The Philippines: American Imperialism - Essay Example

While the anti-imperialists certainly occupy the moral high ground, it is the practical economic case made out by those in favor of keeping the Philippines which carries the most conviction. The moral ground on which the imperialists base their stand is founded on the unequivocal assumption of U.S. racial superiority. The Filipinos are considered to be “a race which civilization demands shall be improved” (Beveridge, Paragraph 6). It is therefore the moral duty of America to “uplift and civilize and Christianize them” (McKinley).

This so-called moral duty, connoted to be “the White Man’s Burden” by Kipling, does not stand scrutiny, especially in the light of the letters from the soldiers fighting in the Philippines, which confirm U.S. atrocities, such as arbitrary executions, torture, a scorched earth campaign and the establishment of concentration camps. As James L. Blair rightly asserts, the moral responsibility cited by the imperialists is based on the “very tenuous assumption” (P. 12) that U.S. withdrawal would inevitably lead to anarchy.

The anti-imperialists’ stand that moral duty requires the U.S. to free the Filipinos is more convincing than the imperialist’s mantel of racial superiority. Legally, the imperialists justify their stand on the presumption that the Filipinos “are not capable of self-government” (Beveridge, P. 16). Lack of experience in government, Spanish misrule, and, yet again, the assumed inferiority of Orientals, are cited as reasons for circumventing the “consent of the governed,” which the American Declaration of Independence holds to be mandatory.

According to the imperialists, as Filipinos are too uncivilized to understand the concept of government, their consent is not legally required. The anti-imperialists question the constitutional right of the U.S. to forcibly annex any territory and caution that the constitutional guarantee of citizenship and the vote will lead to future legal complexities. Soldiers Davis and Fetterly reiterate the Filipino's right to independence, and the anti-imperialist stand that any legal government must rest on the consent of the governed cannot be repudiated.

However, when it comes to economic grounds, it is the imperialists who carry the day. Commercially, relinquishing the Philippines would certainly be “bad business” (McKinley). The Philippines grants easy access to “China’s illimitable markets” (Beveridge, P. 1), is in the vicinity of India, and “is located at the most commanding commercial, naval and military point in the Pacific” (P.6). The imperialists cite the wealth of natural resources to further bolster their arguments. Theodore Roosevelt also emphasizes the importance of the Philippines as a naval and commercial vantage point.

The counter–argument of the anti-imperialists, that “commercial supremacy is wholly due to the cheapness and merit of manufactures” (Blair, P. 7), and not due to the ownership of colonies, does not repudiate the advantages of a captive market. The economic costs of war cited by the anti-imperialists –“You have wasted six hundred millions of treasure” (Hoar, P. 2) are justified by the patriotism of the imperialists. The imperialist’s blatant assumption of Filipino inferiority is difficult to accept and smacks of bigotry.

Likewise, it cannot be denied that, under the American constitution, the consent of the governed is essential for the establishment of a legal government.