Anti-Imperialists and the Election of 1900
In his report of February 10, 1899, Erving Winslow, Secretary of the New England Anti-Imperialist League, said that the members felt they wished to continue "immediately, aggressively, and persistently" the work that the League was doing, -- the defence of the fundamental principles of liberty against an un-American and dangerous tendency towards imperialism and militarism. In his annual report on November 25, 1899, Mr. Winslow further stated that the Chicago conference of October 1899 decided (if it decided anything) that the anti-imperialists would give their support in the ensuing presidential election to the candidate who was against expansion. To the anti-imperialists, expansion beyond the American continent threatened the life of American democracy.
In pursuance of the ideas expressed at Chicago, a "Liberty Congress" was held at Indianapolis on August 16, 1900. It was at this meeting that the policy of the anti-imperialists in the forth-coming elections was definitely decided. It was there resolved: first, that without regard to their views on domestic questions, the anti-imperialists would withhold their votes from President McKinley in disapproval of his Philippine Policy; second, that the anti-imperialists would vote for those candidates for Congress who openly opposed the policy of imperialism; and third, "While we welcome any other method of opposing the re-election of Mr. McKinley, we advise direct support of Mr. Bryan as the most effective means of crushing imperialism." (1) Thus, the Indianapolis Liberty Congress put into effect the policy suggested by the Chicago conference of October, 1899; namely, that the anti-imperialists should support the candidate of whatever political party who would make anti-imperialism the main issue in the election of 1900. The Democrats happened to espouse their cause and William Jennings Bryan became their political champion.
Was imperialism the paramount issue of the presidential election in 1900? The Republican Party, in its campaign text-book for that year, endorsed wholeheartedly the policies of the existing administration. It gave President McKinley "distinguished credit" for his foreign policy; and for the "skill and foresight of Republican statesmanship which was intended to safeguard American interest abroad." It declared, "To Cuba independence and self-government were assured in the same voice by which war was declared, and to the latter this pledge shall be performed." It implied that no such promise was made to the other possessions acquired from Spain; it said, "To ten millions of the human race there was given 'a new birth of freedom', and to the American people a new and noble responsibility." More specifically, it said of the Philippines:
In accepting by the Treaty of Paris the just responsibility of our victories in the Spanish War, the President and the Senate won the undoubted approval of the American people. No other course was possible than to destroy Spain's sovereignty throughout the West Indies and in the Philippine Islands. That course created our responsibility before the world and with the unorganized population whom our intervention had freed from Spain, to provide for the maintenance of law and order, and for the establishment of good government and for the performance of international obligations. Our authority could not be less than our responsibility, and wherever sovereign rights were extended it became the high duty of the government to maintain its authority, to put down armed insurrection and to confer the blessings of liberty and civilization upon all rescued peoples, the largest measure of self-government consistent with their welfare and our duties shall be secured to them by law.
The Democratic Party included the following plank in its platform of 1900. It declared: "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 campaign." (2) Of the Philippines, it said:
We 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 throughout 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. The Filipinos cannot be citizens without endangering our civilization; they cannot be subjects without imperiling our form of government, and as we are not willing to surrender our civilization or to convert the Republic into an empire, we favor an immediate declaration of the nation's purpose to give to the Filipinos: First, a stable form of government; second, independence; and, third, protection from outside interference such as has been given for nearly a century to the Republics of Central and South America.
The greedy commercialism which dictated the Philippine policy of the Republican Administration attempts to justify it with the plea that it will pay; but even this sordid and unworthy plea fails when brought to the test of facts. The war of "criminal aggression" against the Filipinos entailing an annual expense of many millions, has already cost more than any possible profit that could accrue from the entire Philippine trade for many years to come. Furthermore, when trade is extended at the expense of liberty, the price is always too high.
We are not opposed to territorial expansion when it takes in desirable territory which can be erected into States in the Union, and whose people are willing and are fit to become American citizens. We favor trade expansion by every peaceful and legitimate means. But we are unalterably opposed to the seizing and purchasing of distant Islands to be governed outside the Constitution and whose people can never become citizens.
We are in favor of extending the Republic's influence among the nations, but believe that influence should be extended not by force and violence, but through the persuasive power of a high and honorable example.
The plank of the Democratic Party thus substantially expressed the ideas of the Anti-Imperialist League. What influence the anti-imperialists had in drawing this plank is hard to ascertain. One outstanding fact should be noted, however, and that is that the Anti-Imperialist League desired the immediate independence of the Philippine Islands, while the Democratic Party in its plank of 1900 proposed simply an immediate declaration of the purposes of the United States, -- first, to give the Philippines a stable government, and subsequently to grant independence, under American protection.
Was Anti-Imperialism the paramount issue in the campaign? The Republican Party evaded, if not ignored, the supposed importance of the question. The Democratic Party and Mr. Bryan, while giving a great deal of attention to Philippine affairs, took up again with greater emphasis the gold and silver issue of the previous campaign. Many believed that while Mr. Bryan was undoubtedly an anti-imperialist, his whole campaign was primarily not on imperialism but on monetary principles. To this day doubts exist as to his real purpose in persuading the Democrats in the Senate to vote for the Treaty of Paris. Many believed that he took advantage of the situation to raise a new issue which might enable him to carry his fight for "free silver" to a successful conclusion. Furthermore, a new power had at that time arisen in the East and was beginning to be reckoned with by other nations. Japan's interest in the Philippines was a common rumor. Other colonial powers kept a watchful eye on developments therein. Unless the United States was willing as a philanthropic friend to back by force the existence of the proposed new state, an independent Philippines, impoverished, weakened, and inexperienced in self-government, the islands would face future dangers that no statesman could contemplate with optimism.
Thus, the problem was not merely whether the Philippines ought to be independent, but whether they could maintain that independence if granted to them. The Anti-Imperialists believed they should be left to themselves because the United States had no right to govern an unwilling people. The Democrats believed in teaching self-government first and granting them independence under American protection afterwards. The Republicans believed in giving them good government and allowing them to enjoy such rights of self-government as they could safely be entrusted with.
The Anti-Imperialist League sent out a vast amount of campaign material against imperialism, but how much of this propaganda was purely political is a question hard to determine. In the annual report of the New England Anti-Imperialist League for the year 1900, it is stated that "more than four hundred thousand documents -- pamphlets, leaflets, and broadsides -- have been distributed, being supplied to other leagues, to correspondents who have established local centers, or directly from the office." These were distributed to persons whom the anti-imperialists knew as sympathizers, or to those whom they hoped to convert to their mode of thinking. A large number of Congressional Records were purchased and distributed with the other propaganda. Private publications and those of the other leagues were often subsidized or purchased. Most of the anti-imperialist propaganda was distributed freely, the expense being met either from the general funds of the organization or from voluntary contributions of individual sympathizers. As an example of the latter, a member spent during the electoral campaign of 1900 over three thousand dollars for distribution of anti-imperialist materials alone.(3)
Of the $6,719.11 which the League officially expended as its contribution to the campaign, a hundred dollars was given to the campaign fund of Mr. John R. Thayer, who ran for Congress, and one hundred twenty dollars for the support of the Pacific Register Democrat, an anti-imperialist paper.
President McKinley received in 1900 thousands of votes from Democrats, some because they favored his colonial policy, and others because they opposed Mr. Bryan's silver plank. On the other hand, some of the Democrats who supported President McKinley in the campaign of 1896 returned to Bryan in 1900 on the question of imperialism. A few prominent Republicans deserted the party on the subject of imperialism, among whom were the venerable George S. Boutwell of Massachusetts and Senator Wellington of Maryland. Among the Independents who supported Bryan on the issue of non-colonization beyond the seas, were Bourke Cockran, M. Edward Shepard, and Carl Schurz. Senator Hoar, the champion of anti-imperialism in the Senate, was greatly reproached for sticking to the Republican Party. Professor Frederick L. Paxson, in describing the campaign, declared: "The emphatic denunciation of imperialism brought to Bryan and Stevenson the support of a group of independents, -- the 'hold-your-nose-and-vote' group, as the Republican press called them, -- who were strong for the gold standard, but believed that currency was less fundamental than imperialism.... The two issues, imperialism and free silver, divided the voters along different lines, but the Administration had an economic basis for support in the recovery of business on every hand. The Republicans took credit for the general and abundant prosperity, and their cartoonists emphasized the idea of the 'full dinner pail' as a reason for continued support." (4) Professor Latané sums up the outcome of the election of 1900 as follows: "On both sides thousands of voters, while sticking to their party, gave it a half-hearted support. Of 447 electoral votes, McKinley received 292, and Bryan 155.... McKinley received 7,206,677 popular votes and Bryan 6,374,397. As compared with the election of 1896, McKinley received in 1896 almost 100,000 more and Bryan about 130,000. Many members of both parties plainly refrained from voting." (5)
Although historians are agreed that the result in 1900 did not turn wholly, or even, chiefly, upon the question of imperialism, the re-election of President McKinley plainly revealed that the majority of the American people were in sympathy with his policies as a whole. Certainly the voting afforded no evidence that they disapproved of his colonial ventures. This was a blow to those opposed to over-seas expansion. Yet, although the anti-imperialists were defeated, they were not disheartened. On the 13th of November, the Executive Committee of the New England Anti-Imperialist League, upon deciding to continue its work, adopted the following resolution:
That the Executive Committee of the New England Anti-Imperialist League, in view of the fact that the anti-imperialist of the country were divided in sentiment as to the candidates in the recent presidential election, does not and cannot recognize that the question of Anti-Imperialism was settled by that election, and urges its members to continue their agitation for the independence of the Philippine Islands and for the recognition of the principles of Independence. (6)
As has been stated before, some of the anti-imperialists exerted their efforts against imperialism with almost religious enthusiasm. Among such men was the treasurer of the League, David Greene Haskins, who, with his characteristic devotion to the cause, appealed for perseverance and patience. Inspired by the optimism of a reformer, he said:
Most of us were probably deeply disappointed that the American people in the late election failed to set the seal of their condemnation on the terrible and un-American policy of conquest and slaughter that has been pursued for nearly two years in the Philippines; but we have no right to be discouraged or pessimistic. The majority of our people are sound of judgment and true in heart. Thousands of them, we believe, totally misunderstand the situation, but you cannot fool all the people all the time. The work of the League is not finished. A new non-partisan campaign of education and agitation opens before it, and it will need in the future as in the past, sympathy, labor and money from the friends of freedom. The many letters from the files of the Secretary and Treasurer may well be an inspiration to us all, men and women, to do what we can, however little it may seem, to aid in holding aloft our sacred standard, without the least concession or wavering. Great moral principles cannot be compromised. The holy fires of liberty are still burning, the love of freedom, of justice and of human rights is a possession as strong today in countless American hearts as in the old days of anti-slavery agitation or of the Revolutionary struggle." (7)
It was in this spirit of fervent zeal that the directors of the organization determined to carry on their work
1. Report, Second Annual Meeting, New England Anti-Imperialist League, 7.
2. Republican Campaign Text-Book, Democratic Platform, 1900, 426-427.
3. Second Annual Report of the New England Anti-Imperialist League, 3.
4. F. L. Paxson, The New Nation, 279-280.
5. J. H. Latané, America as a World Power, 131, 132.
6. Second Annual Report, N. E. Anti-Imperialist League, 10-11.
7. Ibid., 13-14.
Michael Cullinane, Liberty and Anti-Imperialism, July 4, 2007.