The Second Philippine Question

Following the First Philippine Debate and several decades of US imperial rule in the Philippines, a second debate arose in the mid-1920s: should the Philippines be granted independence? On March 23, 1924, The Michigan Daily published several articles regarding the Philippine debate capturing the perspectives of faculty and students at the University of Michigan [1]. 

The second debate broke down into two sides: pro-independence and anti-independence. Pro-independents believed that the Philippines ought to have full governing autonomy from the United States. Anti-independents argued that the Philippines still required development and economic assistance and that the US should not grant the Philippines full independence.

Compared to the first debate, the second debate featured more consideration of the perspectives of Filipinos. Dean Maximo Kalaw, a professor on exchange at UM from the University of the Philippines, spoke out about America’s failings in the colonies. He stated, “The foundation for the Philippine trouble rests on the fact that America has deviated from the principle which she holds sacred—that governments derive their first powers from the consent of the governed." [2] The fact that the US insisted on ruling a population that wished to be free from imperialism contradicted American values. Kalaw stated that he was pro-independence because of his belief in the right to self-govern. He detailed the many advantages that would follow independence: “Economic independence is totally dependent on political independence. They go hand in hand and it is impossible to have one without the other. Give the Philippines their own government and economic independence will be easier of attainment" [3]. According to Kalaw, one of the main reasons to liberate the Philippines was the potential for economic development apart from the US. Kalaw appealed to the American value of liberalism to support his argument. His claim that self-governance would improve economic conditions in the Philippines aligned with political and economic liberalism. 

Professor Joseph Ralston Hayden of the University of Michigan’s Political Science department expanded on Dean Kalaw’s argument. Despite the improvements the region still needed, Hayden claimed that the “fundamental purpose of the United States in its relations with the Philippines has been to prepare the Filipino people for successful self-government"[4]. The solution to economic turmoil and political instability was to build a relationship between an independent Philippines and the United States so that Filipinos could learn how to manage their own affairs. Hayden explained, “Such a relationship would give Filipinos the best possible opportunity to carry forward their national development, already so splendidly begun" [5]. Many saw independence as not only a moral obligation to right the wrongs of imperialism but also as a solution to the problems that arose because of it. Hayden did not argue to cut all ties with the United States, but proposed that  independence for the Philippines would make for a better relationship between the two nations.

One article, entitled "Free Philippines Will Favor Trade," featured Philippine President Manuel Quezon's perspective on how independence would benefit America:  

We will give for what we are asking. America wants a naval base in the Orient. She needs a country in this part of the globe where she can sell her products and get what she cannot produce in the homeland. We want to assure America and Americans here that they will not have to govern this country in order to get these things. If she grants our freedom, she can build a naval base here. We will give her preference in our trade; we will buy her products, and in every way we will give her all the concessions necessary to maintain her position in the Orient.[6]

President Quezon outlined the advantages that Philippine independence would bring for both sides. Like other Filipino leaders, Quezon argued that political independence would not mean that the US would lose the economic and military benefits that came with imperialism. Instead, the Philippines would remain a market for American goods and a source of raw material. This viewpoint easily appealed to American legislators who saw the economic value of the Philippine colony. For some Filipinos, this bargain was worth it if it meant the beginning of their nation's independence.

As the article featuring Quezon demonstrates, the Michigan Daily's coverage of the Philippine question in 1924 highlighted voices of Filipinos. This was in contrast to the debate about imperialism that occurred only two decades prior. This suggests that broader converations about the Philippines in the 1920s at Michigan accounted for and integrated Filipino voices.

The fact that Filipinos studied at the University of Michigan in the 1920s may have contributed to the inclusion of Filipino voices in the debate. The Michigan Daily in fact interviewed a Filipino student. Quotes from Maria Lanzar, a Barbour scholar and PhD student in Political Science, discuss the Filipino desire for freedom. Lanzar stated,  “There are several problems facing the Philippines right now...One of the most vital concerns the dispensing with American protection. The Filipinos are willing to risk taking this step.”[7] Although being backed by the powerful United States military certainly had its appeal, in Ms. Lanzar’s mind, this was not worth the cost of her freedom. She continued, “Another problem is the Philippine economic question which is still unsettled… Filipinos don’t believe they can get their independence right now. It is necessary, they feel, to agitate the question continually in order that no one will think they have given up on the thought of complete freedom.” Lanzar was not blind to the problems facing her home country and understood it would be a long and complicated road to independence, but she persisted towards freedom nonetheless. In the words of Maria Lanzar, “Why of course we want independence. Every Filipino does. We want to be free just as every other citizen wants to be free.”

Maria Lanzar’s political voice as a young representative of the Philippines at the UM and a woman was rare in the 1930s. Considering that women obtained the right to vote in the Philippines in 1937, Lanzar’s inclusion in the UM independence debates provides a historically underrepresented perspective on these important political issues.

Those who opposed independence challenged the economic and political arguments of Kalaw, Quezon,  Lanzar, and others. Their imperialist positions hinged on racism, similar to the first Philippine debate. Professor A. L. Cross of the Department of History claimed that the time was not ripe “by reason of [the Filipinos'] inexperience along the lines of self-government”[8]. Cross continued, “The Philippines are for the most part uneducated, I am forced to believe they are hardly ready to manage their own affairs.” Cross's arguments for continued colonial rule stemmed from racist assumptions about Filipinos that were treated as scientific fact at the time. At this point in history, the Philippine Senate was made up of almost entirely Filipinos who were well-educated at prestigious universities in the US and the Philippines. Yet Cross uses the stereotypical image of the Filipino as primitive to argue that Filipino leaders were not educated enough. What Cross really meant when he claimed the time was not right was that the time would never be right. The Philippines and America would never be equals according to anti-independents. 

While many of the arguments for anti-independents were based on white supremacy, some also worried about the potential economic instability of the Philippines if it were to become independent. Economics professor C. E. Griffin weighed in on this issue. He claimed the Philippines was less industrialized than countries like the US and therefore benefitted from capital investment. He continued, “Complete independence could hardly help but act as a check upon the investment of much foreign capital… Such a step would destroy the advantage which the Philippines now have over South America and other areas which are available for capital investment"[9]. According to Griffin, the Philippines did enjoy certain economic preferences in their state of semi-autonomy. For example, free trade between them and America was at risk of being lost. 

The Second Philippine Debate at Michigan saw the inclusion of more Filipino perspectives but also the continuity of white supremacist ideas and those concerned mainly about American interests. Ultimately, the Philippines gained their independence but not until 1946 after the Second World War.   

 

Citations

[1]  Michigan Daily, "Michigan Views the Philippines," March 23, 1924, Vol. 34, Iss. 129, Ed. 1, 9. Michigan Daily Digital Archives.

[2] Michigan Daily, "Independence Stand Vigorously Defended," March 23, 1924, Vol. 34, Iss. 129, Ed. 1, 9. 

[3] Ibid

[4] Michigan Daily, "Consent to Govern," March 23, 1924, Vol. 34, Iss. 129, Ed. 1, 9. 

[5] Ibid

[6] Michigan Daily, "Free Philippines Will Favor Trade," March 23, 1924, Vol. 34, Iss. 129, Ed. 1, 9. 

[7] Michigan Daily, "We Want Freedom," March 23, 1924, Vol. 34, Iss. 129, Ed. 1, 9. 

[8] Michigan Daily, "The Faculty Speaks: Time Not Ripe," March 23, 1924, Vol. 34, Iss. 129, Ed. 1, 9. 

[9] Michigan Daily, "The Faculty Speaks: Economically Unsafe," March 23, 1924, Vol. 34, Iss. 129, Ed. 1, 9.