## Learning Outcomes

- Explain why many Americans opposed overseas expansion after **1898**
- Identify the main anti-imperialist arguments based on liberty, self-government, and the Constitution
- Distinguish constitutional objections from moral, economic, and strategic objections
- Understand how the **Philippine-American War (1899–1902)** strengthened anti-imperialist criticism
- Compare the **Teller Amendment (1898)** with the **Platt Amendment (1901)** as evidence of tension between liberation and control
- Explain how the **Insular Cases** supported an imperial system that critics had feared
- Use this topic in APUSH causation, comparison, SAQ, and DBQ responses

## AP United States History Syllabus

For the AP United States History, you are expected to understand anti-imperialist opposition to U.S. expansion in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, with a focus on the following syllabus points:

- Know that the **Anti-Imperialist League** formed in **1898** to oppose annexation, especially of the Philippines
- Explain how critics argued that empire violated the principle of **consent of the governed** from the Declaration of Independence
- Identify constitutional objections to imperialism, including fears that the United States would rule peoples without full rights
- Understand how the **Philippine-American War** showed that U.S. rule rested on force rather than consent
- Explain the significance of the **Insular Cases**, beginning in **1901**, in allowing the United States to hold territories without extending full constitutional protections
- Compare the **Teller Amendment** and **Platt Amendment** as examples of liberation rhetoric versus continuing U.S. control
- Recognise that anti-imperialists did not all agree, and that some opposed annexation for racial, labor, or citizenship reasons rather than from equal-rights principles alone

## Test Your Knowledge

_Attempt these questions before reading this article. If you find some difficult or cannot remember the answers, look more closely at that area during your revision._

1. Why did anti-imperialists argue that annexing the Philippines violated American founding ideals?
2. How did the **Philippine-American War** help anti-imperialists make their case?
3. What was the difference between the **Teller Amendment** and the **Platt Amendment**?
4. Why were the **Insular Cases** important in the debate over empire?
5. Name two prominent anti-imperialists and explain one of their arguments.

## Introduction

After the **Spanish-American War** in **1898**, the United States emerged as an overseas imperial power. It gained control over **Puerto Rico**, **Guam**, and the **Philippines**, while also exerting heavy influence over **Cuba**. For some Americans, this expansion showed national strength. For others, it marked a dangerous break from the nation’s revolutionary tradition.

This debate matters in APUSH because it sits at the meeting point of several themes: **America in the World**, **Politics and Power**, and **American and National Identity**. On the exam, the key issue is not just that anti-imperialists disliked war. Their deeper claim was that a **republic** built on self-government could not rule foreign peoples without betraying its own principles.

> **Key Term: Anti-Imperialist League**
> An organization founded in **1898** that opposed U.S. annexation of overseas territories, especially the Philippines, on moral, political, and constitutional grounds.

### Founding ideals: why anti-imperialists said empire betrayed the republic

The strongest anti-imperialist argument was ideological. Critics said the United States had been born in a revolt against empire. The country had declared in **1776** that governments derive “their just powers from the consent of the governed.” To anti-imperialists, ruling the Philippines without Filipino consent meant copying the same kind of colonial domination that Americans had once rejected.

> **Key Term: consent of the governed**
> The principle that legitimate government depends on the agreement of the people being governed.

This argument was powerful because it attacked expansion at the level of national identity. Anti-imperialists were not just saying annexation was unwise. They were saying it was un-American. If the United States governed another people by force, then the nation would cease to be a republic in the older revolutionary sense and start to look like the European empires it had long criticised.

Writers and politicians used this point in different ways. Some invoked **George Washington** and the anti-colonial spirit of the Revolution. Others quoted **Abraham Lincoln**, especially the idea that self-government stops being self-government when one people rules another. That line became a sharp weapon in the Philippines debate because it exposed the contradiction between democratic language at home and coercive rule abroad.

> **Key Term: self-determination**
> The idea that a people should have the right to govern themselves rather than be ruled by an outside power.

A common student mistake is to treat all anti-imperialists as modern egalitarians. That is too simple. Many did defend liberty and self-rule in broad terms. But some were mainly worried that imperial rule would corrupt the United States itself. Their focus was less “justice for colonised peoples” and more “saving the American republic from becoming an empire.” Both positions count as anti-imperialist, but they are not identical.

Another distinction matters for APUSH comparison. Earlier U.S. expansion across the continent often assumed eventual incorporation of territory into the Union. Overseas expansion after **1898** raised a different question: what if these lands were held permanently without a path to statehood? That possibility made anti-imperialists far more alarmed. A republic that absorbed territory was one thing. A republic that held colonies indefinitely was another.

> **Test Tip:** In an SAQ or DBQ, do not just say anti-imperialists believed “expansion was wrong.” State the principle: empire violated the **Declaration of Independence**, denied **consent of the governed**, and threatened the idea that a republic cannot rule subject peoples.

### Constitutional objections: “Does the Constitution follow the flag?”

Anti-imperialists also argued that imperialism threatened constitutional government. This was a separate argument from the moral one. Even if expansion brought trade or military advantage, critics asked whether the Constitution allowed the United States to govern distant peoples without fully incorporating them.

> **Key Term: Constitution follows the flag**
> The idea that constitutional rights should automatically apply wherever the United States exercises sovereignty.

If the United States annexed overseas territories, what would the people living there become? Citizens? Subjects? Something in between? Anti-imperialists feared that empire would create exactly that dangerous “in between” category: people under U.S. rule but without full constitutional protections. To them, that was a direct threat to republican government.

This issue became more urgent after the annexation debate over the Philippines. Anti-imperialists warned that once the nation accepted colonial rule, Congress and the president would gain new powers not clearly limited by earlier constitutional practice. They feared a larger standing army, stronger executive authority, and a more militarised political culture.

> **Key Term: militarism**
> The growth of military influence, standing armies, and reliance on force in politics and foreign policy.

Notice the cause-and-effect chain here:

- annex territory overseas
- need troops and administrators to control it
- expand executive and military power
- weaken older traditions of limited government
- make empire normal

That is why anti-imperialists often linked empire abroad to liberty at home. Their fear was not only for Filipinos or Puerto Ricans. It was for the constitutional character of the United States itself.

This concern helps explain criticism of the **Insular Cases**, beginning in **1901**. In these Supreme Court rulings, including **Downes v. Bidwell (1901)**, the Court held that full constitutional rights did not automatically extend to all U.S. territories. That gave legal support to an imperial system in which the United States could own territories without treating them as fully part of the nation.

> **Key Term: Insular Cases**
> A series of Supreme Court decisions beginning in **1901** that held full constitutional rights did not automatically apply in all U.S. territories.
>
> **Key Term: unincorporated territories**
> Territories belonging to the United States but not fully part of it for all constitutional purposes.

For anti-imperialists, this was proof that their warnings had been correct. Once empire was accepted, constitutional exceptions followed. The United States had effectively created a colonial category.

A subtle but important APUSH point: anti-imperialists did not object only because the Court limited rights. They objected because the very need for such a doctrine showed that empire did not fit the older constitutional order. In other words, the legal innovation itself was part of the evidence against imperialism.

### The Philippines and Cuba: how events strengthened anti-imperialist criticism

The Philippines became the central test case. Some Americans supported defeating Spain but opposed annexing the islands afterward. That distinction matters. Opposition to annexation did not always mean sympathy for Spain. It often meant that once Spain was gone, the United States should leave.

The problem was that Filipino nationalists under **Emilio Aguinaldo** expected independence, not U.S. sovereignty. When the United States annexed the Philippines through the **Treaty of Paris (1898)**, conflict followed.

> **Key Term: Treaty of Paris (1898)**
> The treaty that ended the Spanish-American War and transferred the Philippines, Puerto Rico, and Guam from Spain to the United States.

The resulting **Philippine-American War (1899–1902)** was one of the strongest anti-imperialist arguments available. If U.S. rule was truly welcomed, why was a long and bloody war required to impose it? Anti-imperialists used that fact to argue that American authority in the Philippines lacked consent and depended on force.

> **Key Term: Philippine-American War**
> The war fought from **1899 to 1902** between the United States and Filipino nationalists resisting U.S. rule.

This was not just a rhetorical point. It exposed a direct contradiction:

- U.S. leaders claimed to be liberating people from empire
- Filipinos sought independence
- the U.S. denied that independence
- war followed
- liberation language began to look like conquest language

That chain is exactly the kind of causation analysis APUSH rewards.

Anti-imperialists also pointed to Cuba as evidence that informal control could be almost as troubling as formal empire. During the Spanish-American War, Congress had passed the **Teller Amendment (1898)**, promising that the United States would not annex Cuba. This let the war be presented as a war of liberation, not conquest.

> **Key Term: Teller Amendment**
> A measure passed in **1898** declaring that the United States would not annex Cuba after defeating Spain.

But after the war, the **Platt Amendment (1901)** sharply limited Cuban sovereignty. It allowed U.S. intervention in Cuban affairs and secured a U.S. naval base at **Guantánamo Bay**.

> **Key Term: Platt Amendment**
> A measure passed in **1901** that limited Cuban independence and gave the United States broad rights to intervene in Cuba.

For anti-imperialists, this comparison was devastating. The United States said “we will not annex Cuba,” but then built a system of control anyway. That showed students of the period that empire did not always require direct annexation. It could also take the form of dominance without full ownership.

A useful comparison for essays is this:

- **Philippines**: formal empire through annexation
- **Cuba**: informal empire through political control

Anti-imperialists criticised both.

> **Test Tip:** When asked to compare, use Cuba and the Philippines together. The Philippines shows rule by annexation; Cuba shows control without annexation. Both support the argument that U.S. expansion after **1898** conflicted with self-determination.

### Not all anti-imperialists agreed: moral principle, strategy, economics, and prejudice

The anti-imperialist movement was real, but it was not fully unified. This is where strong essays gain complexity.

Some critics, such as **Carl Schurz**, **George F. Hoar**, **Moorfield Storey**, **Andrew Carnegie**, and **Mark Twain**, used principled language about liberty, constitutionalism, and the republic-versus-empire problem. They feared that annexation would degrade American ideals.

Others made economic arguments. They questioned whether colonies would actually benefit ordinary Americans. Occupation, administration, and war cost money. Some also worried about labor competition from lower-wage colonial workers. That argument was less idealistic and more self-interested.

Still others raised strategic objections. They feared empire would drag the United States into distant conflicts, especially in Asia, and entangle it in rivalries with European powers and Japan. This argument echoed older warnings about foreign entanglements, though anti-imperialists were not always full isolationists.

And some anti-annexation arguments were plainly racial. Certain opponents did not want millions of nonwhite colonial subjects connected to the United States because they feared the consequences for citizenship, voting, or national identity. That was anti-imperialism, but not egalitarian anti-imperialism.

This is a key distinction students often miss. The movement included:

- constitutional anti-imperialists
- moral anti-imperialists
- anti-militarists
- economic critics
- racial exclusionists

All opposed annexation, but for different reasons.

That difference matters in DBQ writing because it allows qualification. You can argue that anti-imperialism was strongest when grounded in founding ideals, while also noting that some opponents were motivated by prejudice rather than universal equality. That is a more mature historical judgement than presenting the movement as morally pure.

## Key Point Checklist

_This article has covered the following key knowledge points:_

- The **Anti-Imperialist League** formed in **1898** to oppose annexation, especially of the Philippines
- Anti-imperialists argued that empire violated the principle of **consent of the governed**
- Critics said a republic could not rule foreign peoples without becoming an empire
- Constitutional objections focused on whether the United States could hold territories without full rights
- Anti-imperialists feared imperialism would strengthen executive power and promote **militarism**
- The **Philippine-American War (1899–1902)** showed that U.S. rule in the Philippines lacked consent and depended on force
- The **Teller Amendment (1898)** promised Cuba would not be annexed
- The **Platt Amendment (1901)** showed that U.S. control could continue without formal annexation
- The **Insular Cases** allowed the United States to govern territories without extending full constitutional protections
- **Downes v. Bidwell (1901)** helped establish the category of **unincorporated territories**
- Anti-imperialists used both moral and constitutional arguments, but some opponents were motivated by labor, racial, or strategic concerns
- A strong APUSH answer should compare formal empire in the **Philippines** with informal empire in **Cuba**

## Key Terms and Concepts

- Anti-Imperialist League
- consent of the governed
- self-determination
- Constitution follows the flag
- militarism
- Insular Cases
- unincorporated territories
- Treaty of Paris (1898)
- Philippine-American War
- Teller Amendment
- Platt Amendment


Imperialism: Debates - Anti-imperialist arguments against expansion