Should the U.S. have annexed the Philippines?

>>675749
yes

>>675756
why is that? to get those sweet, sweaty, flip """resources""", what's the point in colonizing if they are going to be a proxy state that nobody gives a shit about

it was a port so that merchants had a place to stop on their way to relevant places

>>675759
Nah, we just wanted the benefits of being American, like healthcare, better standard of living and shit actually getting done by our politicians.

no.

because when push came to shove, the US couldn't defend the islands as effectively as the mainland and other more isolated areas like Hawaii and Alaska. Having the Philippines as a US homeland state and have it fall to Japan within 2 months would be a massive morale blow.

It served the purpose of being a military station to ensure US presence in the area and some resources, not much else to provide an incentive for statehood.

File: 9WEiNOC.jpg (160KB, 606x601px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 606x601px

>>675749

No, because otherwise we wouldn't have been able to maintain the (self)delusion that we're not technically an "empire" for so long.

Should have annexed Cuba instead

>>675749
No That was the one place we did some good oversees that I can recall

Should the US have annexed the ROK?

You mean permanently? Absolutely not.

One of the biggest reasons we annexed them originally was to get a bigger foothold in east asia and pacific. After WW2 the US became the big dick on the block and had permanent military bases in Korea and Japan so there wasn't really any need to hang onto the islands which are plagued with ethnic and religious violence and don't offer substantial financial, defense or hegemonic rewards.

>>675874
was that region like that before america came to town? did we know what we were getting in to?

i know that the senate needed the VP to cast the tie breaker, so clearly the nation was heavily divided over it, not a great way to start imperialising, what with half the people being actively opposed to its proliferation

>>675914
Was owned by spain for about 333 years until america bought it from them after spanish-american war

>>675914
>was that region like that before america came to town? did we know what we were getting in to?

You mean the Philippines? They were literally in the midst of a war against the Spanish when we formally annexed the islands. McKinley's administration was fully aware, but they figured several things.

1. If America doesn't take possession of the island somebody else will, most likely Germany or Japan
2. The man behind the native revolution did not have the support of the majority of the islanders, and leaving the task of governing to him would be a unmitigated disaster for the island and its people

These are things which the commission sent by McKinley to advise him on Philippine policy relayed to him and they ultimately recommended full annexation. There were also business interests that weighed in on annexation and McKinley has always been characterized as being pliant to business interests, though how much that went into his decision is impossible to say.

As far as the political situation in the US, the annexation issue was a partisan issue for the most part. Although there was a wing democrats would supported territorial gain there were also a small number of republicans (I think like... 2 in the final vote) who were outspoken in their opposition. It was mostly a straight partisan affair. Democrats saw an opportunity to blast the republicans for imperialism and enriching their business cohorts, and Republicans fell in line behind their president and saw the Philippines acquisition as a the only solution to a difficult problem.

Most of the people in the US didn't even know the Philippines existed before the battle at Manila Bay, the public feeling about the islands also ran mostly along party lines.

>>675749
First define
>annexed
>Philippines
>should

>>675749
No. From nearly the outset of U.S. control over the Philippines, a pathway to their eventual independence and sovereignty was established.

We made a commitment, and despite a brief delay due to a sudden influx of Japanese imperialists, we honored it. Sure, they've got their issues, all countries do, but they're sovereign and a U.S. ally for as long as they'll have us. Now, I had heard that at one point in time there was a native-born statehood movement in the islands that actually formed a political party and had a go at it, and I suppose if the U.S. were faced with a plebiscite vote in favor of statehood, we'd probably take it? Then again, Puerto Rico did just that in 2012 and we've been politely pretending not to have heard about it.

>>675968
Was it in the best interests of America to imperialise the Philippine Islands?

>>675976
>and I suppose if the U.S. were faced with a plebiscite vote in favor of statehood, we'd probably take it?
I doubt it. The country is very poor still, and has over a hundred million people in it. That's over a third of the entire population of the US, plus we already have the benefits of having a special relationship with them.

> Then again, Puerto Rico did just that in 2012 and we've been politely pretending not to have heard about it.

Puerto Rico is already American, just not a state yet.

It was in the process of being annexed prior to the WWII.

Overall, it would've seriously hurt the US more than helped if they annexed it. US imperialism would be well known and people would be a lot more wary when doing business. Asia giants like China/India/Japan wouldn't take kindly. Nor would other european countries when the anti-colonialism sentiment were near their peak.

>>675983
Exactly, they voted in favor of statehood over independence or maintaining their current status, and four years later exactly nothing has happened on that front.

There's a couple of reasons I can think of for this, first being that they've got massive, crushing debt and taking them on as the 51st state would probably require bailing them out.

The second is apportionment. In the 40s(?) we fixed the number of congressmen at 435 when we decided on our current technique for apportioning seats. What this means is, adding a new state effectively requires taking congressional seats away from other states, meaning that literally every person in congress has an incentive to make sure that doesn't happen.

Also the party currently in control of congress has every incentive not to add a bunch of new latino voters they can gaffe at.

File: 1453852474967.jpg (763KB, 1270x896px) Image search: [Google]

763KB, 1270x896px

>>675749
Our god emperor was a handsome devil