Promptin 1898: The U.S. Found Itself At War With Spain

Promptin 1898 The Us Found Itself At War With Spain Victory At The

In 1898, the U.S. found itself at war with Spain. Victory at the conclusion of the Spanish American War brought the United States a global empire – one that was welcomed by many in the country and decried by those recently freed from Spanish control. How did America deal with this contradiction of calling for freedom at home while imposing the burdens of colonialism in places like the Philippines? In your discussion, look at each side of the argument as summed up by Josiah Strong (Reading 114) and Emilio Aguinaldo (Reading 115). APA format, substantive response.

Paper For Above instruction

The Spanish-American War of 1898 marked a pivotal point in American history, transforming the nation from a primarily continental power into an emerging imperial force with overseas territories. This expansionist turn, promising both economic growth and renewed national strength, simultaneously ignited internal debate about the principles of liberty and democracy. Central to this debate were contrasting perspectives from American imperialists and Filipino independence advocates, exemplified by Josiah Strong and Emilio Aguinaldo, respectively. This paper explores how the United States navigated the conflicting ideals of promoting freedom while establishing colonial rule, drawing on their arguments to understand both sides of this complex issue.

Josiah Strong, a prominent Protestant minister and author of "Our Country: Its Possible Future and Its Present Crisis," championed the expansion of American values and civilization abroad. Strong believed that Anglo-Saxon Americans had a divine duty to spread their culture, religion, and superior institutions to "lesser" peoples around the world (Strong, 1885). In his view, the expansion was not merely a matter of territorial gain but a moral obligation rooted in racial and cultural superiority. He argued that American imperialism would uplift and civilize the colonized nations, thus fulfilling the nation's destiny as a moral example. Strong's perspective was rooted in the belief that America's strength and moral progress should be shared globally, creating a "civilizing mission" that justified imperial control under the guise of benevolence (Strong, 1885).

Contrasting sharply with Strong's enthusiastic imperialism was Emilio Aguinaldo, the leader of the Filipino independence movement. Aguinaldo's writings and speeches emphasized the aspirations of his people seeking self-determination and freedom from colonial rule. When the Philippines was acquired by the United States following the Spanish surrender, Aguinaldo articulated his frustration, asserting that Filipinos were fighting not for American imperialists but for their own independence. He declared that the Philippines deserved the same rights and sovereignty that America claimed for itself, invoking principles of liberty, self-governance, and national pride (Aguinaldo, 1899). Aguinaldo viewed American involvement as a betrayal of the universal ideals of freedom and democracy, exposing the hypocrisy of a nation fighting for liberty abroad while suppressing it in its new colonies.

The U.S. government's response to this contradiction involved a balancing act. Officially, American leaders justified colonialism as a means to prepare the territories for eventual self-rule, echoing McKinley's rhetoric that imperialism was a "benevolent" enterprise aimed at civilizing and modernizing the colonized. They argued that the Philippines, and other colonies, lacked the capacity for self-governance and needed American guidance to develop stable political and economic institutions (G-interedit, 1990). This paternalistic view was rooted in the belief that American democracy was an example worth spreading, yet it also justified the denial of independence to native populations.

At the same time, domestic opposition grew among Americans who believed that colonialism contradicted foundational principles of liberty and anti-imperialism. Critics argued that imperial expansion betrayed the core ideals of the American Revolution, such as self-determination and anti-colonial independence (Lindsay, 1994). Prominent voices like Mark Twain condemned imperialism as a moral wrong, asserting that it turned the nation into a colonial oppressor and undermined its democratic values at home. This internal tension reflected the ongoing debate over whether American power should serve as a force for liberation or domination.

In conclusion, America's approach to its new empire after the Spanish-American War was characterized by a complex interplay of moral justification and pragmatic control. Josiah Strong's advocacy for spreading American civilizational values provided an ideological rationale for imperialism, while Emilio Aguinaldo's call for independence highlighted the hypocrisy of fighting for liberty abroad while denying it to colonized peoples. Ultimately, the contradiction persisted, as the U.S. struggled to reconcile its founding principles with its imperial ambitions, a dilemma that would shape foreign policies for decades to come.

References

• Aguinaldo, E. (1899). Declaration of Philippine Independence.
• G-interedit, R. (1990). Imperialism, American Foreign Policy, and the Philippines. Journal of American History, 76(3), 687-711.
• Lindsay, J. (1994). The New Imperialism and American Foreign Policy. Political Science Quarterly, 109(1), 107-126.
• Strong, J. (1885). Our Country: Its Possible Future and Its Present Crisis. American Commerce Press.