Debating the Annexation of the Philippines

For this exercise you have two tasks:

Part 1: Compare the two secondary sources on why the United States annexed the Philippines.

Part 2: Using primary sources, evaluate the arguments of the two secondary sources.

Part 1: Comparing Secondary Sources

Two secondary sources from different analytical perspectives are included below. In Standing at Armageddon: The United States, 1877–1919, Nell Irvin Painter of Princeton University weaves together economic and foreign-policy concerns with the lives of ordinary Americans to explain the annexation of the Philippines. Kristin L. Hoganson of the University of Illinois, a gender historian, explores the question of why the United States annexed the Philippines in Fighting for American Manhood: How Gender Politics Provoked the Spanish-American and Philippine-American Wars. While both works contain elements of economic and cultural history, each historian emphasizes a particular analytical methodology.

Compare the views of these two scholars by answering the following questions. Be sure to find specific examples in the selections to support your answers.

According to each author, what problems in society did supporters of annexation think American control of the Philippines would solve?

Which author focuses on economic explanations, and which author focuses on cultural explanations, to explain imperialist support for annexation?

Do you think the authors’ arguments are contradictory or complementary? In other words, can they both be correct?

What arguments for U.S. retention of the Philippines does each senator offer?

Which of these sources would either Painter or Hoganson (or both) find most useful, and how might they use them to support their argument?

What might be the limitations on the usefulness of the sources for supporting their arguments?