to avoid conquering the Philippines and, instead, to insure that we protect the Filipinos from any nation trying to deny them the chance to determine their own future.
Racism in the name of humanitarianism is hypocrisy. It is as shameful as pre-Civil War slave holders who said that the slaves were their little children who had to be told what to do.
The United States was never motivated by humanitarian concerns with regard to the Filipino people. First came a war. Then an annexation plan, followed by a squalid fight with the Filipinos themselves. And now, while this is going on, the imperialists stop and think for a minute: Maybe we had better come up with a real "tecµ--jerking" reason for getting into the Philippines. Therefore, we all are hearing ideas such as the "white man's burden," "duty," "destiny," "humanitarianism." All of this is contrived hog wash!
We are forgetting Christ's teachings: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."