Sorry, Monty. I went back and read the link more thouroughly. McKinley, apparently told a group of Methodists that he annexed the islands so that they could be christianized.
The author concludes that the Pres. had no idea where the islands even were let alone that they had already been Christianized. I’m sure he wouldn’t have made that statement if he had better informed (or educated). I would place his statements in the realm of “excuse” rather than “reason”. When he annexed the islands, I’m sure it was on advise of the Navy and not the Methodists.
I don’t read any anti-catholicism into any of his administration’s policies toward The Philippines, Cuba, Puerto Rico or any of the other possesions gained during the war.
I owe Monty, a more contrite apology than that. His statement that I jumped on was accurate. Next time, please post the link before I stick my foot in my mouth.
Monty, Karnow (the journalist-author you cite) builds on one historian’s version of the record. Miller’s text reports on a broader range of military records, showing McKinley’s comments were political (read prevarications), in response to a growing debate between primarily anti-imperialist Democrats, and pro-expansion Republicans and not a few Democrats. A quote from the State Dept. after the Spanish surrender “…It would appear that President McKinley was a little slow to discover the breadth and strength of the popular demand that we should hold all that Dewey won.” Miller also reports the famous line where McKinley claimed not to be sure whether the Philippines were islands or canned goods as a post-hoc fabrication.
The military was in favor of access (after the Battle of Manila Bay, Dewey explained it would be a mistake to keep anything but Manila & the Cavite naval base). They were also interested in protecting the abaca/hemp trade (think mooring lines).
US Protestants and Catholics were split along party associations, with most Protestants (notable excption of German-American groups) anxious to get even for Spain’s long prohibition against Protestant missionaries in her colonies.
So, surprise, to bowdlerize the crap outta the first four chapters, US commercial interests had been first, and took advantage of the populist fury whipped up by the press over the Spaniards before and during the war, it all served military purposes, religious groups tagged on (themselves ultimately a reflection of commercial interest), and politicians for the most part were dependent on retaining the vote. Big Business’ mild interests were the tail wagging an already excitable dog.
The best direct quotes are from “religious” publications - remember, this was only just then giving up the ghost (no pun) to Hearst & Co. as the primary vehicle for mass media - but these are nearly all post-War, and post-Annexation. Pre-war commentary (acc. to Miller, as I read it) pretty well limited to military/commercial arguments - interestingly, Monty, sometimes framed as an extension of our interests in Hawaii & Samoa. Don’t know if this book is available on-line, but certainly worth finding.)
Jorge: Thanks for clearing up what you meant. I see what you are saying now. And guess what, I agree that the Philippines is more Pacific, in the sense you are speaking about :). Sorry if i seemed a little heated in my second post, but i just had a little arguement with a guy in IRC just before i replied! BTW: I’m only 20
PapaBear & Co., still working on the textbooks… Another with alternative quotes from Karnow’s selections is Sitting in Darkness by David Howard Bain. But the best range seems to be provided in Miller.
“Proverbs for Paranoids, 1: You may never get to touch the Master, but you can tickle his creatures.”
Thanks, Jorge. As I mentioned earlier, you may want to check college texts for “South-East Asia” from the 50s, 60s, and 70s. I don’t envy you your search, though. People and institutions tend to send outdated texts to the furness or the recycle bin, without much thought about their historical value.
