Debate: Should the U.S. Annex the Philippines?

Transcription

1 Debate: Should the U.S. Annex the Philippines? In this activity students investigate various perspectives on the debate over the annexation of the Philippines by the United States after the Spanish-American War. Students read a variety of primary sources on the annexation question and the struggle for Philippine independence, debate the relevant issues while in character of proponents of either side, attempt to reach consensus on the issue, and report the outcome to the class. Essential Questions/Objectives What were the issues surrounding the U.S. annexation of the Philippines? What were the various arguments for and against annexation? Instructions 1. Step 1: Analyzing the Documents -- We will divide into groups of eight. Each group member should choose ONE of the documents to closely examine. The group member will debate the annexation of the Philippines from the perspective of the writer of his or her document (but not yet). Make sure that each group includes at least one pro-annexation view, one antiannexation, and one Filipino perspective. After reading the document assigned to them, you should skim the other documents in the packet. 2. Step 2: Preparing to Debate You will prepare to debate from the perspectives of your character, by answering the following questions: a) What is the name of your character (i.e., the author of the document)? b) What position is your character taking on the question of annexation (making the United States part of the Philippines)? What are his/her reasons? c) What more would you like to know about your character? d) Why do you think your character thinks the way he or she does? What would it take to change his or her thinking somewhat? e) What are some of the reasons on the other side of the argument? f) If your character had to try to reach a consensus or compromise with others who disagree, what kind of compromise would your character be willing to accept? What would he or she not be willing to compromise on? 3. Step 3: Choosing a Recorder -- Each group should choose a person to record the debate. That person should make a chart with space for reasons for and against U.S. annexation of the Philippines. 4. Step 4: Presenting the Views from the Documents -- Each group member, pretending to be the person who wrote the assigned document, should present that person's view on annexation to the rest of the group. The recorder should make note of pro and con arguments on the chart. 5. Step 5: Debate -- When everyone has presented his or her view, you should continue discussing and debating the question of U.S. annexation. You should use the documents and their authors as the basis for the debate; and you should strive to STAY IN CHARACTER. 6. Step 6: Reaching a Consensus -- By the end of the debate, group members should try to reach a consensus--a compromise on which everyone can agree--about what position the U.S. should take on the question of annexing the Philippines. Participants should refer to their answers from Step Step 7: Report to the Class -- Members of each group should share with their classmates what kind of consensus they reached. If the group was unable to reach a consensus, they should explain why not. Homework Based on the consensus reached in the debate/discussion and your own thoughts, write a newspaper editorial on whether or not the United States should annex the Philippines. Historical Context Americans divided sharply in 1899 over whether to annex the Philippines as part of the United States. In 1900 Democratic presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan, running for a second time against William McKinley, made anti-imperialism the central issue of his campaign. McKinley won easily and historian Walter LaFeber has argued that Bryan's defeat showed that the American public had reached a fundamental consensus in favor of American expansionism abroad. "By 1899," LaFeber concludes, "the United States had forged a new empire." Still, the conflict between imperialists, isolationists, and Filipinos who fought for their nation's independence would echo in debates over U.S. foreign policy for the rest of the twentieth century.

2 President McKinley Puts the Philippines on the U.S. Map In this account of an 1899 meeting with a delegation of Methodist church leaders, President William McKinley defends his decision to support the annexation of the Philippines in the wake of the U.S. war in that country. Hold a moment longer! Not quite yet, gentlemen! Before you go I would like to say just a word about the Philippine business. I have been criticized a good deal about the Philippines, but don't deserve it. The truth is I didn't want the Philippines, and when they came to us, as a gift from the gods, I did not know what to do with them. When the Spanish War broke out Dewey was at Hong Kong, and I ordered him to go to Manila and to capture or destroy the Spanish fleet, and he had to; because, if defeated, he had no place to refit on that side of the globe, and if the Dons were victorious they would likely cross the Pacific and ravage our Oregon and California coasts. And so he had to destroy the Spanish fleet, and did it! But that was as far as I thought then. When I next realized that the Philippines had dropped into our laps I confess I did not know what to do with them. I sought counsel from all sides Democrats as well as Republicans but got little help. I thought first we would take only Manila; then Luzon; then other islands perhaps also. I walked the floor of the White House night after night until midnight; and I am not ashamed to tell you, gentlemen, that I went down on my knees and prayed Almighty God for light and guidance more than one night. And one night late it came to me this way I don t know how it was, but it came: (1) That we could not give them back to Spain that would be cowardly and dishonorable; (2) that we could not turn them over to France and Germany our commercial rivals in the Orient that would be bad business and discreditable; (3) that we could not leave them to themselves they were unfit for self-government and they would soon have anarchy and misrule over there worse than Spain s was; and (4) that there was nothing left for us to do but to take them all, and to educate the Filipinos, and uplift and civilize and Christianize them, and by God s grace do the very best we could by them, as our fellow-men for whom Christ also died. And then I went to bed, and went to sleep, and slept soundly, and the next morning I sent for the chief engineer of the War Department (our map-maker), and I told him to put the Philippines on the map of the United States (pointing to a large map on the wall of his office), and there they are, and there they will stay while I am President! SOURCE General James Rusling, "Interview with President William McKinley," The Christian Advocate, 22 January 1903, 17; from Daniel Schirmer and Stephen Shalom, eds., The Philippines Reader (Boston: South End Press, 1987), CREATOR William McKinley ITEM TYPE Newspaper/Magazine Article

3 African-American Democrats Speak Out Against U.S. Imperialism In this statement during the 1900 presidential election, the Negro National Democratic League criticizes the Republican administration's expansionist foreign policy, and gives its endorsement to the Democratic candidate, William Jennings Bryan. Negroes for Bryan and Stevenson. The Negro National Democratic League, at its Recent Sixth Biennial Session in Kansas City, Mo., Issued the Following Address to the Public: (Official Publication.) We, the chosen representatives of the Negroes of the United States, who are opposed to the re-election of President William McKinley and the republican nominee for vice president, Theodore Roosevelt, in national convention assembled, appealing to the intelligence, good reason and sober judgment of the Negroes of the country, do declare and set forth the following: ( ) President McKinley Denounced The record of President McKinley's administration has but little, if anything, to commend it to the Negro, or upon which it can make any claim for his support. The administration at Washington is expressly opposed to the appointment of Negroes as commissioned officers in the army, though President McKinley on account of dauntless courage and heroic bravery reluctantly commissioned nine Negroes second lieutenants. He nevertheless at his earliest convenient time gave them the option of being mustered out or returning to their companies as privates, and as to emphasize his determination not to have the Negro placed on equal footing with the white soldier, refused to commission Negroes to office in the black regiments, enlisted for service in the Philippines, higher than that of captain, and this is but in keeping with President McKinley's advice to our race at Tuskegee, that "the Negro youth should not aspire to the unattainable." Patriotism and Loyalty of the Negro The glorious and untarnished record of the Negro soldiers, in all the wars of the country, has been a source of pride to the race, and it remains for Colonel Theodore Roosevelt, now candidate for vice president on the republican ticket, to first reflect upon the bravery and heroism, first to slander the men and the race to which they belong, who saved the day at El Caney, San Juan Hill, and gave to him the opportunity to pose as he does, as the hero of the land forces in the Spanish-American war. Must Study the Issues We respectfully invite the men of our race to an earnest consideration of the issues to be determined in this campaign. We hold that the policy known as imperialism is hostile to liberty and leans toward the destruction of government by the people themselves. We insist that the subjugation of any people is "criminal aggression" and is a pronounced departure from the first principles taught and declared by Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson, and all the great statesmen who have guided the country through as many dangers of the past. Whether the people who will be affected by such policy be or consider themselves Negroes, nor yet because the majority of them are black, is of but little moment. They are by nature entitled to liberty and freedom. We being an oppressed people, to use the words of Daniel O'Connell, should be "the loudest in our protestations against the oppression of others." It may be that our government can and will govern the people of the Philippines and Puerto Rico better than they can govern themselves; but with equal force can it be said that the white men of the south can govern the localities in which the Negro is a majority better than they can govern themselves, and if we are prepared to support an

4 administration that is engaged in suppressing liberty and freedom in our so-called possessions, why not be consistent and cease to complain of the same thing being done in any part of our own land? A nation cannot oppress a people without the borders of the country without sooner or later introducing some such oppression within its borders... To the end that our country, its constitution and its government as established by the fathers be maintained, that the Declaration of Independence remain intact, that the constitution and its amendments be not construed away, that the Negro take his place among the people that compose our citizenship, thinking out the issues and acting upon them that high intelligence that characterizes the highest type of American citizenship, that the rights of the common people be given as much sober thought as the rights of capital, that a bond of friendship be welded between the Negro and the white men among whom he lives, thus insuring protection to life and property and the enjoyment of all the rights guaranteed in the constitution, that hypocrisy be defeated, we urge that our race support the democratic party in the coming election of that great commoner of the plain people, the tribune of the rights of man as against money William Jennings Bryan and Adlai E. Stevenson. F. L. McGhee, Chairman, Committee on Address. Geo. F. Taylor, President of the League. W. T. Scott, Vice President. Jas. A. Ross, Secretary. A. E. Manning, Chairman, Executive Committee. Julius F. Taylor. Lawrence A. Newby. Prof. H. R. Graham. J. L. Edmonds. C. J. Walker. W. J. Johnson. Dr. J. C. Williams. Theodore Frye and J. H. W. Howard. SOURCE Negro National Democratic League, "Address to the Public," Chicago Broad-Ax, 21 July CREATOR Negro National Democratic League ITEM TYPE Speech

5 A Senator Speaks in Support of Empire In this speech, Republican Senator from Indiana Albert J. Beveridge strongly advocates the annexation of the Philippines. MR. PRESIDENT, the times call for candor. The Philippines are ours forever, "territory belonging to the United States," as the Constitution calls them. And just beyond the Philippines are China's illimitable markets. We will not retreat from either. We will not repudiate our duty in the archipelago. We will not abandon our opportunity in the Orient. We will not renounce our part in the mission of our race, trustee, under God, of the civilization of the world. And we will move forward to our work, not howling out regrets like slaves whipped to their burdens but with gratitude for a task worthy of our strength and thanksgiving to Almighty God that He has marked us as His chosen people, henceforth to lead in the regeneration of the world. This island empire is the last land left in all the oceans. If it should prove a mistake to abandon it, the blunder once made would be irretrievable. If it proves a mistake to hold it, the error can be corrected when we will. Every other progressive nation stands ready to relieve us. But to hold it will be no mistake. Our largest trade henceforth must be with Asia. The Pacific is our ocean. More and more Europe will manufacture the most it needs, secure from its colonies the most it consumes. Where shall we turn for consumers of our surplus? Geography answers the question. China is our natural customer. She is nearer to us than to England, Germany, or Russia, the commercial powers of the present and the future. They have moved nearer to China by securing permanent bases on her borders. The Philippines give us a base at the door of all the East.... It has been charged that our conduct of the war has been cruel. Senators, it has been the reverse. I have been in our hospitals and seen the Filipino wounded as carefully, tenderly cared for as our own. Within our lines they may plow and sow and reap and go about the affairs of peace with absolute liberty. And yet all this kindness was misunderstood, or rather not understood. Senators must remember that we are not dealing with Americans or Europeans. We are dealing with Orientals. We are dealing with Orientals who are Malays. We are dealing with Malays instructed in Spanish methods. They mistake kindness for weakness, forbearance for fear. It could not be otherwise unless you could erase hundreds of years of savagery, other hundreds of years of Orientalism, and still other hundreds of years of Spanish character and custom... Let men beware how they employ the term "self-government." It is a sacred term. It is the watchword at the door of the inner temple of liberty, for liberty does not always mean self-government. Self-government is a method of liberty - the highest, simplest, best - and it is acquired only after centuries of study and struggle and experiment and instruction and all the elements of the progress of man. Self-government is no base and common thing to be bestowed on the merely audacious. It is the degree which crowns the graduate of liberty, not the name of liberty's infant class, who have not yet mastered the alphabet of freedom. Savage blood, Oriental blood, Malay blood, Spanish example - are these the elements of self-government?... The Declaration of Independence does not forbid us to do our part in the regeneration of the world. If it did, the Declaration would be wrong, just as the Articles of Confederation, drafted by the very same men who signed the Declaration, was found to be wrong. The Declaration has no application to the present situation. It was written by self-governing men for self-governing men. It was written by men who, for a century and a half, had been experimenting in self-government on this continent, and whose ancestors for hundreds of years before had been gradually developing toward that high and holy estate. The Declaration applies only to people capable of self-government. How dare any man prostitute this expression of the very elect of self-governing peoples to a race of Malay children of barbarism, schooled in Spanish methods and ideas? And you who say the Declaration applies to all men, how dare you deny its application to the American Indian? And if you deny it to the Indian at home, how dare you grant it to the Malay abroad?... The founders of the nation were not provincial. Theirs was the geography of the world. They were soldiers as well as landsmen, and they knew that where our ships should go our flag might follow. They had the logic of progress, and they knew that the republic they were planting must, in obedience to the laws of our expanding race, necessarily develop into the greater republic which the world beholds today, and into the still mightier republic which the world will finally acknowledge as the arbiter, under God, of the destinies of mankind. And so our fathers wrote into the Constitution these words of growth, of expansion, of empire, if you will, unlimited by geography or climate or by anything but the vitality and possibilities of the American people:

6 "Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory belonging to the United States.... " Mr. President, this question is deeper than any question of party politics; deeper than any question of the isolated policy of our country even; deeper even than any question of constitutional power. It is elemental. It is racial. God has not been preparing the English-speaking and Teutonic peoples for a thousand years for nothing but vain and idle self-contemplation and selfadmiration. No! He has made us the master organizers of the world to establish system where chaos reigns. He has given us the spirit of progress to overwhelm the forces of reaction throughout the earth. He has made us adepts in government that we may administer government among savage and senile peoples. Were it not for such a force as this the world would relapse into barbarism and night. And of all our race He has marked the American people as His chosen nation to finally lead in the regeneration of the world. This is the divine mission of America, and it holds for us all the profit, all the glory, all the happiness possible to man. We are trustees of the world's progress, guardians of its righteous peace. The judgment of the Master is upon us: "Ye have been faithful over a few things; I will make you ruler over many things...." That flag has never paused in its onward march. Who dares halt it now - now, when history's largest events are carrying it forward; now, when we are at last one people, strong enough for any task, great enough for any glory destiny can bestow? How comes it that our first century closes with the process of consolidating the American people into a unit just accomplished, and quick upon the stroke of that great hour presses upon us our world opportunity, world duty, and world glory, which none but the people welded into an invisible nation can achieve or perform? SOURCE Congressional Record, 56th Cong., 1st Sess., 9 January 1900, ; from Vincent Ferraro, ed., "Albert J. Beveridge: In Support of an American Empire," Documents Related to American Foreign Relations , CREATOR Albert J. Beveridge ITEM TYPE Speech

7 Platform of the American Anti-Imperialist League The Anti-Imperialist League was formed on June 15, 1898 to oppose U.S. annexation of the Philippines. Prominent members of the league included author Mark Twain, industrialist and philanthropist Andrew Carnegie, and American Federation of Labor leader Samuel Gompers. We hold that the policy known as imperialism is hostile to liberty and tends toward militarism, an evil from which it has been our glory to be free. We regret that it has become necessary in the land of Washington and Lincoln to reaffirm that all men, of whatever race or color, are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We maintain that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. We insist that the subjugation of any people is "criminal aggression" and open disloyalty to the distinctive principles of our government. We earnestly condemn the policy of the present national administration in the Philippines. It seeks to extinguish the spirit of 1776 in those islands. We deplore the sacrifice of our soldiers and sailors, whose bravery deserves admiration even in an unjust war. We denounce the slaughter of the Filipinos as a needless horror. We protest against the extension of American sovereignty by Spanish methods. We demand the immediate cessation of the war against liberty, begun by Spain and continued by us. We urge that Congress be promptly convened to announce to the Filipinos our purpose to concede to them the independence for which they have so long fought and which of right is theirs.... Imperialists assume that with the destruction of self-government in the Philippines by American hands, all opposition here will cease. This is a grievous error. Much as we abhor the war of "criminal aggression" in the Philippines, greatly as we regret that the blood of the Filipinos is on American hands, we more deeply resent the betrayal of American institutions at home. The real firing line is not in the suburbs of Manila. The foe is of our own household. The attempt of 1861 was to divide the country. That of 1899 is to destroy its fundamental principles and noblest ideals.... We deny that the obligation of all citizens to support their government in times of grave national peril applies to the present situation. If an administration may with impunity ignore the issues upon which it was chosen, deliberately create a condition of war anywhere on the face of the globe, debauch the civil service for spoils to promote the adventure, organize a truthsuppressing censorship, and demand of all citizens a suspension of judgement and their unanimous support while it chooses to continue the fighting, representative government itself is imperiled. We propose to contribute to the defeat of any person or party that stands for the forcible subjugation of any people. We shall oppose for re-election all who in the white house or in congress betray American liberty in pursuit of un-american ends. We still hope that both of our great political parties will support and defend the declaration of independence in the closing campaign of the century. We hold with Abraham Lincoln, that "no man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent. When the white man governs himself, that is self-government, but when he governs himself and also governs another man, that is more than self-government--that is despotism." "Our reliance is in the love of liberty which God has planted in us. Our defense is in the spirit which prizes liberty as the heritage of all men in all lands. Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves, and under a just God cannot long retain it." We cordially invite the co-operation of all men and women who remain loyal to the declaration of independence and the constitution of the United States. SOURCE American Anti-Imperialist League, "Platform of the American Anti-Imperialist League," in Frederick Bancroft, ed., Speeches, Correspondence, and Political Papers of Carl Schurz, vol. 6, (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1913), 77, note 1, available on Modern History Sourcebook: American Anti- Imperialist League, 1899, CREATOR American Anti-Imperialist League ITEM TYPE Pamphlet

8 A Filipino Representative Appeals to the American People Galicano Apacible, a Filipino nationalist, wrote the following letter opposing U.S. annexation of the Philippines. Apacible represented the Filipino Central Committee, a revolutionary group that supported independence from Spanish colonial rule. In 1899, Apacible and another committee member travelled to the United States seeking American assistance in making a peace treaty with Spain, but failed in their mission. Unable to convince the McKinley administration to recognize Filipino self-government, the Philippines declared war against the United States on June 2, Apacible's letter was published eight days later in The Public, a liberal weekly magazine. The following remarkable and affecting letter was written to the Cincinnati Single Tax club in answer to resolutions adopted by that organization protesting against the American war on the natives of the Philippines. It is dated Hong Kong, April 26, 1899, and is signed G. Apacible, Presidenti (sic) del Comite Central Filipino. In replying to your kindly letter I avail myself of the opportunity to correct a very false impression which seems unfortunately to have been generally accepted as an undeniable truth by millions -- for all I know, some tens of millions -- of your countrymen. I refer to the false and mischievous notion that the Filipinos are engaged in a war with and against the American people. Treated with contumely [scorn] by Gen. Merritt and Gen. Otis, harassed by vexatious delays in the settlement of the most simple questions, treated as friends and allies at one time and as dangerous enemies at another, our special envoy treated with supreme contempt, our people treated more like beasts of burden than human beings by the American troops and military police in Manila; frequent attempts made by Gen. Otis to lower our great leader, Gen. Emilio Aguinaldo, in the eyes of his own people, and finally fired upon during the night of the 4th of February by the American outposts, Aguinaldo had no alternative but to at last pick up the gauntlet which had so repeatedly been thrown at his feet. Gen. Aguinaldo and the members of our national government had for over six months repeatedly strained their authority with our people to give effect to the wishes of Gen. Otis respecting the withdrawal of our forces from the outskirts of Manila and to prevent retaliation for outrages upon and irritating affronts to our countrymen... We desire to be on the best of terms with your people of all peoples. It is indeed deeply regrettable that your government should wage war upon us; that millions of dollars and many valuable American lives should be sacrificed under what you so aptly describe as a pretense of suppressing an insurrection. We are fighting for our homes, for all that is dear to us. If we did not fight under the circumstances, which are now generally known, and which herein I have briefly outlined, we should be giving proof of our utter unfitness for self-government. During the trying period of six months prior to the outbreak of hostilities we carried on self-government, extended our rule throughout the provinces and kept perfect order. There has been no anarchy except that which has been created by the overt acts of the McKinley government. We have proved our ability to maintain order in the provinces, to carry on the post and telegraph services throughout the country, and we can conduct the business of all departments of government in a manner that would satisfy all the nations having business relations with us. But Mr. McKinley won't give us an opportunity to demonstrate our ability. We were kept down by the Spaniards, and it seems that it is the desire of your government to keep us down. I hope, dear sir, that you will put it very clearly before your countrymen that the Filipinos do not regard the American people as their enemies. We do not. We regard them as our friends, and we wish to be on friendly terms with them. It is against the actions, the tyranny, the ruthless invasion of our country sanctioned by Mr. McKinley and his colleagues, that we protest by fighting as best we can. It is a hard struggle for our little nation against the great forces which McKinley is able to bring against us, but we shall struggle on, for life without liberty is valueless. We hope for the best. We hope that the great American republic may yet give a helping hand to the youngest republic, the only republic in Asia.

9 SOURCE Galicano Apacible, "A Letter from the Filipino Junta," The Public, 10 June CREATOR Galicano Apacible ITEM TYPE Newspaper/Magazine Article

10 A Filipina Activist Appeals to the New England Woman's Suffrage Association In this excerpt from an address to the annual meeting of the New England Woman's Suffrage Association, Clemencia Lopez, an activist in the struggle for Philippine independence, makes common cause with women of the American suffrage movement. She refers to the equality between women and men, which she says existed in her homeland "long prior to the Spanish occupation." Lopez also implores the Association to "do what it can to remedy all this misery and misfortune" caused by American military efforts against Filipinos who resisted U.S. occupation. I believe that we are both striving for much the same object you for the right to take part in national life; we for the right to have a national life to take part in.... Mentally, socially, and in almost all the relations of life, our women are regarded as the equals of our men.... this equality of women in the Philippines is not a new thing. It was not introduced from Europe... Long prior to the Spanish occupation, the people were already civilized, and this respect for and equality of women existed... in the name of the Philippine women, I pray the Massachusetts Woman Suffrage Association do what it can to remedy all this misery and misfortune in my unhappy country. You can do much to bring about the cessation of these horrors and cruelties which are today taking place in the Philippines, and to insist upon a more human course... you ought to understand that we are only contending for the liberty of our country, just as you once fought for the same liberty for yours.. SOURCE Clemencia Lopez, "Women of the Philippines: Address to Annual Meeting of the New England Woman's Suffrage Association, May 29, 1902," The Woman's Journal, 7 June CREATOR Clemencia Lopez ITEM TYPE Speech

11 Filipinos Object to "Reconcentration" During its invasion of the Philippines, the United States ordered Filipinos to be concentrated or restricted in "protected" villages. Anyone not in a village would be considered an enemy insurgent. Although the war was officially declared over in 1902, resistance to the U.S. occupation continued for another decade. During periods of insurgent violence, the U.S. occupying forces reinstituted the policy of restricting Philippine residents to specified areas. We have insisted on calling the attention of the government to the alleged cruel proceedings as they took place. At the end of last May, in consequence of the reconcentration which the Philippine commission authorized the constabulary to establish, or which it took leave to enforce, not only in Cavite, but also in the other provinces, we gave the matter a thorough examination. The civil commission has just approved a law giving the governor-general power to order reconcentration in the barrios of Cavite and wherever else it should be necessary. Our arguments against this stringent measure have had no influence with the government, and did not produce any amelioration of the conditions. It seems that the magnanimous spirit which in the American Congress cried out so indignantly against the Weylerian proceedings in Cuba is unconcerned about conditions in the Philippines. The ordinance of the civil commission has fallen like a pestilence on the unfortunate people of Cavite. It is only natural that the present state of affairs should fill us with the gravest apprehension. We say frankly and with deep sorrow that this measure which causes so much suffering is not justified by the good at which it claims to aim. There are created by it feelings of animosity and rancor that will not be forgotten for many years,-- perhaps never. This same view of the situation was taken by a famous American, the son of Gen. Grant. Does America desire to establish herself in the hearts of the Filipinos? Does she not at least desire to refrain from creating resentment in their minds? Then let her rectify these deeds! "Whoever sows hatred will reap wrath and hatred twofold." We are not ignorant of the object of this rigorous campaign to suppress the outlaws, but the people, especially the lower classes, do not reason, they can only feel, and what affects them are ruin, hunger and nakedness. We can only trust that the authority put into the hands of the governor-general may lie dormant, and especially that he will never employ it to distress the unfortunate townspeople of Cavite.. Source "Filipino Opinion of Reconstruction," El Renacimiento, 30 June Creator El Renacimiento Item Type Newspaper/Magazine Article