The Anti-Imperialist League and the Election of 1904
Not until the election of 1904 did the Anti-Imperialist League affiliate itself with any party for the purpose of promoting the election of a presidential candidate. Prior to this campaign the efforts of its members to advance the interests of national candidates were non-official, although at the "Liberty Convention," at Indianapolis, in 1900, some members proposed that it should support the Democratic party. In 1900 many anti-imperialist leagues worked for Mr. Bryan because of Mr. Bryan's personal views and sympathy with the aims of the anti-imperialists. But the result was unsatisfactory and early in 1902 they saw the necessity of a definite campaign alignment in the ensuing elections.
At the meeting of the Executive Committee of the New England Anti-Imperialist League held on Thursday, April 28, 1904, it was voted, "That the Secretary be authorized and directed to confer with leading Democrats and to seek their opinions as to the propriety of an Anti-Imperialist deputation to the Democratic National Committee to urge the adoption of a good anti-imperialist plank in the platform of the National Convention and the selection of an acceptable candidate, and to ask suggestions as to any other method of bringing influence to bear in this direction upon the Democratic Party." (1) This, as far as the writer could trace, was the first official move of the Anti-Imperialist League to cooperate with the Democratic Party. In anticipation of increased expenditures, the Executive Committee at the same time directed and authorized the treasurer to write an appeal for funds to all those who might be interested in the League. (2)
In the Congressional election of 1902 the Anti-Imperialists supported candidates who in good faith pledged themselves to the principles of Anti-Imperialism. There was, however, no official agreement making it the "paramount issue" of the campaign. This seemed unsatisfactory, so that at its meeting on May 12, 1904, the Executive Committee directed Mr. Erving Winslow to write to the other anti-imperialist leagues as follows: (3)
"The Executive Committee of the New England Anti-Imperialist League has received general encouragement of the plan suggested to many correspondents that it might be desirable to approach the Democratic Convention directly or indirectly, through a deputation of prominent Anti-Imperialists representing the various leagues, to urge upon the party the pledge of an immediate promise of independence to the Filipinos and also to urge the selection of a suitable candidate to that policy,--thus securing the Anti-Imperialist support for the party. Will your committee select representatives who will join the deputation?" (4)
The delegation of the promoters of this movement, the representatives of the New England Anti-Imperialist League, was composed of Edwin D. Mead, Julian Codman, Charles Warren, Winslow Warren, Moorfield Storey, Charles G. Ames, and A. A. Putnam.(5)
In his summary of the activities for the year 1904, the secretary of the League reported that a meeting of anti-imperialists was held in St. Louis on July 6th, 1904, in which New England, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, and Oregon were represented. A committee of three delegates, one each from Oregon, Illinois, and Massachusetts, was appointed to wait on the Committee on Resolutions of the Democratic Convention to urge upon it the adoption of a submitted plank for the Democratic platform. Philippine Independence was petitioned for. The Committee of the Anti-Imperialist League was the first one heard by the full Committee on Resolutions of the Democratic Convention of 1904, and its recommendations were "virtually adopted," said Mr. Winslow.(6)
The Democratic Platform of 1904 with regard to the Philippines, declared:
"We insist that we ought to do for the Filipinos what we have done already for the Cubans, and it is our duty to make that promise now, and upon suitable guarantees of protection to citizens of our own and other countries resident there at the time of withdrawal, set the Filipino people upon their feet, free and independent, to work out their own destiny."(7)
On the other hand, the Republican Platform on the same question for the same campaign asserted:
"In the Philippines we have suppressed insurrection, established order, and given to life and property a security never known there before. We have organized civil government, made it effective and strong in administration, and have conferred upon the people of those islands, the largest civil liberty they have ever enjoyed.
"By our possession of the Philippines we were enabled to take prompt and effective action in the relief of the legations at Peking, and a decisive part in preventing the partition, and preserving the integrity, of China."(8)
Thus once more we have the pronouncements of the two major parties on the so-called issue of "imperialism," the Republicans on the one hand congratulating themselves upon their success in suppressing opposition against American sovereignty in a newly acquired territory and establishing orderly government and civil liberty therein, and the Democrats, as usual, insisting upon giving not immediate but a promise of ultimate freedom and independence to the Filipinos.
The Anti-Imperialists, as has already been intimated, prepared for a vigorous campaign for the presidential election of 1904, although their expenditures did not seem to have increased over those of previous years, the report of the treasurer showing an expense of only $3,803.13 for that year. This was spent, as usual, for postage, express, messengers, typewriting, rent for extra typewriters, printing, expenses for meetings, addressing and forwarding literature, translating documents, stationary, telegraph, and a travel account for the secretary of the League. About 100,000 documents were distributed consisting of new and old publications of the league, and of other literature furnished by friends and sympathizers of the movement. Important among these were H. Parker Willis' articles on the Philippines.(9)
During this campaign, the anti-imperialists took advantage of every opportunity in attacking the administration. Scathing criticism was directed against President Roosevelt for his "high handed diplomacy" with regard to the recognition of Panama.(10) Mr. Edward Atkinson continued distributing his computation on the "The Cost of War and Warfare." Mr. Atkinson estimated American expenditures in connection with the Spanish-American War and Philippine insurrection at about $900,000,000, from 1898 to the end of 1903. Before June 30, 1904, he declared, the total stood at no less than $1,000,000,000. "At the lowest and most conservative estimates," he said, "it is therefore proved that we have already spent on the Spanish War, as computed, $300,000,000, and on criminal aggression and passive warfare in the Philippine Islands the total of $600,000,000."(11) Of course, this figure Was an over-estimate and aroused contempt from many sides.(12)
In order to weaken the administration with the Quakers, and others, the Anti-Imperialist League published excerpts from President Roosevelt's life of Thomas H. Benton, and distributed the little leaflets free. The words thus quoted were, in part:
"A class of professional non-combatants IS AS HURTFUL TO THE REAL HEALTHY GROWTH OF A NATION AS IS A GLASS OF FIREEATERS; for a weakness or folly is naturally as bad as a vice; or worse; and, in the long run, A QUAKER MAY BE QUITE AS UNDESIRABLE A CITIZEN AS A DUELIST. NO MAN WHO IS NOT WILLING TO BEAR ARMS AND TO FIGHT FOR HIS RIGHTS CAN GIVE A GOOD REASON WHY HE SHOULD BE ENTITLED TO THE PRIVILEGE OF LIVING IN A FREE COMMUNITY."
The anti-imperialists, as can be seen from the above example, played with words in order to attract the attention of any group of citizens opposed in principle to any form of war, thus obtaining their support from the emotional viewpoint. This was a form of propaganda very much used during the World War.(13) The anti-imperialists also made the most of the absence of the jury trial in the Philippines, even for American citizens. This "undemocratic" situation was described as an inevitable result of imperialism. It was declared that no American, be he a humble citizen or wealthy capitalist, who might go to the Philippines would, if arrested, have the constitutional right of asking for a jury to hear his case. "Let every American ponder on this example of the true nature of imperialism, on this result of holding subject colonies which have no rights except those which the United States Congress and a Commission appointed by the President of the United States gives them,"(14) the League urged. Newspaper comments, whenever favorable to the anti-imperialist views, were taken advantage of, quoted, and disseminated in pamphlets by the thousands. One example of this type of propaganda is the famous, "Hush! Hush! Don't Mention Freedom!" leaflet. On September 27, 1904, many American newspapers published a letter from Governor-General Luke E. Wright to the President, dated August 15, in which the former declared that the agitation in the United States for Philippine independence was "distinctly injurious," and deprecated the discussion of the subject. The Governor-General's lament, apparently approved by its publication from the White House, evoked widespread criticism. It was promptly republished by the League in leaflet form, and distributed from coast to coast along with caustic comments by President Jacob Gould Schurman of Cornell University, President of the First Philippine Commission, by the Boston Herald and the New York World. The former paper declared:
"There are persons yet living who know that it was once dangerous to mention liberty in the hearing of the slaves, or, indeed, in any way by which they might be led to believe that their freedom was possible. The gag was on all our lips, and the word of caution was, "Hush! Hush!" We have now fallen upon a similar time. The President, and Secretary Taft, and Governor Wright, are all crying, "Hush! for God's sake, hush!" What does it betoken when American citizens are besought not to breathe the word independence, for fear the idea will harm some people somewhere?"
The New York World, of September 28, 1904 inquired,
"What is 'our task' that Governor Wright thinks will be made harder by free speech? In his first message, President Roosevelt said it was to 'prepare the Filipinos for self-government after the fashion of really free nations.' Really free nations have freedom, have they not? Is there any other preparation for freedom equal to the aspiration, the hope, and the promise of being free?"
At about the same time the League widely distributed another leaflet attacking the then Secretary of War, William H. Taft, for an address which he had delivered in Cincinnati, on February 22, 1904, in the course of which he had declared himself opposed to an immediate declaration as it was the intention of the United States to give the Filipinos independence when they should be "fit for it." Secretary Taft had concluded his remarks by saying:
"Now, I appreciate why it is that so many good people are anxious to have that declaration made. It is in order that we may bring about what they regard as some sort of political consistency -- consistency with the Declaration of Independence; consistency with a dogma which I have heard announced, that a self-government by a people must be better than any government of the people by any other government. Well, that is the issue. I do not believe it. It is not true, and history shows that it is not true."(15)
To this declaration the League replied:
"AGAINST THESE PRINCIPLES AND DECLARATIONS OF PURPOSE THE ANTI-IMPERIALISTS PROTEST AND CALL UPON ALL LOYAL AMERICANS TO OPPOSE THE CANDIDATES AND THE PARTY WHICH MAINTAIN THEM. THE ANTI-IMPERIALISTS BELIEVE THAT AN IMMEDIATE PROMISE OF A NEAR INDEPENDENCE WOULD BRING PEACE AND HARMONY TO THE FILIPINOS, RESTORE THE HONOR OF THE UNITED STATES, AND VINDICATE THE VITAL AND SACRED DOCTRINES UPON WHICH THE REPUBLIC WAS FOUNDED AND WHICH ARE ESSENTIAL TO ITS PERPETUITY."(16)
The League also re-published and widely distributed a statement by ex-President Grover Cleveland, one of its interested members:
"The message of Democracy to the American people should courageously enjoin that, in sincere and consistent compliance with the spirit and profession of our interference in behalf of Cuba's self-government, our beneficent designs toward her should also extend to the lands which, as an incident of such interference, have come under our control; that the people of the Philippine Islands should be aided in the establishment of a government of their own; and that when this is accomplished our interference in their domestic rule should cease."(17)
Part of an address made by General Nelson A. Miles, at the Iroquois Club at Chicago, on April 13, 1904, warned his hearers against the boast of "world power" from mere brute force, reminding them of the ultimate fall of Imperial Rome.(18) William Jennings Bryan, answering the religious enthusiasts for "spreading the gospel" to the already Christian Filipinos, argued that the Filipinos should be left to take care of themselves, first because a colonial policy was not necessary for the advancement of the welfare of the Filipinos; and second, because the Americans could not afford to help the Filipinos at such tremendous cost to the United States and the rest of the world, nor afford the relinquishment of principles found in the Declaration of Independence, nor the necessary expenses which "colonialism" and "benevolent assimilation" involved.
Mr. Moorfield Storey, in a speech before the Harvard Democratic Club, asked whether the people of this country wanted another race problem in their hands, not having even then disposed of their own Negro and Indian questions, problems which badly needed a more humane solution. He said:
"The question for the American people is whether they want another race problem in their hands some thousands of miles away; whether they wish to be responsible for despotic government over a foreign race who long for independence.... No nation ever yet learned to govern itself by being governed. Men must govern themselves to learn how.... But they may quarrel and fight. Very true, but what free nation has not worked their own contest. How many civil wars have England, France, Germany, Italy, how great a civil war have we ourselves known? There is this difference. The blood shed in wars like these is the seed of liberty, but the blood which we shed in a war of conquest enhances our tyranny.... Our present course is wrong, eternally wrong, and sooner or later we shall see it and remember with loathing the men who led us astray.... But no election can waver our faith in our final triumph."(19)
Before the 1904 national conventions of the two major parties, the anti-imperialists sent a petition to each asking for a plank promising independence to the Filipinos. The anti-imperialist newspapers naturally endorsed this proposal, but the rest opposed vigorously the granting of such a promise. Of the latter, the Outlook for June 11, 1904, editorially commented as follows:
"We do not endorse this petition because we believe that before the time for acting upon it can arrive, it will be clear alike to Americans and Filipinos that relations of interdependence between the United States and the Philippines can be adjusted on terms not disadvantageous to the United States, and immeasurably more advantageous to the Filipinos than political independence. Such interdependence will secure to them a larger commercial prosperity, a more stable justice, a more assured personal liberty, and a better development, both individual and social, than could be hoped for under political independence."
Arguing against promising independence in 1904, the editorial continued: "All wisdom will not die with the present generation; and we may safely leave the future to take thought for the things of itself."
The Republicans triumphed in President Roosevelt's election, and the anti-imperialists, if taken with the party they officially supported, again met defeat. Mr. David Greene Haskins, treasurer of the League, however, expressed the hope that:
"The Anti-Imperialist League will continue its work, with full confidence of ultimate success. The defeat in an election of a political party that has bravely, and I believe, honestly advocated our principles is regrettable, but it is a mere passing incident."(20)
There is no use imagining what might have been the fate of the Filipino people had the Democrats come into power in 1904, because at that late day American sovereignty was already so fully and thoroughly established in the Philippines that it would have been hard to go into a different Philippine policy. Prof. Latané spoke of this matter thus:
"On the question of the Philippines, the two parties were not as far apart as they had been in 1900; the Republicans had come around to the promise of self-government; the Democratic platform advocated for the Philippines the same treatment that had been accorded to Cuba. Root, the most competent person in the country to speak on the Philippine situation, declared in his Chicago speech that it was only a question of time when such treatment would be accorded them. (Republican Campaign Text-Book, 1900, 473) In Judge Parker's speech of acceptance he advocated for the Filipinos 'the right of self-government,' explaining later that he used the term as equivalent to 'independence.' Whatever mistakes the Republican party might have had in its dealings with the Philippines, and they were many, it is difficult to see what changes in policy could have been brought about if a Democratic administration had come into power at that late day."(21)
Besides, the election of 1904, not only meant the defeat of the issue of Anti-Imperialism but also brought about developments that made it hard for America to retract from her then established Philippine policy. During the campaign, enthusiasm for anti-imperialism was even less than it was in 1900. "Anti-Imperialism" was then a paramount issue neither in theory nor in fact. In politics, it was actually a "dead issue," for apparently the two major parties have already reached a compromising attitude toward it. The Democrats wanted an actual promise of independence for some future time, while the Republicans, though not giving such promise, conveyed the idea that self-government for the Filipinos was just the same its ultimate goal. The fact stood that the Philippines were, by 1904, a conquered country both from Spain and from the Filipinos, with the United States as the master and conqueror from every conceivable standpoint of international law. Civil government had been established, and there was every prospect that this American experiment in colonial government beyond the seas would prove successful. The whole world watched this experiment; meanwhile, American interests in China and the Far East had grown immeasurably larger. In the face of all these, even if the Democratic Party had gone into power, the United States could not have inaugurated a different Philippine policy by leaving the Islands. To do so would have been an act of poor statesmanship.
1. Sixth Annual Report of the Anti-Imperialist League. Record Book of the Executive Committee Meetings of the Anti-Imperialist League, December 5, 1901-March 9, 1905, 146-147.
2. Ibid., 1904, 147.
3. Fourth Annual Report of the Anti-Imperialist League, 11.
4. Record Book of the Executive Committee Meetings of the Anti-Imperialist League, December 5, 1901-March 9, 1905, 147.
5. Ibid., 151.
6. Sixth Annual Report of the Anti-Imperialist League, 11.
7. K. H. Porter, National Party Platforms, 246.
8. Ibid., 260.
9. Sixth Annual Report of the Anti-Imperialist League, 9-15.
10. J. H. Latané, America as a World Power, 216-220.
11. The Cost of War and Warfare, from 1898 to 1904, 7. This estimate was of course the product of Mr. Atkinson's imagination; it should be remembered, however, that it was impossible to get statistics regarding the Philippines at that time.
12. Note: The writer obtained an estimate from the War Department of total expenditures in the Philippines by the United States from 1898-1923, inclusive, of 140,000,000.
13. H. D. Laswell, Propaganda Technique of the World War.
14. No Jury Trial for Americans in the Philippines, 2.
15. Cincinnati Times Star, February 23, 1904.
16. Hush! Hush! Leaflet.
17. Grover Cleveland, The Democracy's Opportunity, 9. Reprinted in the Saturday Evening Post for February 20, 1904.
18. Nelson A. Miles, Our Country, 6.
19. Storey, The Importance to America of Philippine Independence, 20-21.
20. Sixth Annual Report of the Anti-Imperialist League, 17.
21. J. H. Latané, America as a World Power, 235-236.
M. Patrick Cullinane, Liberty and Anti-Imperialism, July 14, 2007.