History, Politics And Current Affairs

I get wanting Cuba, Panama and other Caribbean possessions from Spain; Monroe doctrine etc, but what was the impetus for colonising the Philippines?

There's several possible options...

1. Continuing "Manifest Destiny"
2. Executing "White Man's Burden" better than the Spanish.
3. Actually interested in freeing the Philippines from colonization, in the same manner as Cuba.
4. Twisting the knife after kicking Spain's ass.

I'm sure there's more. And it could be any combination of the above.

Belushi TD

Access to China, especially with the Open Door policy, alsonplayed a role.

Rubber?

Johnnie Lyle wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2024 4:29 pm Access to China, especially with the Open Door policy, alsonplayed a role.

This was the big one. A *lot* of 19th Century American statecraft (domestic and foreign alike) was driven by the desire to have reliable access to China. It was the major public justification for the Pacific Railroad Act (mostly because nobody wanted to admit the real reason: to head off secessionist impulses in California and the Utah/Nevada territories).

Poohbah wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2024 4:48 pm

Johnnie Lyle wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2024 4:29 pm Access to China, especially with the Open Door policy, alsonplayed a role.

This was the big one. A *lot* of 19th Century American statecraft (domestic and foreign alike) was driven by the desire to have reliable access to China. It was the major public justification for the Pacific Railroad Act (mostly because nobody wanted to admit the real reason: to head off secessionist impulses in California and the Utah/Nevada territories).

Poohbah,

You had my interest; now you have my attention. I knew about perennial concerns about Utah at that time - which, IIRC, weren't really alleviated until almost the 1880s - but CA too?

Mike

MikeKozlowski wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2024 5:37 pm

Poohbah wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2024 4:48 pm

Johnnie Lyle wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2024 4:29 pm Access to China, especially with the Open Door policy, alsonplayed a role.

This was the big one. A *lot* of 19th Century American statecraft (domestic and foreign alike) was driven by the desire to have reliable access to China. It was the major public justification for the Pacific Railroad Act (mostly because nobody wanted to admit the real reason: to head off secessionist impulses in California and the Utah/Nevada territories).

Poohbah,

You had my interest; now you have my attention. I knew about perennial concerns about Utah at that time - which, IIRC, weren't really alleviated until almost the 1880s - but CA too?

Mike

There was considerable Southron sympathy in California, and there were always worries that Copperheads might execute a coup d'main in Sacramento.

Worth noting that the first payload through Promontory Point after the Golden Spike ceremony was a regiment of regulars headed to the San Francisco Presidio, and that there was a far bigger depot in Sacramento than the town actually rated for its population.

The idea of securing the sea lanes to China seems like an argument open to attack. I'm not saying China trade wasn't the reason, but there must have been arguments against it. So I guess what I need to know about is the 1898 Treaty of Paris and the debate leading up to February 6, 1899, when the U.S. Senate ratified the Treaty of Paris by 57 votes to 27.

A subsidiary thought - if William Jennings Bryan were President from 1896 to 1900, how would his stance have effected the issue?

Nick Sumner wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2024 11:01 pm The idea of securing the sea lanes to China seems like an argument open to attack. I'm not saying China trade wasn't the reason, but there must have been arguments against it. So I guess what I need to know about is the 1898 Treaty of Paris and the debate leading up to February 6, 1899, when the U.S. Senate ratified the Treaty of Paris by 57 votes to 27.

A subsidiary thought - if William Jennings Bryan were President from 1896 to 1900, how would his stance have effected the issue?

Perhaps also to keep it out of Japanese hands?

A primary reason not mentioned yet:

Because it was there.

I don't know why but what I do know is Subic Bay Naval Base and Olongapo were VERY popular liberty ports in the early 70s. . . .

MFOM wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2024 12:34 am

Nick Sumner wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2024 11:01 pm The idea of securing the sea lanes to China seems like an argument open to attack. I'm not saying China trade wasn't the reason, but there must have been arguments against it. So I guess what I need to know about is the 1898 Treaty of Paris and the debate leading up to February 6, 1899, when the U.S. Senate ratified the Treaty of Paris by 57 votes to 27.

A subsidiary thought - if William Jennings Bryan were President from 1896 to 1900, how would his stance have effected the issue?

Perhaps also to keep it out of Japanese hands?

I understand the Germans were interested in the PI at that time as well...could be that America was trying to block Germany. U.S. defeat of Spain in the new world would make remaining Spanish holdings vulnerable. The PI was independence minded at this time but there were too many factions fighting among themselves to withstand any outside interloper. If they stood together they could have defeated the U.S. later. It's a very interesting read to see what they did to themselves during the fight against the U.S.

Well, thanks for the replies all. I'm going to track down the following two articles.

Politics, Strategy, and American Diplomacy: Studies in Foreign Policy, 1873-1917. Grenville, J.A.S.; Young, G.B.; Yale University (1966). Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-00511-0.

Imperial senate: American Legislative Debates on Empire, 1898-1917 Sheehan, John M. Publication date 2013-09-01 Monterey, California: Naval Postgraduate School Collection