6S6,;rooker,Joseph Henry
a669         f:Te Ptilippine problem
I     BU'HR  BI
a39015 00031699 5b
-          i
II''k A,




I.0~~~ B
I ma  lic 2p 
ori  il" %n4e~~~g ~Ij


THE


HILIPfPINE  PR BILEIV


~~~~-la rraa~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~WN


-,i,1 ", n Ic, s fi~'a w,,, ei<i


li*riktere as second-c:,las*, T"a'.al.fe at the
N~ow  Y~Vork, N, Y_ P"iSt Officv, AP-f'~f 4, x 9




i




The Philippine Problem
By
JOSEPH HENRY CROOKER


Of Ann Arbor


Officc  of  Ipulitlcaitiont:.'t. a >.; 3!- 1, I  I - ' X1 i 1 (Iln g




c,
I  I
f,,'-  




THE PHILIPPINE PROBLEM.'


I wish to discuss briefly certain phases of what may be
called the Philippine problem.  It is a problem of vast importance, and yet it has not been treated as fully as its great
magnitude and inherent difficulties deserve.  One of the
alarming indications of the hour is the popular unwillingness
to admit that these new policies present any serious problem.
There seems to be no general recognition that anything strange
or dangerous is happening.  Those who raise a cry of warning
are denounced as pessimists; those who enter criticism are
branded as traitors.  We are told in a jaunty manner to have
faith in the American people.  This blind trust in " destiny"
makes the triumph of the demagogue easy.  This indifference
to political discussion is the symptom of the paralysis of true
patriotism.,
I.-INTRUDED VS. NATIVE ANARCHY.
The following is one phase of the popular argument in justification of our oriental aggressions: The obligations of humanity demanded that we take possession of the Philippine
islands, in order to prevent the anarchy which would certainly
have followed had we taken any other course than that which
we did.
But would a little native-grown anarchy have been as bad as
the slaughter and destruction which we have intruded?  Let
us remember that we ourselves have already killed and
wounded thousands of the inhabitants.  We have arrayed
1 Originally printed in the Springfield (Mass.) " Republican."
3




4


THE PHILIPPINE PROBLEM


tribe against tribe; we have desolated homes and burned villages; agriculture and commerce have been prostrated; and,
finally, we have created hatred of ourselves in the breasts of
millions of people, to remain for years to plague us and them.
It is not likely that, if left to themselves, anything half so
serious would have occurred.  It is perfectly clear that some
other attitude toward those islands besides that of domination, which this nation most unfortunately took, would have
prevented these results.
And we are not yet at the end. Recurring outbreaks
against us as intruders, by people desirous of independence,
will undoubtedly produce more distress and disorder in the
next ten years (if our present policy is maintained) than
would have resulted from native incapacity.  Moreover, there
are no facts in evidence that warrant the assertion that anarchy would have followed had we left them more to themselves.  This is wholly an unfounded assumption.  It would
certainly have been well to have waited and given them a
chance before interfering. That we did not waif, that we did
not give them a chance, is proof positive that our national
policy was not shaped by considerations of humanity or a
reasonable desire to benefit them, but by a spirit of selfish
aggrandizement.
II.-PROTECTION BETTER THAN POSSESSION.
It is held that we had to do just what was done, to prevent
the Philippines from being seized by some greedy European
power.  And it is taken for granted that such an outcome
would have been disastrous to them and injurious to us.
This is, however, a dangerous mode of argument. It is
the defence of a questionable procedure by a succession of
colossal assumptions.  In the first place, it is a mere assump



THE PHILIPPINE PROBLEM


5


tion to hold that harm would have come to America if a European power had taken possession of them.  Has the French
dominion in Madagascar injured the United States? Such
views show a strange misconception of the sources of our national greatness, far more damaging to us than any foreign occupation of Manila!
Let us suppose that some greedy European power had taken
possession of them. Would European greed have done them
any more harm than American greed? Is it likely that German bullets would have killed any more than American rifles?
Remember the sickening daily record: 10, 50, 200 rebels
killed! Has our policy so far justified itself as a philanthropic measure?  If we carry out the frank declaration of our
congressmen, that we need these islands for their commercial
advantages, how will we stand before the bar of historical
justice,-as a chivalrous nation or as a despicable Shylock?
But such arguments are needless.  We should have been
far more able to protect them from European aggression, if
we had stood by them as a friend instead of standing over
them as their master.  Our vast power would have been more
effectual, if used righteously as a protectorate than despotically in ownership.  If we had said to the world: " Keep
hands off; let these people work out their problem of independence," no nation would have thought of interfering with
us or our protege.  We would have been stronger in defending them from aggression than in maintaining ourselves as
aggressors.
III.-COMMERCE VS. CONSCIENCE.
It is claimed that we urgently needed just such a base of
operations in the far East as the Philippines afford, to foster
our commerce in times of peace and shelter our navy in times




6


THE PHILIPPINE PROBLEM


of war.  But is this a valid argument?  Trade follows other
lines besides those ploughed by cannon balls.  Look at our
trade in Australia.  It has no naval base of operations to
support it. If this policy is wise and necessary, we must not
stop where we are. This is only a mere beginning. We
want to trade in China, Africa, Brazil.  Therefore we must
seize some territory there to help our commerce.  And where
shall we stop, if we begin to foster trade by conquest?  Our.
fathers thought that our chief concern as a nation was liberty.
Shall we abandon those sublime political ideals and make
barter the sole aim of our patriotism?  Then we are free
America no longer.  Do the old soldiers and their loyal sons
realize that the policy so widely advocated degrades the flag
and makes of it little more than the sign of a market-place or
an auction shop? They bore the flag through the smoke of
battle to make it the symbol of justice and liberty.  Shall we
now rob it of all its glory by trailing it in the dust to mark
the place where tradesmen may show their wares?
The subjugation of distant peoples to help our shopkeepers
may be true Americanism, but it was not the Americanism of
Washington and Lincoln, of Sumner and Garrison, of Lowell
and Emerson.  Men once said: " We must not touch slavery,
it will hurt our business."  And the names of those men are
now covered with lasting disgrace.  Men now say: " Let us
conquer these islands to help our commerce."  An equal dishonor will some day blacken the names of these men.
And what a sorry illusion we are chasing, when we enlarge
on the importance of these distant lands! We have no business to plan for a war in the Orient.  Poor business to strut
about far from home with a chip on our shoulder, inviting international troubles.  But, should war come, these ten million
Asiatics, longing for liberty, would find in our troubles their




THE PHILIPPINE PROBLEM


7


opportunity; and, instead of being a source of strength, they
would be a menace and a weakness. We would be stronger
with one naval station in those waters than with a dozen points
to defend, where we might easily find ourselves caught between two fires.
Moreover, those who use the above argument are forever restrained and enjoined from a pretence of acting from motives
of humanity.  From lips blistered by such unpatriotic and inhuman selfishness no plea for the rights of man can come.
And,-as events forcibly illustrate, the mure this hateful doctrine is advocated by our congressmen, the more soldiers will
be needed in the Philippines. These are the words that will
nerve those distant islanders to resistance. On the hands of
the supporters of such commercialism rests the blood, not only
of so-called rebels, but also of American soldiers. He really
aims the gun at our boys in blue who makes the gunner feel
that we want to rule him to help our trade.
IV.-WHOSE FINANCIAL GAIN?
It is pitiful that our people, and especially the common people, should be so carried away by wild and baseless dreams of
the commercial advantage of these islands.  It is bad enough
to sacrifice patriotism upon the altar of Mammon; but it is
clear that in this case the sacrifice will be made without securing any benefit, even from Mammon.
The annual expense our nation will incur by the military
and naval establishment in the Philippines will be at least
one hundred million dollars. This the tax-payer of America
must pay.  On the other hand, the trade profits from these
islands-from the very nature of the case-will go directly
into the pockets of millionaire monopolists, the few speculators




8


THE PHILIPPINE PROBLEM


who will get possession of the business interests there, in the
line of hemp, sugar, tobacco, and lumber.
The proposition is a plain one. These islands will cost
us, the common people, a hundred million dollars a year.
The profits from them, possibly an equal sum, will go directly
to a few very rich men.  This is a very sleek speculative
scheme for transferring vast sums of money from the people at
large to the bank accounts of a few monopolists.  Can any one
see anything very helpful to the common tax-payer in this?
This is a consideration-in addition to the competition of
American labor with cheap Asiatic workmen-in itself sufficiently serious.
The question I press is this: Can such a policy work anything but financial harm to the average American citizen?
For one, I do not care to pay this tribute money every time I
draw a check or buy a bottle of medicine-tribute money that
means oppression to those distant islanders, unnecessary burdens to our own people, and a still larger store for speculators
to be used in corrupting American politics!
V.-WHAT IS " EXPANSION "?
A passionate demand for expansion has taken possession of
the American imagination. It is contended, We must come
out of our little corner, and take our place on the world-stage
of the nations.
But what has been the real expansion of our nation for over
a century?  It has been two-fold: (1) The extension of our
free institutions westward across the continent to the Pacific
coast; (2) the powerful influence of cur republican principles
throughout the world.  Our political ideals have modified the
sentiments of great nations; our people have flowed over con



THE PHILIPPINE PROBLEM


9


tiguous territories and planted there the same civic, social, religious, and educational institutions that they possessed in
their eastern home. All this has been a normal and natural
growth of true Americanism.
The policy that now popularly bears the name " expansion" is something radically different; and it is in no sense
the expansion of America.  Our people have been sadly deceived by-something far worse than an optical illusion; a deceptive phrase has lured them into danger and toward despotism.  To buy ten million distant islanders is the expansion of Jefferson Davis, not the expansion of Abraham Lincoln.
To tax far-off colonists without their consent is the expansion
of the policy of George III., not the expansion of the patriotism of George Washington.  To rule without representation
subject peoples is not the expansion of Americanism, but the
triumph of imperialism.
The policy advocated is the suppression of American principles, the surrender of our sublime ideals, and the end of our
beneficent ministry of liberty among the nations.  Just because I want to see America expand I condemn the policy as
unpatriotic.  Let us not deceive ourselves: the expansion of
military rule and sordid commercialism is not the expansion
of our real strength or true glory.  Let us not mistake the
renunciation of American ideals for the expansion of American
institutions.
VI.-FLAG AND CONSTITUTION.
Wherever the flag goes, there the constitution must go.
Wherever the flag moves, there the whole of the flag must be
present. Wherever the constitution is extended, there the entire constitution must rule.  If any one does not wish to accept these consequences, then let the flag be brought back to




10


THE PHILIPPINE PROBLEM


the spot where it can represent true Americanism, and Americanism in its entirety.
If it does not symbolize American institutions in their fulness wherever it floats, then our starry banner becomes false
to America and oppressive to those who may fear its authority, but do not share its freedom. Disgrace and harm will
not come from taking the flag down, but rather from keeping
it where it loses all that our statesmen, prophets, and soldiers
have put into it.  The only way to keep " Old Glory" from
becoming a falsehood is to give all under it the liberty that it
represents. Nowhere must it mean simply a power to be
dreaded, but everywhere it must symbolize rights and privileges shared by all.
VII.a-How   THE POISON WORKS.
Among the many bad things bound up with this unfortunate
business none is worse than the degradation of America, sure
to follow in more ways than one, if we persist in the course
that we are now following.  No stronger or sadder proof of
the unwise and harmful character of this policy is needed
than the fact that its defenders are led so quickly to part
company with sober argument and truthful statement, and rush
into virulent abuse and deceptive sophistries. Who would
have believed two years ago that any sane man would have
appealed to Washington in support of a policy so abhorrent
to the Father of his Country? What ignoble unveracity in
twisting his words into the approval of foreign conquest!
Who would have thought it possible that scholars and statesmen would so soon become mere jugglers with words, pretending that our previous territorial expansion furnishes analogy
and warrant for a colonial system far across the ocean, entered upon by warfare and maintained by congress without




THE PHILIPPINE PROBLEM


11


constitutional safeguards? These facts show how virulent a
poison is at work upon the national mind. We have here already a perversion of patriotism and a loss of political sagacity and veracity.
It is bad enough to hear men exclaim: " There is money in
it, and that is sufficient "; but a national venture that leads
men to scoff at the Declaration of Independence, to ridicule
the constitution as outgrown, to denounce the wisdom of the
fathers as foolishness, and to declare that American glory
dates from Manila bay-is there not something ominous in
such talk?  If a brief experience in the expansion of America
that scoffs at American principles produces such results, is it
not time to sound the alarm? If the defence of a policy compels men to take such positions, there is something infinitely
dangerous in that policy.
VIII.-UNWORTHY FATALISM.
There are those who supinely fall into national fatalism,
and exclaim: " We were compelled against our own will to
take possession of those islands."  " They fell into our unwilling lap."  " They were forced upon us by Destiny."
What a strange thing it is to hide so ignominiously behind
Providence! How convenient, but how unmanly, to shirk our
responsibility, and say: " We did not mean to buy and kill,
but forces over which we had no control pushed us into it."
But is it manly to renounce our responsibility? Is it honest
to misrepresent the situation? Is it patriotic to hide behind
a pious phrase? Must we admit that we are a lot of brainless and heartless irresponsibles?
Where shall we stop if we allow our statesmen to practice
such subterfuges?  This means the destruction of responsible
government.  Shall we in this scientific age renounce reason




12


THE PHILIPPINE PROBLEM


and conscience, and play the baby act by crying: " I did not
do it; it was the other fellow"'? But what are the facis?
Did God or our president instruct our commissioners at Paris
to lay hands on everything in sight? Did God or our president write the proclamation of December 21, 1898, calling
on ten million people to submit to our authority, with threat
of punishment if they resisted, but with no promise to consider
their wishes,-six weeks before the treaty was ratified by the
senate, when, as since admitted, he had no authority for such
an act?  When General Miller a few days later received
directions to bombard Iloilo, if necessary, who wrote the command,-Providence, or a military representative of our government?  That was the real beginning of the war: there was
the clear intent, if not the overt act. The successive steps in
this whole transaction were the acts of men, for which it is
childish to hold Destiny responsible.  We were as a nation
perfectly free to have taken any one of a dozen other courses.
If the impelling motive had been the good of humanity,-a
real desire to do the best for the Philippines,-this is the last
policy that would have been adopted.
This little lambskin of fine phrases about Providence and
civilization is scant covering for the wolfish greed that everywhere obtrudes in talk about trade and commerce.  We are
told that God commanded us to take possession of these
islands to help humanity.  By parity of reasoning every iniquity ever committed may be made to shine in white, as a
beatitude.  How pious it all sounds: " We needed these
islands to advance the cause of civilization."  And in the
same breath we gloatingly exclaim: " They will enrich us beyond the dreams of Croesus."  Certainly no one is deceived
by phrases stamped with pious emblems, but coined of base
metal in the mint of rapacious greed.  Least of all will those




THE PHILIPPINE PROBLEM


13


islanders be deceived by these phrases.  The more we publish
them, the more we sow the Orient with dragon teeth.
IX.-OUR PRESENT DUTY.
It is the fashion of the hour to say: We do not want criticism of what has been done, but description of what is best to
do now. The past is behind us; that we cannot change. We
must assume that certain things exist, whether for good or for
evil.  They confront us to-day.  Let us push on and make the
best of this bad business.  Tell us our present duty.  Make
plain the path before us.
But in this case, as in many others, the necessary preparation for doing the right thing to-day is to realize that yesterday we did the wrong thing.  Criticism of the past has not
done its full service until it works in us a change of heart.
We cannot well address ourselves to the future until we recognize that our present policy is unwise and unjust.  We cannot mend our ways until conscious that our conduct is unrighteous.  He who points out what is harmful in present
methods opens the door to better methods.
Three courses lie before us: First, we can hold these islands
as colonies and allow congress to govern them without regard
to the constitution, providing the supreme court sustains such
a policy.  This means a colonial system, costly, vexatious,
burdensome, and dangerous. If we elect to do this, let us do
it with our eyes open.  Every hour will make it clearer that
this policy is in contradiction to our political principles, hostile to the genius of the republic, destructive of our best influence and noble pre-eminence among the nations, injurious
to our own political life, and subversive of the best interests
of the people so governed.  Liberty enlightening the world is




-4


THE PHILIPPINE PROBLEM


a sublime figure; but Columbia ruling the people without their
consent is an infinite shame.
Second. We can extend our constitution to the Philippines,
and make them a part of our nation. This is the only meaning the phrase " benevolent assimilation " can justly have.
This means that no trade restrictions be erected against them.
Their products shall have free entry into our ports.  Their
custom-houses shall be barred against the world's trade the
same as ours.  Their people shall be free to settle anywhere
in our domain, for where the flag floats there they shall be at
home; a million, if they feel like it, may freely come to the
Pacific coast, or settle in the " black belt " and intensify the
negro problem.  They must have their representatives in congress to vote on all matters pertaining to our national affairs.
Their ballots must be counted in the election of a president.
In our labor troubles, our monopolists will be able to import
those islanders to supplant native Americans.
The Philippine people, if retained, must be either the one,
or the other; subject colonists, in contradiction to our boasted
freedom, or they must, in the near tuture, be given equality
of citizenship.  Our territories have always been treated as
States in the making.  Our expansion, so far, has been a national expansion, the expansion of American principles and
policies. We have never for a moment contemplated keeping
a large body of inhabitants under a territorial form of government. When temporarily so situated, these people have
been full American citizens with slight qualifications.  To
treat these islands as dependencies would be a radical departure from established national policies.  If capable of selfgovernment, it is a crime for us to govern them without their
consent. If incapable of American institutions, our attempted assimilation of them will be harmful to them and injurious to us.




THE PHILIPPINE PROBLEM


15


Third. Our people will certainly, in the end, favor neither
of these policies. Before it is too late, the sober second
thought of the average American citizen-the plain people in
whom Lincoln trusted-will demand that we follow another
course. The open way of wisdom and justice, which we ought
to have taken at the beginning, is this: We ought to have
made it perfectly clear that we would help them to self-government, assuring them that we would stay among them no
longer than they needed us.  We ought to have made it plain
that we would lend them all possible aid to make them prosperous and independent; that our last soldier was theirs for
protection against foreign oppression, and that our best offices
were theirs to help them to peace among themselves.
If these things had been said and done at the beginning,
there would have been no war.  It is possible that the leader
of the insurrection did not represent the people; but it must be
borne in mind that we were so un-American that we never gave
them a chance to show what they wanted! If, instead of demanding their subjection, after the manner of despots, we had,
in the spirit of a true republic, offered our help and given
them a chance, all this bloody business would have been
avoided.  All the tramplings upon our own political principles
would have been prevented. How much innocent blood unshed, vast treasure unspent, and national disgraces and dangers avoided! We should have kept them as friends. The
flag would have had a glory that these blood-stains cannot
give it. And even our commercial advantages would have
been greater than they can ever now become.
Does some one say: " But they prevented all this by shooting our soldiers "? No, we prevented this by letting the
weeks pass without making a single clear declaration of
friendship.  The solemn responsibility we must bear.  We




16


THE PHILIPPINE PROBLEM


virtually incited them to war by demanding their submission
on threat of punishment.  We treated them like people without any rights.  We have not yet given them a single offer or
pledge of self-government.  We have not asked them what
they desire. This indifference on our part to their wishes
created a revolt that can be stopped the moment that we are
loyal to our own political ideals.  But even now we show our
misconception of the true situation by boasting that our commissioners will soon impose on them a form of government
similar to the one that they had already formulated.  But if
able to formulate it, why not give them freedom to operate it?
Why not act in the American spirit, and ask them what they
would like? This disposition to rule them to please ourselves,
without reference to their wishes,-this created the war.
This prolongs the strife.  This violates our democracy and
destroys their rights.  This alone stands in the way of peace.
Let us reassert our republicanism and extend justice to the
Philippines by doing to-day what would have prevented all
trouble if done at the beginning.  The promise of friendly
co-operation would. then have been wise and just, and it would
have maintained peace.  Why not give that promise to-day,
putting aside the unholy dreams of imperialism and rescuing
our nation from impending dangers? Make it clear that we
are their friends, not their conquerors, and all will be well
with them and us.  Our national honor cannot be increased
by continuance in wrongdoing.  Let us hope that this is what
the American citizen will soon demand.




::: —:.::::::;;':r:: -:~:: ~:~~i~li —
~~
~::;_:-:: (:I- )_j::1:::_(::::::::.;I;:::;::;::_;: -.__:_:::
~;' ~( (~::;:::::_:;: .
-i:::::,;:;~-::'i::~;-"I~::; ~I-~:::;:~:j:r
~:1. ~;~:
~;: -~-::1
I::~ -:::':;-:;:: -::::. i :::::;:::::-.":;iii — _-:;:I::I:i ~-: ~:::.;-~~:r~~: -: "::-::':..: ~:::i
i;:
~:: -:-:
I t
~:I;:::::r:~:::::.:::.~:::- -:.::~::::::~.::::;-:~r -:i.:-::i,: - -i.;:.- ~i -;~:: ~: -;;;;;:,:i"r-.:::;::::::.;:;:I:-:_i,:;::,l 1 ' _I-; rr-_:l;: ---;*-rl:
jj- _;::::: i.j~
i; ~_-:~:` i ~.:::::'
~;.::-::::._ 1::;.: ~: -` -:..: — I::I :.-:~:;::::::::i:i:. -:::-;:-i;:_r
i i::::::l:.      i                                                                                                                                   ";`
~:I:;::~I;::`j: —:~ I::::i-_::::::li::::::;:,::::::;: ~,-i-il::l
i::::
_::,,;,~. -~.:::::,; —~. ~:: : ~:I:r;,~~: -;-";.:::::::i,;-\~.::.:.:..::L7 _I'._i:jj.;:::-:.-::_. -I::-:.;:il::;.l:_.-.::-::I:-Z
_~. II,..1:,,; ~: - .l:-:i:i- ~::.:::::-;:;:-,:li-r" -,:.,:I
-::::: ~ ~,:::::;:1-I. -:::::-.' i::::r r I —:_ ,I;:i
i ~~-:




I   ~ t~