AP US History
February 7, 2013
Analysis of “America’s Destiny”
In Albert Beveridge’s speech “America’s Destiny”, he argues for the U.S. to keep the Philippines after winning it from Spain in 1900. The U.S. was thinking about returning it to Spain or possibly giving it independence, but Beveridge and the imperialists advised otherwise. With control over the Philippines Beveridge saw an opportunity to secure an Asian empire with access to Asian markets and naval control over the Pacific. He even felt it to be America’s “destiny” to have a future strong relationship with the Far East. In addition to benefits to the U.S., he claimed America to have the duty of helping the people of undeveloped lands such as the Filipinos. However, Beveridge makes assumptions based on Anglo-Saxon supremacy that cannot be looked over. He does not consider the wants and freedoms of the Filipinos and assumes that the U.S. has the right to take over another nation of people. While Beveridge has strong, attractive arguments to keep the Philippines: access to Asian markets and naval control over the Pacific for the future, he assumes that the Filipinos are inferior and need to be improved; he does not take in to account whether the Filipino people actually would be willing and eager to let the U.S. control their land and government.
In his speech, Beveridge delivers a strong economic and military argument for keeping the Philippines. He argues that control over the Philippines gives the U.S. an opportunity that cannot be passed up: access to the Far East’s “illimitable markets” to go along with naval control over the Pacific for the future. To Beveridge, the future success of America’s economy was reliant on commercial success in Asia. He claims that China would be a perfect and “natural customer” of the U.S.’s increasing surplus manufacturing goods coming from the current Industrial Revolution. If the U.S. were to occupy the Philippines, China would...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document