Imperialism versus Anti-Imperialism

On January 16, 1893, the USS Boston sailed into Honolulu harbor, in a show of support for U.S. businessmen who were aligned against Queen Liliuokalani, Hawaii’s ruling monarch. Liliuokalani sought to overturn the 1887 constitution that had been forced on King Kalākaua. This “Bayonet Constitution,” as it came to be known, favored U.S. and other foreign interests and limited the political power of native islanders, the poor, and the monarchy. The day after U.S. forces landed, Liliuokalani abdicated, and a provisional government, the Republic of Hawaii, was set up under the control of U.S. sugar growers. Native Hawaiians continued to rebel against their U.S.-dominated government, and in 1897 representatives from several political groups issued the Hawaiian Memorial (Document 20.5). This petition for self-rule failed, and Hawaii was formally annexed in 1898. In that same year, U.S. territorial acquisitions from the War of 1898 intensified the heated debate over U.S. imperialism and the principles of self-governance and democracy.

The following documents reveal the viewpoints of imperialists, anti-imperialists, and colonized people. Those supporting imperialism could find no greater advocate than Senator Albert Beveridge of Indiana, who served from 1899 to 1911. His speech entitled “The March of the Flag” compared Philippine colonization to U.S. westward expansion across North America and argued that Filipinos were a childlike and savage race incapable of self-governance (Document 20.6). A different view of the Philippine conflict came from a New Hampshire woman who in 1899 wrote to her local newspaper to scold U.S. women for failing to speak out against the “murderous, cowardly, dastardly war” in the Philippines (Document 20.8). Throughout this period—on the Senate floor and in town meeting halls, schoolrooms, national magazines, and local newspapers (Document 20.7)—Americans deliberated the significance and implications of international expansion.