2015: Section 2---2 pro, 2 anti; 1 senate

Section 1: 5 pro, 5 anti, 3 senate

1. Theodore Roosevelt
2. Josiah Strong
3. Henry Cabot Lodge
4. Senator Albert J.
5. William McKinley

Ken, Emilio
Gaby, Mateo

1. Queen Liliuokalani
2. William Jennings Bryan
3. Emilio Aguinaldo
4. Anti Imperialist League
5. Mark Twain

Jeanine; Jovanna


A: Ashwini
B: Abby, G.L, Isa

Drew; Angelo

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 person
Opening Statement: 1 side
Write notes.
2nd side: Rebuttal
Write notes
Closing statement.


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
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 Roosevelt

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 Strong

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 AngloSaxon, 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
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
…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. Beveridge

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 selfgovernment.
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
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
Congressional Record, 56th Congress, 1st session,
704-711. Full speech available at

Henry Cabot Lodge

For Commerce/Business Reasons/For Their Resources:
Thus...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
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.

What He’s Really Saying

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
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
..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 McKinley
“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
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, 1898
In 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
"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
[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
[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

[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.”

Emilio Aguinaldo

(President of the Independent Philippine Republic)
Anti imperialism/annexation Perspective
From "To the Philippine People" in MajorGeneral E.S. Otis, Report of Military
Operations and Civil Affairs in the Philippine
Islands, 1899 (Washington: Government
Printing Office, 1899), 95-96.
“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

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

What He’s Really Saying

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 whisky
And Testaments and guns …
And don't forget the factories.
On those benighted shores
They have no cheerful iron-mills
Nor eke department stores.
They never work twelve hours a day,
And live in strange content,
Altho they never have to pay
A single cent of rent.
Take up the White Man's burden,
And teach the Philippines
What interest and taxes are
And 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 pray
The Lord of Hosts may deign
To stir our feeble memories,
Lest we forget -- the Maine.
Take up the White Man's burden;
To you who thus succeed

In civilizing savage hoards
They owe a debt, indeed;
Concessions, pensions, salaries,
And privilege and right,
With outstretched hands you raise to
Grab everything in sight.
Take up the White Man's burden,
And if you write in verse,
Flatter your Nation's vices
And strive to make them worse.
Then learn that if with pious words
You ornament each phrase,
In a world of canting hypocrites
This 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 AmericanFilipino 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/marktwaindarkness.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
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?