Origin of the Anti-Imperialist League
Maria Lanzar-Carpio

The First Anti-Imperialist Agitation

            Gamaliel Bradford(1) a Bostonian and descendant of William Bradford, the earliest governor of Plymouth colony, made the first move towards the organization of the Anti-Imperialist League.  On June 2, 1898, there appeared in the Boston Evening Transcript a short letter addressed to the public, entitled a “Cry for Help.”  A cry for help indeed it was, for thus runs the letter:

In the name of all the past glories of Massachusetts I call for help in response to this appeal.  Some months ago I tried to get up a Faneuil Hall meeting to protest against the war, but was met with the excuse that the war feeling might get the upper hand.  Other persons tried the same thing later, but gave it up, apparently for the same reasons.  If that is the danger, in God’s name let us stand for the right…though the war feeling thus prevail!  Is free speech to be suppressed in Massachusetts, is Faneuil Hall to be converted into a silent tomb?  The spirit of Wendel Phillips and William Lloyd Garrison is sorely needed to avert a slavery worse for Massachusetts at least than that of the Negro.  If any other men will join me to secure the hall, I for one, will stand up and have my say against the insane and wicked ambition which is driving this country to ruin.

            In answer to this appeal for free speech, Faneuil Hall was obtained, and the meeting which gave rise to the Anti-Imperialist League was held on Wednesday, June 15, 1898, in order “to protest against the Adoption of a so-called imperial policy by the United States.”(2)   Gamaliel Bradford presided over the meeting and spoke of the Spanish-American War and the duty of the American citizen in connection with it.  Although fearful that the United States might be drawn by the war into a colonial policy which he abhorred, he did not oppose the vigorous prosecution of the conflict.  “The war exists,” he declared, “and it is the duty of every citizen to support the government.”(3)

            Six weeks prior to the Faneuil Hall meeting, on May 1, 1898, an American naval force under Commodore George Dewey had destroyed the Spanish fleet in Manila Bay.  Dewey’s squadron still lay in the harbor, while Manila and the rest of the Philippine archipelago remained in Spanish possession.  The American government and people had as yet adopted no definite policy towards the Philippines, the fate of which was pending until the termination of the war and the negotiation of a treaty between the United States and Spain.  Rumors were abroad, however, that a certain faction in Congress were determined that the Islands should become a possession of the United States.  To this accession of territory, the Bostonians who meet at Faneuil Hall on June 15 were opposed.

            Addressing them on this subject, Mr. Bradford declared that when the war with Spain had been wanted, war for commercialism was hooted at and despised.  After that same war had begun, when the Philippines were coveted, the commercial value of the Islands was exaggerated.  In his opinion the energy of the American people and Congress was needed for the betterment of political and social conditions in the United States, without the added burden of governing millions of Orientals on the other side of the globe.  But the war had come to pass and could not be undone.  As to the future, with regards to the terms of peace, he hoped that the United States would not rush into colonial adventures even though public opinion might demand it.(4)   Thus hopefully he appealed to the people of Massachusetts:

The future is still ours and every man has the right to a voice as to the terms of peace, which we may hope will soon come.  It may be asked, why talk about peace when the war has already begun?  Because a faction is hard at work to commit the country to action from which it cannot afterwards recede.  There can be no doubt that the sole motive of the war was humanity. That noble quality which does so much honor to our people, was played upon for other purposes.  Private interests seeking after gain, politicians striving to keep themselves in large share.  And the same forces are urging us on to the establishment of a military empire in Asia with all which that involves…I appeal to the people of Massachusetts to protest against this rush of reckless and unbridled ambition.(5)

            It is important to recall the other speakers who addressed this meeting, as they subsequently were among the most ardent anti-imperialists.  One of them was Mr. Moorfield Storey, a prominent Attorney of Boston, one time President of the American Bar Association, and an Independent, who later became President of the League and was it chief executive for almost twenty years.  Mr. Storey enunciated at that initial meeting the principles for which the Anti-Imperialists stood.  He said:

We are not here to oppose the war, or to throw any obstacles in the way of its speedy and successful determination…We are here to deal with a far graver issue; to insist that a war begun in the cause of humanity shall not be turned into a war for empire, that an attempt to win for the Cubans the right to govern themselves shall not be made an excuse for extending our sway over alien peoples without their consent…To seize any colony of Spain and hold it as our own, without the free consent of its people is a violation of the principles upon which this government rests, which we have preached to the world for a century, and which we pledged ourselves to respect when this war was declared…But the case does not end here.  We not only abandoned the boasted Monroe Doctrine…We not only disregard that wise policy of non-intervention in European troubles, which Washington taught and until now we have followed.  We become a military power, burdened with a standing army and an enormous navy, threatened with complications thousands of miles away, and exposed to constant apprehension…Our domestic difficulties will be neglected, for our attention will be divided.  Our taxation must increase, our currency become more disordered, and worst of all, the corruption which threatens us cannot fail to spread.  When we undertake to govern subject peoples separated from us by half the world, let us remember how we despoiled the Indians at our doors and how impossible it has been to keep that service pure.  Let us not forget that carpet-bag government of our Southern brothers, whose complaints fell on deaf dears though they spoke our language and we heard them every day…Such a system means great increase of wealth and fresh field for corruption…When Rome began her career of conquest, the Roman Republic began to decay…Let us once govern any considerable body of men without their consent, and it is a question of time how soon this republic shares the fate of Rome.(6)

Through its entire existence the Anti-Imperialist League was faithful to the moral and political principles thus expressed by Mr. Storey.  The address which he made at this first meeting might, indeed, have been adopted as the permanent platform of the organization.

            Because of the part to be played by the churches in the work of the anti-imperialists, it is of interest to note that a minister spoke at this initial meeting.  The Reverend Mr. Charles Ames, Unitarian clergyman of Dorchester, Massachusetts, contended that “colonialism” threatened to poison the blood of all liberty-loving peoples, and to change their temper into a “permanent attitude of arrogance, testiness and defiance toward other nations,” which must necessarily breed antagonism.(7)

            Other objections to the retention of the Philippines were raised by Mr. George E. McNeill, a distinguished citizen and public servant, who opposed the acquisition of the Philippines mainly because of the difficulties to be encountered in the government of another race.  Should the Islands be made a component part of the United States as a state?  This was improbable because the Filipinos were an entirely different people in race, in history, in tradition, and in civilization.  In the opinion of Mr. McNeill, the United States was having enough trouble in prohibiting the Chinese from entering America to compete with American laborers to the disadvantage of the latter.  To make a colony of the Philippines and, therefore, to govern its people was to him unthinkable.  The principles of American democracy demanded a government for all the people and by all the people.(8)

            The first resolution of protest against any colonial venture of the United States in the Far East was passed at this meeting, having been unanimously adopted by those present.  It ran as follows:

Resolved, That a war begun as an ‘unselfish endeavor to fulfill a duty to humanity by ending’ the unhappy situation in Cuba, must not be perverted into a war of conquest.

Resolved, That an annexation of territory as a result of this war would be a violation of the national faith pledged in the joint resolution of Congress which declared that the United States disclaimed ‘any disposition or intention to exercise sovereignty or control’ over Cuba, ‘except for the pacification thereof,’ a disclaimer which was intended to mean that this country had no selfish purpose in making war and which in spirit applies to every possession of Spain.

Resolved, That our first duty is to cure the evils in our country, the corrupt government of which New York and Philadelphia afford only conspicuous examples, the disturbed relations between labor and capital, our disordered currency, or unjust system of taxation, the debasing influence of money at elections and on legislation, the use of offices as spoils; and when we have shown that we can protect the rights of men within our own borders like the colored race at the south and the Indians in the West, and that we can govern great cities like New York, Philadelphia, and Chicago, it will be time to consider whether we can wisely invite distant populations of alien race and language and of tradition unlike our own to become our subjects and accept our rule, or be our fellow citizens and take part in governing us.(9)

            A study of the newspapers reveals that the Boston meeting did not attract much attention outside Boston.  But the newspapers of the city itself announced it in big headlines.  They likewise commented either on the significance of the meeting or upon the question of the advisability of acquiring the Philippines, or against the general subject of imperialism.(10)   On June 14, 1898, the Boston Evening Transcript, in speaking of the approaching meeting declared: “The solemn warning is offered that this nation cannot annex the Hawaiian Islands and stop there.  Quite true.  It does not want to stop there.  The Marrianne and the Caroline and the Philippine Islands lie far beyond.”  It avowed no optimism with regards to the cause of anti-imperialism, as can be deduced from its still further statement saying, “At least Massachusetts delegation keep the state from surrendering to this madness of the hour.”  Well might the anti-imperialists have been warned, as the Junior Senator from Massachusetts, a rising and extremely influential politician, Henry Cabot Lodge, was destined to become one of the outstanding exponents of expansion. The Boston Herald wrote compromising, if not rather vague sentiments regarding the question under discussion.  The editorial ran:

“The meeting yesterday, at Faneuil Hall in protest against the policy of imperialism is action which may well be taken for the purpose of crystallizing public opinion.  No such wide departure from our traditional system should be made unless it has been carefully discussed, and both its merits and demerits made plainly apparent.  We imagine, however, that long before definite action can be taken…for the United States cannot safely make known its intentions in regard to the Philippine Islands until the war is at an end…circumstances will present themselves which will materially qualify existing public opinion.  When, as will probably be the case, it is found that, of the troops sent to assist Admiral Dewey, more than half will have perished from tropical diseases during the present season, the advantage of American ownership of these islands and of American occupancy of them are questions which will present themselves in quite a different light from that in which they are now popularly viewed.”(11)

            We have no means of ascertaining the exact number of people present at this initial meeting.  The Boston Herald simply stated that the audience on the ground floor of Faneuil Hall was predominantly masculine while women filled the balcony.  It stated that what was lacking in number was made up by enthusiasm.  On the platform of the hall were seated the following men: General Francis A. Osborn, Edward Atkinson, William H. Jones, William Cushing Wait, Edward Holten James, Charles S. Rackeman, Francis E. Abbot, Dr. Lewis G. Janes, Dana Estes, Albert S. Parsons, Henry W. Putnam, William Watson, Andrew Fiske, David Greene Haskins, Francis B. Sears, Lincoln R. Stone, C. H. Fiske, C. R. Lawman, William Endicott, Joseph B. Merrs, Reverend Edward Hall, and Erving Winslow.(12)

            The importance of the first anti-imperialist meeting lies not in the publicity it attracted, but in the views which it expressed, and in the fact that it was the first organized effort to enlist public support against the colonial policy of the McKinley administration.  The principles enumerated at the Faneuil Hall meeting may be summarized as follows:

            1.  The United States had announced to the world that it had gone to war with Spain for the cause of humanity, to free oppressed peoples; and this primary purpose of the war ought to hold not only for the Cubans, but for all other peoples saved from Spanish tyranny and domination.

            2.  It is against the principles of American government to govern a people without their consent, as proposed in the case of the Filipinos.

            3.  The United States could not incorporate the people of the Philippine Islands into the body politic of the United States, because they are a people of entirely different race, traditions and civilization.  Their coming into the body politic of America, would be of demoralizing influence, especially as to labor.

            4.  America had enough difficulties to overcome in her internal affairs without adding foreign troubles.

            5.  Colonization would mean a bigger army and navy, therefore greater taxation.

            6.  Colonization makes the people of the colonizing power egotistic, arrogant, selfish, defiant, and breeds enmity and hatred.

            7.  The acquiring of the Philippines, which indeed was taking away a colony belonging to a European power, was against the spirit of the Monroe Doctrine.

            8.  The decline and final downfall of Rome began when she forced unwilling peoples to become subject to her rule.  The lesson taught by the ancient world should serve as a warning to the United States.

            It should be especially noted that at their initial meeting, as afterwards, the anti-imperialists opposed colonization not primarily out of consideration for the welfare of the native inhabitants of the proposed colonies, but fundamentally for the good of the American people and the preservation of the principles of American Democracy as expounded by its founders.