Table of ContentsThe Annexation DebateFreedom and ConsentHypocrisy and Self-GovernmentEthical ConsiderationsConclusionWorks Cited: Political power is the ability to influence or control actions of individuals, and the extent of this influence. determines the extent of political power one exercises. In the late 19th century, the United States found itself in possession of new political power after winning the Spanish-American War of 1898. This victory resulted in the acquisition of new territories, including Cuba and the Philippines . As Cuba gained a form of semi-independence, the fate of the Philippines hung in the balance. The United States faced a crucial decision: return the islands to Spain, grant independence to the Philippines, or annex the Philippines and establish American governance. But should the United States have annexed the Philippines? This essay examines the controversial issue of Philippine annexation, highlighting the contradictions, controversies, and ethical concerns surrounding this pivotal moment in American history. Say no to plagiarism. Get a custom essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get the original essayThe Annexation DebateThe annexation of the Philippines sparked a fervent debate in the United States. While the majority of Americans supported annexation, a virulent anti-imperialist movement emerged, vehemently opposing the expansionist policies. At the heart of the debate were questions of liberty, consent, and the moral implications of extending American power to foreign countries. Liberty and Consent Fundamentally, the annexation of the Philippines raised crucial questions about the principles of liberty and consent. Proponents of annexation claimed that the United States was saving the Filipinos from Spanish rule and believed that it was doing them a favor. However, this caring facade masked the harsh reality that Filipinos face. Despite promises of protection, the Filipino population was denied access to education and lost their independence. This contradiction between American rhetoric and actions casts a shadow over the moral justifications for annexation. Hypocrisy and Self-Government The annexation debate also revealed a significant contradiction within American ideals. Albert Beveridge, a proponent of annexation, questioned whether the United States should return the Philippines to Spain or leave it susceptible to the interests of other world powers like Germany, England, and Japan. This argument, although seemingly rooted in concern for the welfare of the Filipinos, suggested that they were incapable of governing themselves. Such a position contradicted the principle that all just government derives its authority from the consent of the governed. Abraham Lincoln's belief that no one should rule another without their consent clashed with the United States' attempt to impose its governance on the Filipinos, making America appear hypocritical. Ethical Considerations Annexation could have been justified if the United States had pursued it solely for the benefit of the Filipinos. . President William McKinley, in his attempt to rationalize annexation, spoke of educating, uplifting, civilizing, and Christianizing the Filipinos. However, this perspective overlooked the moral implications of imposing religious beliefs on others and obscured the true extent of American intentions. McKinley failed to recognize that annexation would deprive Filipinos of their freedom and basic rights., 11(3), 293-308.