1st Philippine Republic survives. What are the implications?

I'm not sure which of these points is true of the Philippines specifically, given that the U.S. gained other areas it would anyway in this timeline. Have you considered that the vore for ratification of the treaty was as narrow as it was because the Philippines were included?

It depends on how much traction the Anti-Imperialist league has on the Senate. The incumbent who is pro imperialist is a Republican. Both the house and senate are Majority Republicans.

The only way i can see if Philippines is not part of the Treaty of Paris is if McKinley himself didnt want it, which was hard to do since he was pro business and wanted a station to access the China market.

McCormick, Thomas (May 1963). "Insular Imperialism and the Open Door: The China Market and the Spanish–American War". Pacific Historical Review (Berkeley, California: University of California Press)
 
It depends on how much traction the Anti-Imperialist league has on the Senate. The incumbent who is pro imperialist is a Republican. Both the house and senate are Majority Republicans.

The only way i can see if Philippines is not part of the Treaty of Paris is if McKinley himself didnt want it, which was hard to do since he was pro business and wanted a station to access the China market.

McCormick, Thomas (May 1963). "Insular Imperialism and the Open Door: The China Market and the Spanish–American War". Pacific Historical Review (Berkeley, California: University of California Press)

I don't understand what McKinley's administration leaning imperialist has to do specifically with the Philippine question specifically given the other gains the U.S. is making as a result of the war.
 
I don't understand what McKinley's administration leaning imperialist has to do specifically with the Philippine question specifically given the other gains the U.S. is making as a result of the war.

If you cannot read whatever sources I keep giving you, The invasion of the Philippines is the decision of McKinley.

Spanish east indies at that time was more important than any other gains due to the focus on business opportunities in the China market which happens to be financial backers of McKinley and the campaign promise of McKinley as pro-Business. Unless you change leadership in the Philippines' side, Philippines will not part to any of the Spanish East Indies Islands just like Indonesia will not part any of Dutch east indies in 1945 OTL.

McKinley was labeled imperialist because his actions are like an imperialist. You have to act imperialist first before being labeled as such rather than being labeled then and only then will you act as an imperialist. McKinley will not act the opposite way due to his support for US business and the pressure American bussinesses made to him to annex Philippines.
 
If you cannot read whatever sources I keep giving you, The invasion of the Philippines is the decision of McKinley.

Spanish east indies at that time was more important than any other gains due to the focus on business opportunities in the China market which happens to be financial backers of McKinley and the campaign promise of McKinley as pro-Business. Unless you change leadership in the Philippines' side, Philippines will not part to any of the Spanish East Indies Islands just like Indonesia will not part any of Dutch east indies in 1945 OTL.

McKinley was labeled imperialist because his actions are like an imperialist. You have to act imperialist first before being labeled as such rather than being labeled then and only then will you act as an imperialist. McKinley will not act the opposite way due to his support for US business and the pressure American bussinesses made to him to annex Philippines.

I've read what you've said, and if the U.S. hisorically kept everything it ever held, then Cuba would not have been granted (conditional) independence, and Veracruz would be part of the United States.
 
I've read what you've said, and if the U.S. hisorically kept everything it ever held, then Cuba would not have been granted (conditional) independence, and Veracruz would be part of the United States.

Like I said, it was McKinley is the one who decided. While Cuba in 1898, the US public was aware and US interests are not in line with annexation of Cuba.

Veracruz was 1914, different time different leader. Cannot compare apples vs oranges.

America was an imperialist in 1898 due to its action since it was being led by McKinley. It was a different time, different circumstance. You also cannot compare US in 1898 and US in the 1940s nor another time. Very different leaders and very different interests.

US changing the treaty of Paris is if McKinley changed his mind about it or if you have a different President altogether. Otherwise if you have the same players, with the same financial backers, as well as same conditions and results in the Philippines 1896-1897, McKinley will still support the annexation of Philippines in 1898.

US Congress back then were not idealistic as you expect not unless you change those who won in 1896 which be hard to do since the financial backers are with those who won in OTL 1896.
 

Mercenarius

Banned
I think the aims of the US business sectors can be achieved w/o annexing the Philippines. They just needed to retain one or two bases there like they did with Cuba and arrange some trade agreements (read as unequal treaties) with the Filipino government.

From what I know, the reasons why McKinley and the Congress insist on full annexation were:

- If they annex only Luzon (like what McKinley originally planned), the other powers would definitely scramble over the other islands (yup, Qing China 2.0). That would complicate matters.

- The Congress at that time, had little knowledge about the Philippines. And most of it came from yellow journalist, who frequently describes Filipinos as uncivilized barbarians. The congressmen felt that it was the responsibility of the US to civilize them.
 
Those island chains may have been a part of the Spanish East Indies but I highly doubt with the Yanquis on the scene any Filipino would even begin to entertain trying to claim them...
 
Like I said, it was McKinley is the one who decided. While Cuba in 1898, the US public was aware and US interests are not in line with annexation of Cuba.

Veracruz was 1914, different time different leader. Cannot compare apples vs oranges.

America was an imperialist in 1898 due to its action since it was being led by McKinley. It was a different time, different circumstance. You also cannot compare US in 1898 and US in the 1940s nor another time. Very different leaders and very different interests.

US changing the treaty of Paris is if McKinley changed his mind about it or if you have a different President altogether. Otherwise if you have the same players, with the same financial backers, as well as same conditions and results in the Philippines 1896-1897, McKinley will still support the annexation of Philippines in 1898.

US Congress back then were not idealistic as you expect not unless you change those who won in 1896 which be hard to do since the financial backers are with those who won in OTL 1896.

It was a last minute decision, and given his initial reluctance to go to war, as well as communications at the time, it's easy to conceive a scenario in which the Philippines are not ceded to the U.S. in the Treaty of Paris.
 
How about Thomas Reed? Did he support annexation?

A little OT: how to make Reed run and win the presidency in 1896?
 
Is it possible for an independent Philippines to retain Marianas and Palau?

Those island chains may have been a part of the Spanish East Indies but I highly doubt with the Yanquis on the scene any Filipino would even begin to entertain trying to claim them...

Who says it needs claiming if you are represented in the First Republic? The issue would be how to retain since the USA has got a better navy if ever US is involved.

If the Spanish Asian Armada rebelled at the same time or if the ships were taken by the rebels before OTL battle Manila bay, you can protect those islands.

It was a last minute decision, and given his initial reluctance to go to war, as well as communications at the time, it's easy to conceive a scenario in which the Philippines are not ceded to the U.S. in the Treaty of Paris.

It aint last minute. It wasnt planned before the Spanish-American war but it was planned before the Treaty of Paris. The decision was pressured by his supporters which it turns out to be the business community.

As a president of a country, McKinley's first job is to support his constituents rather to save an unknown country who werent his voters. Otherwise, the president aint acting a president.

I think the aims of the US business sectors can be achieved w/o annexing the Philippines. They just needed to retain one or two bases there like they did with Cuba and arrange some trade agreements (read as unequal treaties) with the Filipino government.

From what I know, the reasons why McKinley and the Congress insist on full annexation were:

- If they annex only Luzon (like what McKinley originally planned), the other powers would definitely scramble over the other islands (yup, Qing China 2.0). That would complicate matters.

- The Congress at that time, had little knowledge about the Philippines. And most of it came from yellow journalist, who frequently describes Filipinos as uncivilized barbarians. The congressmen felt that it was the responsibility of the US to civilize them.

This is true. The one who is in control of the media is the US businessmen who happens to be the one's pressuring McKinley.

The same thing you can say about the US Congress.

Democracy is like that. Politicians act upon the pressure of their constituents or in this case, those who support them.

The best way to butterfly when you are forcing the same people in the US government is take away the need for US businesses to expand in the China market.

But then again, why force the hand of US government and business when you can actually avoid this by having an earlier revolt that wins which is much easier than actually changing the nature of US businessmen and US politicians. I dont know why you guys keeps wanting McKinley, the same US government and Treaty of Paris to involve the Philippines when it can have a separate peace treaty with Spain.
 

Mercenarius

Banned
The best way to butterfly when you are forcing the same people in the US government is take away the need for US businesses to expand in the China market.

That's ASB at this point, when European nations had been scrambling for China. Many American businessmen had been dying for their nation to finally stake a claim on that place for some time, not just in the name of profit, but also for the US to now proudly say, "Hello world, we are the new force to be reckoned with."


I dont know why you guys keeps wanting McKinley, the same US government and Treaty of Paris to involve the Philippines when it can have a separate peace treaty with Spain.

Because there's a very big possibility for McKinley to do something differently from OTL. You said earlier that he was branded as an imperialist when he finally acted as such of December 10, 1898. But what if he chose a different path? Personally, I find it a very interesting scenario.

McKinley gives in to the pressure of the business sector because it was them who propelled him to the presidency. I think he can think of something to appease them while not "betraying" the Constitution (as the Anti-Imperialists accused him and the Congress of doing).
 
I'm working on a new timeline and find this thread very much relevant. I need a POD that makes Philippines become independent before 1905.

An independent Philippines in this period means America is in a weaker position during the negotiations of the Russo-Japanese War. OTL the Japanese were pressured into accepting a peace that was well below what they had earned on the field of battle.

If the US can't force them to not take reparations/territory, it could turn out that Japan not only gets sphere over Korea (and eventually annexes like OTL) but also get Sakhalin and some money reparations.

Result: Japan comes to see the Western powers as more fair. Distrust against the westerners and military revanchism do not become a thing, Japan avoids the pseudo-fascist militarism of the '30s... which could help avoiding a lot of the madness in WW2.

What do you think? I would appreciate suggestions to help me with my TL :D
 
McKinley gives in to the pressure of the business sector because it was them who propelled him to the presidency. I think he can think of something to appease them while not "betraying" the Constitution (as the Anti-Imperialists accused him and the Congress of doing).

Which would require an earlier pod. Philippines had no relations to USA like Cuba. This means US press and public opinion won't be in favor of philippine indpendence like otl cuba's relation to USA due to Jose marti's presence in the USA. Had Rizal been in USA more than in Europe, McKinley making a different position is possible. Rizal is the best candidate for the American press and public consumption. Thus requiring an earlier pod. 1898 is little tad too late for McKinley changing his decision unless the rebels took Manila before Spain surrenders to the USA.

McKinley won't go against his supporters just like any democratic elected leader would do.

I'm working on a new timeline and find this thread very much relevant. I need a POD that makes Philippines become independent before 1905.

The later you go to philippine independence during industrialization, the harder it becomes. Philippines was in somewhat technological parity with the west in the 1820s. The later you go in the 19th century, the greater the difference between philippines and great powers would be. The harder you can secure indepdence. If you would notice philippines was modern compared Japan and china by 1820s when they were still stuck in the medieval ways.
 
Top