The Rise of the Philippine Independent Church

The story of the Iglesia Filipina Independiente, otherwise known as the Philippine Independent Church, also known as the Aglipayan Church, is intertwined with the war of independence against Spain and the subsequent war of resistance against the United States of America.

A rebellion of the Filipino clergy against the Vatican at the turn of the 20th century triggered the birth of the independent church and threatened the very existence of the Roman Catholic Church in the Philippines.

(Source: University of Michigan Digital Library)

The principal reason for this schism was hatred of the friars, which was also the primary cause of the Philippine revolution. When friars were captured by the Filipino rebels they were killed. The first three priests secured by Aguinaldo in his first battle were roasted on bamboo spits, smeared with oil and burned, and minced to pieces. Not a nice, civilized, or Christian thing for the natives to do, remarked an observer, but what deep-rooted hatred it displayed. (Grant[Percy], 72)

Archbishop Bernardino Nozaleda of Manila, the titular head of the Philippine Roman Catholic church supported the friars and kept them in the parishes with the approval of the Pope, despite the persistent demand for their expulsion. The native Filipino clergy led by Fathers Gregorio Aglipay, Isidoro Perez, Panciano Manuel, Jose Evangelista, and Adriano Garces, actively agitated for the replacement of the friars by secular priests. Father Gregorio Aglipay also participated actively in the Philippine revolution and ultimately became the head of the schismatic church.

Archbishop Nozaleda did not show any sympathy for the plight of the people and the Filipino clergy in particular. When the 1896 Philippine revolution broke out, Nozaleda demanded that the Spanish authorities exterminate the Filipino rebels by "fire, sword, and wholesale executions. (Foreman, 365). But Governor-General Ramon Blanco hesitated to take the offensive until reinforcement from the home government arrived. For his inaction, Blanco was replaced by Camilo G. de Polavieja through the intercession of Nozaleda.

The inclination of Nozaleda to use drastic means towards the Filipino natives was also exhibited in the incarceration and eventual execution of Dr. Jose Rizal. While in prison, Rizal was quoted as saying that if Archbishop Nozaleda's sane view had been taken and Noli Me Tangere not preached against, he would not have been in prison, and perhaps the rebellion would never have occurred (Craig, 238).

However, when news came that Admiral Dewey's fleet was sailing to Manila in May 1898, Nozaleda and the worried Governor-General Basilio Agustin made a desperate and urgent appeal to the Filipino people to help the Spaniards drive the Americans out of the Islands. The Filipinos were told that the Americans would take away their liberties and enslave them; that this Protestant nation would destroy their churches and uproot Christianity. However, the Filipinos wavered because the false promises of the peace pact of Biac-na-Bato were still fresh in the Filipinos' memory (Briggs, 71).

In desperation, Nozaleda sent an emissary to the rebel camp in Cavite to convince the Filipinos to take sides with the Spaniards with promises of reforms and positions for Filipino leaders in a proposed Spanish-sponsored autonomous government. The emissary was Father Gregorio Aglipay. But instead of convincing the rebels to join ranks with the Spaniards against the Americans, Father Aglipay became a strong adherent of the revolution and Aguinaldo eventually commissioned him as the First Chaplain and Vicar General of the Philippine Revolutionary Army. For his involvement in the revolution, Father Aglipay was excommunicated by an ecclesiastical tribunal that Archbishop Nozaleda convened on April 29, 1899.

The second phase of the Philippine revolution was marked by a succession of victories against the Spanish army by the better-armed and organized Filipino army whose number rose to 30,000 men by end of June 1898. With Admiral Dewey in control of the bay and assisting Aguinaldo, the Filipino army took 9,000 Spanish prisoners and raised the Filipino flag in practically all towns and cities outside of Manila - Luzon, the Visayas, and parts of Mindanao. The hated friars were taken prisoners and the property of the Catholic church – rich farmlands, church buildings, and convents was confiscated by the Filipino government and used by the Filipino army. Several captured friars were even made household servants to the military and civilian officials of the Malolos government.

During the brief period of Filipino administration of the islands after the declaration of independence in June 1898 up to the capture of Aguinaldo in March 1901, the Filipino clergy was mandated to take over the parishes and fill the spiritual needs of the populace while the blessing of the Vatican was being secured. Aguinaldo designated Isabelo Delos Reyes to this important mission – to intercede with the Pope for the appointment of Filipino bishops. However, the papal delegate disdained the idea saying, "Not if all the friars are beheaded will Rome appoint Filipinos as bishops."(Laubach[Seven], 71-72)

So, Isabelo Delos Reyes returned to the Philippines in 1901, burning with indignation and determined to start a separate independent church.

After the fall of Manila to the Americans on August 13, 1898, Nozaleda fled to Shanghai and remained there until the Treaty of Paris was signed on December 10, 1898. During the treaty negotiations, the Vatican sent Bishop Placido L. Chapelle of New Orleans to Paris who adeptly maneuvered and lobbied to obtain concessions favorable to the Catholic church. The Americans, who did not want to antagonize the Pope, spared the Church from decimation by inserting Article VIII into the treaty which provided for the protection of Church properties and rights. The role of the Catholic church in the treaty negotiation is better described by Laubach, viz:

“Suddenly the friars abandoned the game of seeking Aglipay's support and loudly announced themselves as pro American - for they had won a bigger game in Europe. Spain had signed the Treaty of Paris with the United States (December 10, 1898). It had been a defeat for Spain, but it was a victory of the friars, who outwitted the American Government. Archbishop Chapelle of New Orleans was present at the negotiations. He insisted that the United States should purchase the Islands for $20,000,000 while President McKinley insisted by cable that the United States should secure her title by conquest. The church having more at stake, persisted longer - and won. Technically therefore, the Philippines were purchased instead of being conquered and they were not purchased with a clear title. For article VIII says about the church property (which as already stated now constituted one tenth of the improved property of the Philippines), ‘The... cession... cannot in any respect impair the property rights.. of... ecclesiastical... bodies.’…” (Laubach [People], 130-131)

Upon his return to Manila, Archbishop Nozaleda suddenly announced that he was now pro-American.

As Aguinaldo's loose alliance with the Americans against Spain turned into a war between the two former allies, Father Aglipay continued to serve the Filipino army in the war of resistance against the Americans. He helped recruit Ilocano guerrillas and persistently harassed American garrisons in the Ilocos region. Even after Aguinaldo's capture in March 1901, Father Aglipay continued the fight until he saw the hopelessness of the cause. He surrendered to the Americans in May 1901, took the oath of allegiance to the United States, and returned to his calling in the Catholic Church, hoping for forgiveness from the Pope.

Meanwhile, Delos Reyes made good his plan by establishing a church in July 1901 and appointed Father Aglipay as its head. Father Aglipay publicly refused the appointment and disowned the movement. He and several other Filipino members of the clergy continued to fight for the removal of the friars from the parishes. However, Nozaleda and the newly arrived papal delegate, Bishop Chapelle, who was tasked by the Pope to resolve the complaints of the native clergy, sided with the friars.

Felipe Calderon mentioned two incidents that revealed the bias of the church hierarchy in favor of the friars and the religious corporations, as follows:

"We had, together with the apostolic delegate (Bishop Chapelle), organized a reception in one of the houses of the Calzada de San Miguel. I being a member of the committee on arrangements for that function. The house was sumptuously decorated and illuminated; among the decorations there were several transparencies with the name of Filipino bishops ad prominent Filipino priests, and on the front of the house there anchored between the lights the names of Burgos, Gomez, and Zamora. This reception was attended by large crowds among them the Archbishop of Manila (Nozaleda) and the provincials of nearly all the religious corporations, some of whom, by the way, carried big rattan canes, although they had come to a peaceful reception. After the reception, a group of residents of Tondo asked the Delegate to listen to an address of welcome to be pronounced by a young lady on behalf of the residents mentioned. Almost at the very beginning of the address, reference was made to the animosity of the Filipinos against the religious corporations, whereupon Mr. Chapelle told the young lady to stop. The people present became very excited, and shortly afterwards, without my knowing how it started, shouts of ‘Away with the friars!’ and ‘Death to Nozaleda!’ resounded throughout the room, to such an extent that General Otis, who was among the crowd, began to calm everybody. This was not all: when Mr. Nozaleda left the place, a number of people pursued him and several stones struck his carriage. The other incident occurred at a meeting of Filipino priests held at the residence of the Delegate, Mr. Chapelle, at which meeting the priests requested that their legitimate rights be recognized and that with regard to the matter of the parish priests, the common canonical law govern in the Philippine Islands, and not special laws by virtue of which the parishes in the Philippines are administered by members of the regular clergy. Mr. Chapelle disbanded the meeting in a manner anything but prudent and informed those present that he could not tolerate that such requests be made. In view of all these things and of the attitude of the apostolic delegate, who showed marked preference for the religious corporations, great excitement prevailed, not only among the Filipino clergy, but among the other Catholics, who saw that a break between the Delegate and the Archbishop on one side and the people and the clergy on the other was imminent." (,Kalaw[Memoirs], 632-633)

U.S. President Roosevelt, in an effort to diffuse the tense atmosphere of discontent, sent Governor-General William Howard Taft to the Vatican to negotiate with the Pope for the resolution of two thorny issues, namely: the purchase of the friar lands, and the removal of the friars from the parishes. The first issue was accomplished after paying a very handsome price, in the words of Felipe Calderon, "a large amount of money has left the Philippine islands and gone into the treasury of the religious corporations instead of remaining in the possession and being expended for the benefit of the Apostolic Catholic Roman Church" (Kalaw[Memoirs], 635). But the second, the expulsion of the friars, was not successfully resolved. The Pope refused to remove the friars from the parishes. (Laubach[People], 140)

With the dismal news of Taft's failure to secure the eviction of the friars, Father Aglipay saw it as a clear demonstration of the discrimination against the native priests and the futility of the struggle of the Filipino clergy. Accordingly, in a bold decision on October 17, 1902, Father Aglipay broke off with Rome and accepted the position of Obispo Maximo of the new church. His move created a stampede of priests and the faithful to the new church bringing with them the control of Catholic church properties.  Here is how an observer saw it:

"The excitement rose higher than it had been when Aglipay said his first mass. There was a landslide into the schismatic church. In Ilocos Norte only three priests remained true to Rome. All the Filipino priests on the Island of Panay, sixty in number, left the Catholic Church. The poor, the oppressed, and the radical, clamored for freedom. In general, the more the communities had been touched by unrest, the greater was the number of those who broke from Rome. Indeed Aglipay and his fellow bishops were swamped. The movement was one of the people even more than of the priests. In no case did a priest go into the new movement without the support of his congregation. In many instances parts of congregations broke away from the priest who refused to go with them. The new church was embarrassed for want of priests and bishops." (Laubach[People], 144)

Unable to stave off the exodus of the faithful, Archbishop Nozaleda asked the government to intervene and "... demanded ... that the churches be restored to their bishops by the armed interference of the constabulary" (Barrows, 10). But the American-colonial government required the matter to make its way in the courts. And so the Aglipayan church retained possession of the Catholic Church properties under a policy of peaceable possession enunciated by Governor-General Taft, which allowed the property to remain with the possessor, i.e., the Aglipayan Church until the courts have decided on whose favor the properties should go.

The Aglipayan Church was widely received all over the islands and enjoyed its highest mark in 1904. Riding on the crest of nationalism, the new church immediately gained adherents, especially among the masses. One author describes the dramatic spread of the new church in this manner:

"A Filipino priest, Father Serrondo, at Pandacan, Manila, made some insulting references to Bishop Aglipay. When Father Serrondo came out of church he was assaulted by a mob of women. They tore his cassock in shreds, rolled him in the dirt, and let him go, glad to escape with his life. Members of the congregation sent for the new Archbishop Aglipay to come and say mass in the Pandacan church. This he did before a vast crowd. Two hundred irate women took their bedding and cooking utensils and slept in the churchyard to prevent the regular priest from again entering the building. Other churches invited Aglipay to use their building and the city was in a furor." (Laubach[People], 142)

Before the exodus to the new church, there were about six or seven million Roman Catholics. After the religious upheaval, only about one million remained with the Catholic Church. The newly arrived American Protestant missionaries, who thought of using the Aglipayan Church as a stepping stone, provided the new church with Protestant Bibles. The direction of the new Church was separation from the Vatican, thus:

"The schismatic church therefore bent its energies to inducing Filipino priests to abandon Rome. The great majority of priests hesitated for a time. Then they were almost stampeded into revolt by the arrival of a new Apostolic delegate to the Philippines, Monsignor Guidi, as successor of Archbishop Chapelle of New Orleans. These papal delegates were always making false steps. This time the blunder was to publish an encyclical letter written by the Pope to the Filipinos. It was published on December 2nd. There was an immediate upheaval. Filipinos saw in the letter a clear intention on the part of the papacy to fasten the friars upon them forever. It was condemned by every native priest in the Islands. Monsignor Guidi sought to placate the Filipinos by replacing former Spanish prelates with American bishops, but in the present excitement this made matters worse. Aglipay expressed the general feeling when he said: 'We resent the sending of French, Italian, Hottentot, American or any other friar-controlled priests to rule us.' Aglipay declares, and Filipino priests commonly believe, that 'Guidi deliberately changed the recently printed promise to appoint four Filipino bishops by appointing foreign bishops in their stead." (Laubach[People], 144)

The Aglipayan Church initially maintained most of the Catholic rituals, sainted Dr. Jose Rizal, accepted the Protestant doctrines of scripture-based teaching, and did away with Mariolatry. Isabelo de Los Reyes, who had been working on an idea about the religion of the Katipunan which revolved around the supreme being Bathala, also contributed his intellectual prowess and translated the Protestant Bible into Ilocano, in cooperation with the British Bible Society. He eventually rewrote the Protestant Bible, more likely with the help of Aglipay. He ascribed scientific explanations to many events in the Bible and finally produced a revised version which was published under the title Biblia Filipina. The Aglipayan Church was grooming itself to become like the Church of England.

However, in December 1906, the Aglipayan Church was struck by a big blow. The Supreme Court overturned the peaceable possession policy of Governor Taft that allowed the Aglipayans the possession of Catholic Church properties. The Court gave no credence to the contention of the Aglipayans that the church buildings truly belonged to the Filipino people who erected them with their own sweat and labor and financed them with money contributed by the native faithful. The court's decision effectively restored the ownership of the church buildings to the Vatican and ordered the Aglipayan hierarchy to return these to the Roman Catholic Church.

The Supreme Court decision deprived the Aglipayans of the possession of the church buildings and was forced to make do with makeshift structures of bamboo and nipa. The pathetic picture of Aglipayan faithful performing liturgical services in deplorable conditions brought widespread demoralization and led many priests and followers to trek back to the fold of the Catholic Church.

But Bishop Aglipay was unfazed and did not give up. To the surprise of the Roman Catholic Church, the Aglipayan church recovered and by the census of 1918, it had 1,417,466 members or 13.7 percent of the entire population of the Islands. The Christian-influenced doctrines of the new Church were overhauled with the release on May 8, 1926, of a monograph entitled Novenary of the Motherland authored jointly by Gregorio Aglipay and Isabelo de Los Reyes. The new teachings rejected the Catholic doctrines of the divinity of Jesus, original sin, immaculate conception, the trion God, and heaven and hell. The Darwinian concept of the origin of man, together with subsequent anthropological findings were accepted in support of creation, while the principles of physics, more particularly the indestructible properties of matter, of the transformation of gas, liquid, and solid, were ascribed to the phenomena of physical death and resurrection. The teachings of Rizal, Bonifacio, the Katipunan, and Mabini were incorporated in the novena and prescribed as a regular daily prayer of the members. The Aglipayan Church was groomed to become the "scientific National Church" (Aglipay, 20).

One of the chief lessons which Rizal had learned in Europe was that a priest-ridden nation is a nation bound over hand and foot to degeneration and decay, and many of his writings were directed against this unwholesome influence, which nowhere has had such pernicious effects as in the Philippines. (Younghusband, 129) Today, whatever the current state of the Aglipayan church does not diminish its contribution to the growth and development of the purest of Filipino spirit and the noblest of aspirations - to be free and independent.

SOURCES: 

1.  Aglipay y Labayán, Gregorio: "Novenary of the motherland : (the motherland is symbolized in the envisioned Mother of Balintawak," Manila: s.n., 1926, University of Michigan Library 2005, http://name.umdl.umich.edu/ahv7801.0001.001

2.  Barrows, David Prescott: "A Decade of American Government in the Philippines, 1903-1913," Yonkers-on-Hudson, N.Y., World Book Company, 1914, University of Michigan Library 2005, http://name.umdl.umich.edu/AHZ9396.0001.001

3.  Briggs, Charles Whitman, "The Progressing Philippines," The Griffith & Rowland Press, Boston, 1913, University of Michigan Library 2005,
http://name.umdl.umich.edu/AGA4319.0001.001

4.  Craig, Austin: "Lineage, Life, and Labors of Jose Rizal, Philippine patriot: a study of the growth of free ideas in the transpacific American territory," Yonkers-on-Hudson, World Book Co., 1914, University of Michigan Library 2005, http://name.umdl.umich.edu/AHZ9295.0001.001

5.  Foreman, John: "The Philippines," Manila, Filipiniana Book Guild, 1980, University of Michigan Library 2005, http://name.umdl.umich.edu/AAQ5315.0001.001

6.  Grant, Percy Stickney: "Observations in Asia," New York: Brentano's, 1908, University of Michigan Library 2005, http://name.umdl.umich.edu/afj0121.0001.001

7.  Kalaw, Teodoro M.: "The Memoirs of Felipe G. Calderon," The Phillippine Review (Revista Filipina), Volume 4, No. 1, Nieva, Gregorio, ed. Manila, P.I.: G. Nieva [etc.]; University of Michigan Library 2005, http://name.umdl.umich.edu/acp0898.0004.001

8.  Laubach, Frank Charles: "The People of the Philippines, their Religious Progress and Preparation for Spiritual Leadership in the Far East," New York, George H. Doran Co., 1925, University of Michigan Library 2005, http://name.umdl.umich.edu/AGA4322.0001.001

9.  Laubach, Frank Charles: "Seven thousand emeralds," decorations by Margaret Ayer, New York: Friendship Press, [c1929], University of Michigan Library 2005, http://name.umdl.umich.edu/AAX6820.0001.001

10. Younghusband, George John: “The Philippines and roundabout: with some account of British interests in these waters, by Major G. J. Younghusband, .... With illustrations and map," London, New York: Macmillan and Co., 1899. University of Michigan Library 2005, http://name.umdl.umich.edu/ahz9201.0001

#TUKLAS

How the 1898 Treaty of Paris was railroaded

Is it not rather unusual that the United States had to pay $20 million to Spain in order to effect the annexation of the Philippine Islands?  If the spoils of war are the prerogative of the victor, as the saying goes, why pay? 

The documents submitted by the McKinley administration to the U.S. senate give detailed accounts of how the Treaty of Paris was consummated. Of particular interest is the revelation that the Spanish Commissioners opposed the idea of relinquishing control over the Philippine Islands and wanted to submit the issue for arbitration. But the American side did not want any further delay in the negotiations so it submitted a "take it or leave it" offer of $20 million to buy the Philippines, accompanied by a threat to renew hostilities if the offer was rejected. The Spanish commissioners caved.

This article attempts to examine the motivations that led to the consummation of the Treaty of Paris on December 10, 1898.

A Peace Protocol that ended the Spanish-American war preceded the Treaty of Paris.  The protocol was signed on August 12, 1898, in Washington DC by Secretary William R. Day of the U.S. State Department and French Ambassador Jules Cambon, who acted as plenipotentiary of Spain.

Article I of the Peace Protocol provided for the relinquishment by Spain of all rights and sovereignty over Cuba which paved the way for the establishment of an independent Cuba. 

Article II provided for the cession of Puerto Rico and several other islands in the West Indies and in the Ladrones by Spain to the United States and these territories became possessions of the United States.

However, the Peace Protocol did not clearly define status of the Philippines.  A vague provision gave the United States the right to occupy the bay, harbor, and city of Manila, as follows:

"Third. On similar grounds, the United States is entitled to occupy and will hold the city, bay and harbor of Manila, pending the conclusion of the a Treaty of Peace, which shall determine the control, disposition and government of the Philippines." (United States[treaty], 274).

The Philippines control, disposition, and government were finally determined and contained in what is now referred to as the Treaty of Paris. Article III of the treaty provides as follows:

""Spain cedes to the United States the archipelago known as the Philippine Islands, comprehending the islands lying within the following line:

 

“A line running from west to east along or near the twentieth parallel of north latitude, and through the middle of the navigable channel of Bachi, from the one hundred and eighteenth (118th) to the one hundred and twenty-seventh (127th) degree meridian of longitude east of Greenwich, thence along the one hundred and twenty-seventh (127th) degree meridian of longitude east of Greenwich to the parallel of four degrees and forty-five minutes (40 45') north latitude, thence along the parallel of four degrees and forty-five minutes (4 45') north latitude to its intersection with. the meridian of longitude one hundred and nineteen degrees and thirty-five minutes (11190 35') east of Greenwich, thence along the meridian of longitude one hundred and nineteen degrees and thirty-five minutes (1190 35') east of Greenwich to the parallel of latitude seven degrees and forty minutes (70 40') north, thence along the parallel of latitude seven degrees and forty minutes (70 40') north to its intersection with the one hundred and sixteenth (1.16th) degree meridian of longitude east of Greenwich, thence by a direct line to the intersection of the tenth (10th) degree parallel of north latitude with the one hundred and eighteenth (118th) degree meridian of longitude east of Greenwich), and thence along the one hundred arid eighteenth (118th) degree meridian of longitude east of Greenwich to the point of beginning. 

"The United States will pay Spain the sum of twenty million dollars ($20,000,000) within three months after the exchange of the ratification of the present treaty." (United States[Treaty], 264-265)

During the negotiations between the American and Spanish commissioners, it became clear that the United States wanted to take over from Spain control of the Philippines. The Spanish Commissioners rejected the American position on the basis that the Peace Protocol of Washington merely provided for temporary possession and occupancy of the city, bay, and harbor of Manila and did not admit the possibility that the United States would in any way claim any sovereignty over the Philippine Island.

The parties were deadlocked and unable to agree. Spain proposed to take the issue to arbitration. The prospect of subjecting the treaty to unnecessary delay was not acceptable to the American Peace Commissioners. Therefore, to this Spanish proposition, the American side made a counteroffer to pay $20 million to Spain, which the Spanish Commissioners viewed as a “take it, or leave it” offer, accompanied by a threat to renew the hostilities, as can be gleaned from the following reply issued by the Spanish Commission:

“…The Spanish Commissioners are now asked to accept the American proposition in its entirety and without further discussion, or to reject it, in which later case, as the American Commission understands, the peace negotiation will end and the peace Protocol of Washington will, consequently, be broken.” (United States [Treaty], 213)

The American gambit worked and Spain yielded, expressing its total surrender to the United States position in the following terms:

"The government of Her Majesty, moved by lofty reasons of patriotism and humanity, will not assume the responsibility of again bringing upon Spain all the horrors of war. In order to avoid them it resigns itself to the painful strait of submitting to the law of victory, however harsh it may be, and as Spain lacks material means to defend the rights she believes are hers, having recorded them, she accepts the only terms the United States offers her for the concluding of the Treaty of Peace." (United States [Treaty], 213)

Thus, the Treaty of Paris was signed and the United States took possession of the Philippines Islands under questionable circumstances. What follows is a question and answer on this very unusual treaty:

Question No. 1 - The American commissioners heard several testimonies from the American generals assigned in the Philippines, from experts on natural resources and from the famous English author, John Foreman, but not from any Filipino, viz:"

The testimony of no Filipino, nor representative of that people, appears to have been taken by American commissioners at Paris, who had summoned before them witnesses from all over the globe to testify about the islands and the people there. The treaty was signed, and then came the demand upon the Filipinos for immediate and absolute allegiance to the United States." (Thomas, 61)

The Filipino official, Felipe Agoncillo, handpicked by President Emilio Aguinaldo to represent the Filipinos at the conference, was refused recognition and barred from presenting the case for the Filipinos. In contrast, the credentials of the representative of the Catholic Hierarchy, Bishop Placido Chapelle, were recognized, and he was given the opportunity to work out a special provision in the treaty, i.e., Article VIII, which provided for the protection of the property and rights of the Catholic Church in the Philippines. Why were the Filipinos ignored and barred from the conference? 

Answer: The fact is the Spanish authority in the islands had ceased after Manila, the seat of the Spanish government was surrendered to the Americans on August 13, 1898. While the Americans held the city of Manila, the Filipinos were in control of the country. If there were any negotiations about the future of the islands, it should have been between the Americans and the Filipinos. The exclusion of the Filipinos from the treaty negotiations, according to Mabini, violated international law and the natural divine rights of Filipinos to whom belongs the sovereignty of the islands (Taylor, Vol. 4, 64-66).  

Question No. 2 - The United States annexed Puerto Rico and the Philippines, but granted Cuba its independence. Why the difference in treatment?

Answer: It must be borne in mind that the United States prided itself as the land of the free, the bastion of democracy, and enshrined in its constitution the proposition that all men are created equal. Accordingly, in dealing with the issue of acquisition of foreign territories, the administration of U.S. President William McKinley had to reckon with the constitutional restraint and libertarian tradition of the American people, lest the United States is branded a neo-colonialist or accused of being unfaithful to its democratic heritage. Be that as it may, it is now possible to speculate why the Peace Protocol was framed in such a way that Spain ceded Puerto Rico and freed Cuba, but was indecisive as far as the Philippine Islands was concerned.

The Cuban people were in a state of rebellion against Spain and, therefore, had clearly expressed their desire to be free and independent. To hold Cuba as a colony against the wishes of the Cuban people would be viewed as an act of imperialism. Hence, Article I of the Peace Protocol provided for the relinquishment of Spanish sovereignty over Cuba which led to its independence from foreign rule.

In the case of Puerto Rico, the people were not in a state of rebellion against Spain and did not express their desire to be free and independent. Leaving the territory in the hands of Spain or without a functional government would be irresponsible. Hence, the annexation of Puerto Rico as provided in Article II of the Peace Protocol was justifiable because temporarily holding the territory until the Puerto Ricans finally decide what they want for themselves would be viewed as humanitarian.

A different case presents itself for the Philippine Islands. The Filipinos have already thrown off the Spanish yoke and established a government of their own with full knowledge of the representatives of the U.S. government and, presumably, McKinley and Washington officials. Not only did the Filipinos express their desire to be free and independent, but they were, in fact, already administering the country and the remnants of Spanish authority were hopelessly holed up in an area called Intramuros in the besieged capital of Manila.

If the United States were true to her libertarian and democratic traditions the direction for the Philippines was no other than an independent republic.  However, the cards were stacked against the Filipinos. For one, the British did not favor the idea of an independent Filipino republic because it would be like setting a bushfire that could spread all throughout the British empire in the Orient. The British press actively supported the annexation of the Philippines by the United States which must have influenced the administration of President McKinley to entertain the idea of a colony in the Far East. Attached to the treaty documents forwarded by President McKinley to the U.S. Congress was item no. 14, "Protectorates, colonies and non-sovereign states", and item no. 15, "The Federated Malay States: A sketch of growth and political organization by Francis B. Forbes.

The major factor was protecting the interest of the Catholic church  To the Vatican, the independence of the Filipinos would mean the confiscation of its rich farmlands, the destruction of the religious orders, and probably horrific revenge on the friars. Accordingly, Cardinal Gibbons and Archbishop Ireland were instructed to move to Washington while Bishop Chapelle was sent to Paris. As later events showed these moves brought positive results most favorable to the Vatican because President McKinley was influenced to retain the Philippines as an American territory and the property and interest of the Catholic church were protected from seizure through a provision in Article VIII of the peace treaty.

The pressure brought to bear upon the United States by the British and the Vatican were the principal factors that shaped Article III of the Peace Protocol that would hold the status of the Philippines in abeyance until it was successfully resolved at the Treaty of Paris in favor of annexation.

In the meantime, the administration of President William McKinley would have already perfected the clever ploy – convince the American people that the Filipinos were savages and unfit to govern themselves, and the United States was coming to educate and prepare them for self-government.  This course of action was successfully executed with the implied consent of the American people, which meant securing a license to keep the Philippines as a colony, which was what McKinley wanted in the first place.

SOURCES:

1. Taylor, John R. M: "The Philippine Insurrection Against the United States, a compilation of documents with notes and introduction", Volume 4, February 5, 1899, to November 3, 1899, Eugenio Lopez History Series, Eugenio Lopez Foundation, Pasay City, Philippines, 1971

2. Thomas, Aretas W.: "The Philippines and the purpose. Being the facts concerning the Philippines and the acts of the administration in relation thereto, as officially transmitted by the president to congress--proving the purpose of imperialism.", Washington, D.C.: The Jeffersonian democrat pub. co., 1900, Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Library 2005, http://name.umdl.umich.edu/AFJ2123.0001.001

3. United States, "A treaty of peace between the United States and Spain. Message from the President of the United States transmitting a treaty of peace between the United States and Spain, signed at the city of Paris on December 10, 1898 ...[with accompanying papers and map]”, Washington, Gov't. Printing Office, 1898, Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Library 2005, http://name.umdl.umich.edu/ACA4900.0001.001

#TUKLAS