Henry Cabot Lodge, attributed the annexation of the Philippines purely on the benefits that such
a measure would bring to the USA. Lodge saw the opportunity to exploit Philippines’ rich and
fertile land for their own economic interests. Lodge only wished for America to maximize its
shares in trade within Asia.
According to Albert, America would rather abandon its claim on the Philippines than enable the
Filipinos to govern themselves. Beveridge used the more crude argument that those of oriental
blood were not capable of forming their own functioning institutions which would be effective
for the Filipinos. He further argued that the previous Spanish rule also did not provide the best
example for leadership which the Filipinos could adapt. Hoganson
Finally, Theodore Roosevelt proposed that that the best alternative was that America could
benefit from annexing the Philippines while still helping the country develop. President
Roosevelt included that they could introduce American products and industries in the
Philippines, which would benefit both the Americans and the Philippines.
Hoganson mainly drew her argument from commentators like Beveridge and McKinley. These
contributors mainly believed that the Filipino people were an inferior race who were incapable of
ruling themselves, which was mainly attributed to their race, previous leadership under the
Spanish, and a general lack functional governing institutions within the country. On the other
hand, Irvin based his argument on the ideals of those such as Lodge and Roosevelt who believed
that the Philippines was a potential market source for raw materials and products, which the
Americans could exploit.
In a way, Beveridge’s argument challenges that of President Roosevelt. President Roosevelt
argued that a mutually beneficial relationship between the Filipino and America would be the
best approach. On the contrary, Beveridge saw any attempt to help the Filipino people gain their