The Contradictions of Freedom

When looking back on the Spanish-American war, especially the Philippine campaign, it is hard to recognize the true reasoning behind it. On one hand, America was exercising its beliefs that all people had the right to freedom. On the other hand, coincidence would rear its hypocritical head when it came to the obvious economic benefit that America gained through imperialism. Here lies one of the most important questions of the past century. At what price do we protect our free way of life? One way of examining this is to analyze the generality of American politics and capitalism.

William Schroder stated: "The 1898 Spanish/American War and ensuing Philippine Campaign bolstered American business, secured American colonies in the Caribbean and Pacific and cost the lives of six-hundred thousand innocent Filipinos who happened to be in the path of the "bandwagon of Anglo-Saxon progress and decency (1)." Schroder's opinion can hardly be discounted. The fact is that American business was bolstered and colonies in the Caribbean and Pacific were created as a result of the Spanish-American War. The problem with this statement, however, is when he insinuates that we ruined the lives of six-hundred thousand Filipinos that stood in the way of this so-called "bandwagon of Anglo-Saxon progress and decency." Is it true that American politics are driven by wealth? Absolutely. That is the nature of a capitalistic society. Did we ruin the lives of many Filipinos because of this? On a moral level we might come to this conclusion. If we were to abide by American rhetoric we would have given the Filipino’s full independence. Realistically, though, this would have been an injustice to the Filipino people. Kenneth E. Hendrickson Jr. put it best when he stated: “…but nevertheless it would have been foolhardy for the Americans to withdraw and leave the Philippines open to conquest by another power (2).” Germany, England, and France all would have seen the economic opportunity that the Philippines had to offer and with their history of imperialism it would be foolish to think they would do otherwise. Does this justify our imperialistic efforts? Well looking ahead, the Organic Act of 1902 allowed elections of a Filipino assembly as well as give Filipino’s the rights conferred by the U.S. Constitution (2). The Philippines gained their independence on July 4, 1946.

Looking back at this I think it is a fair assumption to make that six-hundred thousand Filipino’s lives weren’t wasted at the expense of the “bandwagon of Anglo-Saxon progress and decency,” especially when you look at the alternatives. What we have to look at, however, is the fact that if the Philippines did not serve a purpose economically speaking, would we have had the same ambition to rid them of Spain? To properly put this into perspective we must analyze other American conflicts.

The Spanish-American War was but a microcosm to World Wars I and II. Although the two World Wars were of far greater significance than the Spanish-American War, they were started upon a similar principle. That principle was power. In the case of the two World Wars, Germany, among other nations, wanted to exact their power and will upon other nations. In both cases we intervened. In both cases we were victorious, not only militarily, but economically as well. The differences came with the political aftermath of the wars. After World War I, European nations such as England and France handled the rebuilding of Europe, which included the Treaty of Versailles. To the dismay of America, Europe placed harsh reparation payments on Germany, which consequently was a leading factor for Germany engulfing the world in yet another World War. Upon are victory in World War II we involved ourselves, not in harsh reparations, but in a concentrated rebuilding effort, not only for parts of Germany, but Japan as well. In all actuality, a large part of what we see today, when it comes to Germany and Japan, was because of our efforts to implement democracy. This also can be said about the Philippines. Heather Cox Richardson stated: “The United States retained control of the Philippines, where it built schools, roads, and factories… (3).” I think if we look close enough, we can find a common theme in all of this. Before we start characterizing common themes, though, we must consider present events to see if a pattern exists.

On March 18, 2003 America declared war on Iraq. The premise behind this was Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, as well as a vengeance factor stemming from the attacks on September 11, 2001. Although our military still occupies Iraq, most Americans can come to an agreement that weapons of mass destruction were not found. Because of this, one of the biggest debates that has plagued America has been why did we go to Iraq to begin with? Schroder gives his opinion when he states: “…the government pursues an agenda calculated to transfer vast sums of public wealth into the hands of the corporate and political elite (1).” There is that capitalistic undertone again. Not to associate capitalism with evil agendas, but it is a survival of the fittest mentality in a sense. What Schroder fails to mention is that instead of Iraqis having a dictator, who wouldn’t hesitate to kill someone for a difference of opinion, they now have democratically elected leaders, that not only won’t kill them for a difference of opinion, but there going to do their best to enhance their lives. Their jobs kind of depend on it. At present, Iraq is looked upon as a black eye to America. Historically, who knows? Comparing this to the Spanish-American War we start with similarities in oppression. The Cubans and Filipinos were both oppressed, just as the Iraqis were. There is also the fact that both wars provided economic prizes. The Philippines in 1898 provided a hub for trade in the pacific. Iraq today provides arguably the most important commodity, oil. Finally there are similarities in questioning the foundation in which our country rests on. Carl Schurz statement about the annexation of the Philippines: “If we do, we shall transform the government of the people, for the people, and by the people, for which Abraham Lincoln lived, into a government of one part of the people, the strong, over another part, the weak (4),” which echoes many people’s sentiments today. It is in this that the contradictions of freedom lie.

The Spanish-American War provided the groundwork for some difficult questions that we deal with today. Studying history is not scientific. There rarely is a black and white answer. As a matter of fact most of history is littered with grey area, otherwise known as: “open to interpretation.” Noam Chomsky once stated: “units of power – corporate, political and military – will only act in their best interests. For them to do otherwise would be illogical (1).” What if these sections of a society are ran by the people and for the people? Then as a country we are going to do what is in our best interest. Therefore the price we pay to protect our free way of life is whatever it takes to serve our best interests. Sometimes we have to contradict ourselves in order to do this. We have to feed our capitalistic urges in order to sustain the principals that our fore fathers brought forth. America has always stood behind principals such as freedom and equality. In order to ensure this we have to sometimes force these principles on others in order to maintain the world’s stability. This might be characterized as a “western philosophy.” I however see this as the right philosophy.

Works Cited

1) Schroder, William. "American Imperialism and the Politics of Fear (Before Iraq there was the Philippines." CommonDreams.org. February 15, 2005. http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0215-22.htm.

2) Hendrickson Jr., Kenneth E. "The Spanish-American War." Pg. 74. Greenwood Press. 2003.

3) Richardson, Heather Cox. "West from Appomattox (The Reconstruction of America after the Civil War)." Pg. 329. Yale University Press. 2007.

4) Schurz, Carl. "American Imperialism." The Convocation Address delivered on the occasion of Twenty-Seventh Convocation of the University of Chicago. January 4, 1899.

The Contradictions of Capitalism

The historical perspectives revolving around the United States in 1898 generally lead to one thing, The Spanish-American War. Trying to understand how someone living in 1898 must have felt I discovered an illustration out of Chicago’s “The Record.” In this illustration an ordinary citizen was witnessing men putting up different statements on a bulletin board providing justification towards going to war with Spain. The caption stated: “It’s very confusing but possibly it’s all true.” After gathering my historical references in order to understand the historical perspective surrounding this event I realized that the confusion surrounding the Spanish-American War in 1898 has not changed that much. In order to prove this conclusion, I have broken the historical perspectives into three analysis; media, industrialization, and expansion.

There were two events prior to the declaration of war with Spain that occurred that gave the media, New York media in particular, the ammunition it needed to not only force public opinion towards going to war, but more importantly, it was a selling point. The first event was a private letter written by the Spanish Minister to the United States, De Lome, in which he characterized President McKinley as “weak and a bidder for the admiration of the crowd.” The second was the sinking of the American battleship Maine in which 260 American sailors died. It was this event that the media exploited as being an attack by Spain. The New York Journal seemed intent on garnering the public opinion into believing a mere theory, considering there was no proof indicating Spanish treachery. This is where the historical argument becomes prevalent in the understanding of the situation. On one hand we have Joseph E. Wisan, who states in “The Cuban Crisis as Reflected in the New York Press,” that “…the Spanish-American War would not have occurred had not the appearance of Hearst in New York journalism precipitated a bitter battle for newspaper circulation (1).” This is a very realistic possibility considering the power of the media. With the American public buying into the media’s fabrication of the truth, the government would have been under immense pressure to act. On the other hand John Offner states in “Unwanted War” that “Had there been no sensational press…the American public nevertheless would have learned about the terrible conditions in Cuba…(and) would have wanted Spain to leave (2).” This is another possibility that we must take into advisement. Living, at the time, in a “so-called” free country many Americans might not have needed the incentives of bold theories to provide others what we already had, freedom.

As you can see from these two historical perspectives, we still don’t quite understand the necessity of media exploitation. Was war inevitable? This is the question relating to the media that history is supposed to answer. Media intervention wasn’t the only source of confusion pertaining to the Spanish American War. Industrialization also played a major role, not only in going to war with Spain, but what to do after.

Throughout the Industrial Revolution the American economy grew substantially. Andrew Carnegie stated: “The old nations of the earth creep on at a snail’s pace,” while the United States “thunders past with the rush of the express (3).” This statement was backed up by the fact that between 1870-1900 American manufacturing jumped from 23.2 to 30.1 percent of the world’s manufacturing, making the United States the top manufacturer in the world. With this increased production came a need for more consumers which is what John A. Hobson stated as: “The power of production far outstripped the actual rate of consumption, and, contrary to the older economic theory, was unable to force a corresponding increase of consumption by lowering prices (4).” Here lies the question that historians must wrestle with: Does economic necessity justify an imperialistic nature? Two differing opinions are that of Hobson and Carl Schurz. Hobson stated: “…whereas various real and powerful motives of pride, prestige and pugnacity, together with the more altruistic professions of a civilizing mission, figured as causes of imperial expansion, the dominant directive motive was the demand for markets and for profitable investment by the exporting and financial classes within each imperialist regime (4).” If we wanted to keep thundering past the rest of the world we would have to find new markets. Being so isolated geographically in comparison with Europe and Asia it was of economic necessity that we have some sort of “hub” in which we could keep demand high enough to sustain our production. On the other hand, Schurz makes a convincing argument in his address opposing the annexation of the Philippines when he states: “If we do adopt such a system, then we shall, for the first time since the abolition of slavery, again have two kinds of Americans: Americans of the first class, who enjoy the privilege of taking part in the government in accordance with our old constitutional principles, and Americans of the second class, who are to be ruled in a substantially arbitrary fashion by Americans of the first class…(5).” This is an argument impossible to disagree with. Considering the suffering this country had to endure to live up to the constitutional promise “That all men were created equally” we now put ourselves in a predicament that could set us back socially many years. This begs the question; does economic necessity outweigh the shear possibility of moral instability? This is a hard question to tackle considering we were now a force on the world’s stage. This new found status made not only industry a priority, but expansion as well.

“The impressive ascent of the United States in the international system and the vigorous rivalry among imperialists states for spheres of influence, particularly evident in Asia and Africa, gave a real urgency to American participation in the great-power game, and urgency that infused the war of 1898 (6),” was how Thomas Paterson characterized expansion with the Spanish-American War. There was only so much territory that could be had, and if we wanted to keep our ascent going we would have to be aggressive in nature. With this said, the aggressive nature led to the hypocrisy that scarred our nation for many years after. Senator Hoar wrote: “The war that followed it crushed the Republic that the Philippine people had set up for themselves, deprived them of their independence, and established there, by American power, a government in which the people have no part, against their will. No man, I think, will seriously question that that action was contrary to the Declaration of Independence… (7).” Our need to keep up economically as well as internationally blinded us from what makes us Americans. This thought process is one that shouldn’t just resonate within the confines of this country, but throughout the world. This is where the confusion sets in. As long as we are capitalists we are always going to try to ascend in an economic sense. Do we sacrifice our moral principles in order to live up to our capitalistic principles? I don’t believe historical perspective can answer that.

The historical perspectives on media, industrialization, and expansion all have the same contradiction. One side of the coin looks at the benefits of capitalism. The other side of the coin looks at the pain that capitalism causes. When I look back on that illustration in “The Record” I can’t help but want to believe the war was for a righteous cause. As I look at these differing historical perspectives I also can’t help but to be confused. On one hand I look at what that war helped us achieve. It helped usher in a new found confidence that we are able to share today. It also makes me question if our Declaration of Independence has true meaning, or is it just words that individuals invoke when they want to get a point across? It seems as if the confusing nature of history surrounding the Spanish-American War raises a lot more question instead of answering them.




Works Cited

1) Wisan, Joseph E. "The Cuban Crisis as Reflected in the New York Press." New York: Columbia University Press, 1934.

2) Offner, John. "Unwanted War." Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1992.

3) Quoted in Thomas Paterson's "United States Intervention in Cuba, 1898: Interpretations of the Spanish-American-Cuban-Filipino War," The History Teacher 29 (May 1996).

4) Hobson, John A. "Imperialism." London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1938.

5) Schurz, Carl. "American Imperialism." (The Convocation Address delivered on the occasion of the Twenty-seventh Convocation of the University of Chicago, January 4, 1899)

6) Paterson, Thomas. "United States Intervention in Cuba, 1898: Interpretations of the Spanish-American-Cuban-Filipino War." The History Teacher 29 (May 1996)

7) Quoted in Tyler Dennett's, "Americans in Eastern Asia; A Critical Study of the Policy of the United States with References to China, Japan and Korea in the 19th Century. New York: The Macmillan company, 1922.

1898: A year of Triumph and Tribulation

February 17, 1898

My name is Grant Barrett and I am an immigrant of Ireland, working for a factory in New York city. Today is a day that will change my life forever. The safe, free world that I have grown to know over the course of my time here has ceased to exist. As I awoke this morning I glanced at the front page of the New York Journal and seen something that I could not believe. "Torpedo Hole discovered by Government Divers in the Maine.(1)" Could it be? An attack on us yankees? As I read on for conformation, it became all to obvious. The divers had discovered an eight inch percussion hole in one of the plates. This was indication that the battleship Maine was sunk by Torpedoes. According to the Journal, "It is very clear that either a Spanish fanatic or a secret emissary of the Spanish government floated the torpedo under the waterline against the Maine's forward magazine, and set it with a detonating device, giving him time to escape (1)." Granted, I am a factory worker and do not have a lot of education under my belt, but when the news reports such atrocity, I feel a thirst for vengeance.

April 25, 1898

Today is the day that the inevitable became reality. War became official. Since the horrific attack on the Maine, everyone's attention was focused on the possibility of going to war. The politics that go with it are excruciating. Are we justified in declaring war? If it were up to me there would be no question about it. I mean what they did to the Maine on top of the fact that they have pretty much enslaved them Cubans is all the convincing I need. I think that is the prevailing thought among my fellow countrymen.

Wall Street doesn't seem to share our sentiments, however. According to The Business Outlook: "The stock market has been rather groggy under the influence of Spanish complications (2)." I am no economist, but I do know that if our economy weakens, it could lead to rapid unemployment; which could lead to me being unemployed. I don't think a first generation Irish immigrant is high on the pecking order when employment is given and taken away.

Lastly we have to consider if we are justified in the world's eyes. Although the freedoms I enjoy in this country make this the greatest county to ever grace this planet, we can't fool ourselves into thinking we can defy the superpowers of this world, such as England and/or France. President Mckinley seemed to have it under control though when he said, "... I urge speedy action thereon, to the end that the definition of the international status of the United States as a belligerent power may be made known and the assertion of all rights and maintenance of all its duties in the conduct of a public war may be assured (3)."

July 5, 1898

I received a significant boost in a sense of national pride today as I glanced at the New York Journal and read about the destruction of Admiral Cervera's fleet. Admiral Cervera is in charge of the Spanish fleet that had inhabited Cuba's Santiago Harbor. Knowing his options were limited "Admiral Cervera's ships, seven in all, including two gunboats, dashed out of Santiago Harbor Sunday morning hoping to break through the crescent of American vessels lying off the harbor's mouth (4)." His attempts were futile. His fleet was destroyed along with over 200 Spanish casualties and over 150 wounded. One of the wounded was Admiral Cervera which consequently led to his capture. throughout the over four hour battle, not one American vessel sustained major damage, with only one loss of American life. This is indeed glorious news. I feel we have shown freedom and democracy triumphs over imperialistic nations. Saying I have and immense feeling of national pride almost seems like an understatement.

With these feelings however, I have to keep in mind the pitfalls of success. I think back to an article I read in the "Zion's Herald." "Opportunity and power are always possibilities of evil. But the nation can no more stay its growth than youth can fall to become a man - the only question is, what kind of man? We are in danger of developing a pride of power, a lust of empire, the spirit of conquest, which would annex all adjoining territory and dominate all seas (5)."

August 6, 1898

Today is a day in which my national pride seems to have been tested. Today is the day in which Spain has surrendered the Philippines. My national pride should be at its height. I mean look at what we have accomplished in just a few months. We liberated Cuba and the Philippines. We have given groups of people the opportunity of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Somehow though, I feel a sense of guilt. A complete opposite shift from when we liberated Cuba. I am but a simple man, proud of the opportunity this country has given me. Yet I sit back and read an article by Frank A. Vanderlip, who is our Assistant Secretary of the Treasury and I begin to wonder if we were fighting imperialism or laying the groundwork to start governing that way. This article, "Facts about the Philippines," Vanderlip emphasizes the economic gain from implementing an American government. He addresses the conservative as the skeptics to American involvement when he writes, "All this is recognized as well by the conservative party, to whom the commercial side of the question strongly appeals, but who fear the dangers from a govermental standpoint (6)." I think maybe it's best to let fear win this battle. We are at a crossroads in our history. It does no use to compare governing the Philippines to governing Alaska, as Vanderlip suggests. The stronger argument exists with the notion of why haven't we tried to implement a government in Cuba? The answer to that is quite simple. Cuba, economically speaking, does not serve of any use to us. That is what our constitution should indicate when dealing with diplomacy. "If your nation is weaker than ours, and serves our best financial interests, prepare to be free."

December 31, 1898

As New Year's eve is upon us I can't help but reflect on this past year. This nation has taken such a giant leap, yet I am not sure if it's forward or backwards. I look back on the good we have accomplished. We beat imperialism. We proved that our principles of freedom and democracy are not just bound by our oceans.

Militarily we have redefined ourselves. Considering Spain was a great power in the world, and we had very little problem vacating there imperialistic ideals from the weak, we have succeeded. This gives me great hope. I feel comfort in the fact that the men who bravely defend our principles can stare adversity in the eyes and say, "No, you will not get the best of me. Not today; Not any day. Because I am an American." People want to know that they are protected. I think the manner in which we dissolved Spain, militarily speaking, brings comfort for many.

Our economic structure has seemed to advance as well. With the gain of the Philippines, we have gained a major hub for international trading. No longer is Wall Street fearing a war, but are now salivating at foriegn markets. They say that will vastly improve our economy, yet it seems the more money we bring in, the less money I see. I don't always understand it, but I am free, and should thank god for that.

In a diplomatic sense we have shown the world that we are a force to be reckoned with. Our military, economy, and politics now share the same stage with the superpowers of the world, such as England and France. It wouldn't surprise me if they came knocking on our door one day to bail them out of a war or two.

With all this said, we can't mark steps we have made this past year as progress. One of the people I idolize the most, Theodre Roosevelt, recently said, "I hope that every man who strives to be efficient and moral will realize that it is for the interest of mankind to have civilization to go forward, to have the higher supplant the lower life. (7)." My question to Mr. Roosevelt is, "who is to say who is higher and who is lower?." If the argument is made that economics or maybe even military strength is the decisive factor, then one could make the argument in the early centuries of mankind that Jesus and his fellow Christians were substantially lower than the Romans. Secondly I would make the argument that we are not trying to prop up the lesser civilization. We are trying to enhance our own. These are the type of arguments that are going to haunt our country for centuries to come. The upsetting part about it is, is that the road map that leads us to prosperity is right in front of us. It's know as the United States Constitution and I don't see imperialism on the map.

Works Cited

(1) New York Journal American. "Torpedo Hole Discovered by Government Divers in the Maine." 17 February 1898. >.

(2) The Business Outlook. "The Business Outlook." 24 February 1898. <http://proquest.umi.com.ezproxy.library.unlv.edu/pqdweb?index=8&did=805745882&SrchMode=1&sid=1&Fmt=6&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=HNP&TS=1235546572&clientId=17675>.

(3) The New York Journal American. "Congress Declares War." 25 April 1898.
.

(4) The New York Journal American. "Most Remarkable Battle in Modern Naval Warfare." 05 July 1898. <http://infoweb.newsbank.com.ezproxy.library.unlv.edu/iw-search/we/HistArchive/?p_product=EANX&p_theme=ahnp&p_nbid=J6EQ57AUMTIzNTU0Nzc0NC44MTIxMjU6MToxNDoxMzEuMjE2LjE2Mi4yNw&p_action=doc&s_lastnonissuequeryname=23&d_viewref=search&p_queryname=23&p_docnum=1&toc=true&p_docref=v2:11A0F82784431080@EANX-11B2CF019DFA58D0@2414476-11B2CF01AC2BC128@2-11B2CF01F1959A80>.

(5) Zion's Herald. "A New National Era." 01 June 1898. .

(6) Frank A. Vanderlip. "Facts about the Philippines." August 1898. .

(7) The Outlook. "Colonel Roosevelt on Expansion." 31 December 1898. .