Activities of the League, 1912-1920

Another presidential election was coming in 1912, and therefore another busy year for any political organization, and the Anti-Imperialist League was a political organization.  For our purpose, it is, however, necessary to go back a little farther to the letter, sent on June 12, 1911, 1 by the League's Executive Committee to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Champ Clark, Chairman Oscar W. Underwood of the Ways and Means Committee, and to William Atkinson Jones, Chairman of the Committee on Insular Affairs of the lower house of Congress. In this resolution the League begged the leaders just mentioned to present at once a bill, or at least a resolution for Philippine Independence. The Democrats were then in the majority in the House. In March, 1912, Congressman Jones presented a resolution to Congress with which the Anti-Imperialist League was delighted. 2  Mr. Manuel L. Quezon at this time was one of the Philippine Commissioners in the House of Representatives, and was on good terms with the League, which had arranged engagement for him to speak before many American audiences. 3  Mr. Quezon was also congratulated for the part which he had played in promoting this resolution for Philippine independence and neutralization. 4  No definite result, however, came out of this move in 1911.
Besides favoring the granting of independence to the Philippines at an early date, the League was opposed to interference of the United States in the affairs of other nations, 5 and feeling that both interests would best be served by a Democratic administration in Washington, they decided that they should again officially support the Democratic Party in the election of 1912. Erving Winslow, John P. Herman, and Edward H. Clement were sent by the League as representatives to the Democratic National Convention at St. Louis, Missouri, in 1912. These delegates recommended a plank which had previously been adopted by the Executive Committee of the League. The proposed plank follows:

“The last three national platforms of the Democratic Party, by their declaration in behalf of early independence for the inhabitants of the Philippine Islands, effectively noted a continuing protest against the action of Republican administrations in maintaining sovereignty over an alien people.
“The Democratic party is now entering into the opportunity of forming and carrying out a constructive policy to redeem the pledge originally made to the inhabitants of the Philippines and to abandon an attitude on the part of the United States so inconsistent with its own fundamental doctrines of self-government. We pledge ourselves to the support of the bill reported by the Committee on Insular Affairs of the House of Representatives, and now pending in that body, which provides for the early independence of the Philippine Islands, hoping for their neutralization by international treaties. The United States would thus be honorably relieved from the responsibility of maintaining a remote colony with a discontented population certain to become a growing burden and menace in case of foreign complications.  Our commercial interests with a grateful and friendly people would grow and prosper, while we maintained suitable coaling stations and naval bases in the archipelago.” 6

This plank was not adopted verbatim by the St. Louis convention, but the Democratic platform for 1912 contained proposals concerning the Philippines which embodied most of the principles for which the League had been fighting. The platform declared:

“We reaffirm the position thrice announced by the Democracy in national convention assembled against a policy of imperialism and colonial exploitation in the Philippines and elsewhere. We condemn the experiment in imperialism as an inexcusable blunder, which has involved us in enormous expense, brought us weakness instead of strength, and laid our nation open to the charge of abandonment of the fundamental doctrine of self-government. We favor an immediate declaration of the nation's purpose to recognize the independence of the Philippine Islands as soon as stable government can be established, such independence to be guaranteed by us until the neutralization of the Islands can be secured by treaty with other powers.
“In recognizing the independence of the Philippines our government should retain such lands as may be necessary for coaling stations and naval bases.” 7

The League asked its adherents to support the Presidential Candidate of the Democratic party “inasmuch as the Republican platform disavows any political duty in the Philippine matter and the Progressive platform mentions it not at all, while the Democratic platform promises Philippine independence.” With regards to candidates for the Senate and the lower house of Congress, Democratic candidates were usually recommended, but Samuel W. McCall of Massachusetts, a Republican, was especially supported by the League because he had always been a staunch supporter of freedom for the Philippines and because he had promised to vote for the bill establishing an independent Philippine nation. 8 Thus while the Anti-imperialists usually favored Democratic Candidates, it had not lost its non-partisan character.
Woodrow Wilson was elected President in 1912. Congress had a Democratic majority. Did this augur well for anti-imperialism? In May, 1913, the League sent a circular to its members asking them to urge Philippine independence and to continue its work more actively than ever, especially since, “Our opponents have organized 9 under the leadership of ex-President Taft and Governor General Forbes, to prevent the Democratic Party from carrying out its promise.” 10 One of the first things the League did in 1913 was to recommend to President Wilson the appointment as Governor General of the Philippines to succeed W. Cameron Forbes, Thomas Mott Osborn of New York. 11  Francis Burton Harrison was, however, the choice of the administration. In October of the same year, the League sent an address to the Filipino people congratulating them for the work their leaders had done and hoping for the early emancipation of the Archipelago, reiterating at the same time its willingness to work for Philippine freedom as it had done in the past. Then, it added:

“While the League thus offers you its congratulations it ventures, too, a word of very earnest counsel. We believe that you should in every possible way discourage and limit that kind of development by "foreign capital" which is now openly urged by those who know and are now bold enough to assert that such development will prevent almost certainly the severance of the ties which bind you as a ‘colony’ to the United States:—because the ‘lobby’ which such 'interests' can maintain would be all powerful in this country to prevent our withdrawal from the islands, while your voices in opposition would scarcely be heard or your arguments reach the public ear.” 12

Over Governor General Harrison's appointment the League was not very enthusiastic, 13 but once he was chosen it kept a friendly correspondence 14 with him.
President Wilson had been in his office only seventeen months when the World War broke out; and although the United States did not enter it until April, 1917, the attention of the nation was drawn towards the conflict and towards acute difficulties with Mexico, and consequently matters that might otherwise have been attended to were for a time neglected. The neutralization plan for the Philippines had come to naught, but the Anti-Imperialist League, although very much disappointed at this failure, continued agitating for it. 15  William Atkinson Jones was at this time pushing the Jones Bill and to the passage of that measure the members of the League turned their attention. When it was reintroduced and passed the House of Representatives, the joy of the anti-imperialists was great. The League received letters from its members as if the triumph was really the result of the efforts of the League. William Jennings Bryan wrote:

“Give my compliments to the members of the Anti-Imperialist League and express to them my gratification at this country's declaration of its intention to ultimately grant independence to the Filipinos. Had this promise been made in the beginning it would have saved enormous expenditures and prevented foreign misconception of our Nation's purpose.... Your Society is to be commended, for its devotion to this purpose and it is to be congratulated on the victory that has been won.” 16

The Reverend A. A. Berle was happy because “after all these years our course is seen to be the only way out” of the Philippines. Representative Slayden of Texas was enthusiastic over the initial success of the bill, and seemed to think that the League was at least partly responsible for it. He wrote to the Frying Winslow thus:

“Do you feel as happy as I do over the fact that the goal for which we have been striving since 1899 is in sight?
“We have survived the epithets 'little Americans', 'Scuttlers', and so on, and have kept our self respect, have adhered steadfastly to a high purpose and now have the administration with us.
“The House will certainly stand by the policy of independence for the Filipinos and I hope that the Senate will. On one point I am very clear, and that is, if at any time in the last fourteen years the congress could have voted on this question, dissociated absolutely from partisan politics, a resolution to grant the Philippines complete independence would have carried with an overwhelming vote.
“Let us get the question properly presented now and, possibly, we may have a spontaneous, non-partisan recognition of the American doctrine that just government is only possible with the consent of the governed.” 17

Ex-representative John A. Martin of Colorado said in part:

“During the latter part of my stay in Congress and when it became apparent that there would probably be a change of party administrations in Washington, I had reasons to fear that our performances would not nearly measure up to our promises, but this danger would appear to be past and we would appear now to be on firm ground upon the proposition of the neutralization and independence of the Philippine Archipelago. I congratulate the Anti-Imperialist League upon the great progress toward this end already made and its steadfast adherence to this principle through a long period of opposition. It has kept the light burning which shineth more and more unto the perfect day.
“Wishing the League ultimate complete realization of its great purpose to keep this great Republic true to its fundamental principles and best traditions.” 18

Waldo R. Browne, editor, thought that every loving American should at least express to the officers and the Executive Committee of the Anti-Imperialist League the “debt of pride and honor ... in their achievement.” 19  Representative Samuel McCall plainly acknowledged that the League was partially responsible for the progress towards self-government granted to the Filipinos. His letter read:

“The administration is making a good practical beginning on the problem of self-government in the Philippines by giving the people a more enlarged part in their government. Of course one cannot very well learn to walk unless he is at least given the chance to try to creep. I think the policy as embodied in the neutralization resolution drawn in substance by Mr. Storey and introduced by me in the House of Representatives contains the wise solution of the problem.” 20

Professor William E. Dodd of Chicago said in his turn:

“Is not this thanksgiving one of peculiar satisfaction to the Anti-Imperialist who sees now the beginning of the realization of his hopes as to one of the most important policies of the American government. Your persistent and wise agitation has done a good deal to bring about the result we see in the Philippines—the beginning of self-government. Anti-Imperialists have shown what a comparatively small body of resolute men may do if they have faith in their cause. Woodrow Wilson has also contributed much to his resolute idealism and to him I think we might properly direct a collective letter endorsing his policy.” 21

Senator John F. Shafroth believed the League deserved credit for a splendid victory,

“To the members of the Anti-Imperialist League there must during this happy season come the joyous consciousness of splendid victory. Through the dark years of gross materialism that dominated our national life this organization kept alive and vibrant the voice of conscience. The campaign has been nobly fought, and gloriously won.” 22

The letters quoted in part above are but few among the many that were received by the League congratulating it for the moral victory it was enjoying after years of bitter criticism and ridicule. The letters came from all kinds of men, professional, plain citizens, congressmen, and newspapermen. They are most interesting because all these people believed that what the government was willing to grant was the result of the ideals and the endeavors of the anti-imperialists. And all these rejoicings were only for the first sign that their labor was bearing fruit! But the Jones Bill of 1912 was not yet passed; action on it was postponed. On December 5, 1913 the Anti-Imperialist Committee wrote to Mr. Jones hoping that a new bill would be introduced. On October 14, 1914, the new Philippine Bill was passed by the House and on December 4, 1914, the League urged the Senate to approve the bill, 23 and memorials were sent to the President and Congress of the United States on October 22, 1915, and again on November 19 of the same year. Every move of Congress was incessantly watched and senators and representatives who were favorably inclined towards the aspirations of the League were continuously encouraged and congratulated.
The Filipinos were not exempted from this. Speaker Sergio Osmena of the Philippine Assembly and President of the Nacionalista Party and Commissioner Manuel-Quezon kept in touch with the League. For, as Maximo M. Kalaw in addressing the Anti-Imperialists in 1916 said: “Anti-Imperialist and Filipinos must continue inseparably united in their devotion to the cause of Philippine independence.” 24
In 1916, the League again supported the Democratic party and was represented at the party's national convention by Professor Albert H. Tolman, Stephen D. Parrish, Professor William Gardener Hale, and William M. Reedy. This committee submitted to the convention an Anti-imperialist plank regarding the Philippines. The proposed plank was:

“We reassert our adherence to the policy of restoring the control of the Philippine Islands to their inhabitants, which has been endorsed in every Democratic platform since the islands were taken by a Republican Administration in 1898, and we approve the act adopted by the popular branch and awaiting action in the Senate at the present session of Congress as a step towards the execution of the policy and a partial fulfillment of our promises. It is our duty now to hasten the time Filipinos shall realize their cherished ideals of independence which can be secured by those international guarantees for the liberty of weaker nations that will form undoubtedly part of the settlement made at the close of the war. Thus the people of the United States look forward to a relief within a measurable period from the burden and risk of 'possessions' held in violation of the principles upon which this government rests, and the retention of which asserts a right within the Eastern Hemisphere which the United States denies to other peoples in the Western.” 25

M. Patrick Cullinane, Liberty and Anti-Imperialism, July 5, 2007.

Privacy Policy

Conditions of Use