Did you know? Congressmen considered angling the Philippines toward U.S. statehood

U.S. Sen. Albert J. Beveridge of Indiana. Photo: Public domain.

When the year 1900 came around, U.S. lawmakers seriously considered whether the Philippines, newly seized from Spain in 1898, should become a full-fledged state of the Union.

The Treaty of Paris had ended the Spanish–American War and handed the islands to the United States, but this transfer of power ignored the fact that Filipinos had already declared their own independence on June 12, 1898.

What followed was not liberation but a new chapter of colonial rule backed by military force and imperial ambition.

Some American leaders envisioned a Pacific empire, with the Philippines at its heart.

U.S. Sen. Albert J. Beveridge of Indiana stood before Congress in January 1900 and declared, “The Philippines are ours forever.”

He argued that the islands would secure America’s dominance in Asia, provide access to Chinese markets, and showcase the nation’s growing global power.

Philippine-American War

But while senators debated the future of the islands in the marble halls of Washington, Filipino revolutionaries were fighting for survival.

The Philippine–American War, which erupted in February 1899, was brutal. Villages were burned, civilians were massacred, and an estimated 200,000 to 300,000 Filipinos died, most from famine and disease caused by U.S. military campaigns.

Concentration camps, torture methods like the infamous “water cure,” and widespread executions revealed the true cost of American control.

Any conversation about Philippine statehood was inseparable from this reality. It was not a benevolent offer of inclusion, but a way to legitimize conquest.

Not all Americans supported annexation. U.S. Sen. George F. Hoar of Massachusetts, in an April 1900 speech, denounced imperialism, accusing Congress of betraying the nation’s founding ideals.

Yet even his opposition carried a paternalistic tone, reflecting the racism and assumptions of the time.

Neither side truly considered the right of Filipinos to govern themselves. The debate was never about equality or partnership. It was about how best to profit from and control a foreign land.

Policy shift abandoned the idea

By 1916, Filipino resistance and political organizing had shifted U.S. policy.

The Jones Act formally promised eventual independence, and the Tydings–McDuffie Act of 1934 set a clear timeline for sovereignty.

On July 4, 1946, the Philippines became an independent republic. The dream of making it a U.S. state had long been abandoned, and rightly so.

Imperialism is always wrong

Colonialism is always wrong, no matter what name it takes.

The Philippine–American War is often sanitized in U.S. history books, but it stands as a brutal reminder of the cost of empire.

The idea of Philippine statehood was never about equality or democracy. It was about consolidating American power and subjugating a people who had already declared their freedom.

Independence was not a gift from the United States; it was a victory forged in blood and sacrifice.

The correct turnout was for the Philippines to stand as its own nation, proof that empires can be resisted and defeated.

Remembering this history should not make us nostalgic for “what could have been” under American rule but should push us to confront the realities of imperialism.