Albert Beveridge was a strong supporter and even the leading proponent of the United States policy of expansionism. However, this is contrary to the Anti-Imperialist League, which was formed in the year 1898 specifically to oppose the United States plans of expanding its territories, specifically the acquiring of the Philippine Islands (Beveridge, para 8). In fact Albert Beveridge achieved or gained national popularity as an influential and credible United States colonial expansion advocate as a result of the Spanis-American War. However, his appeals to his nation's sense of foreign destiny had an imaginative or visionary quality to them (Alexander 3). He considered the control of Philipines and Cuba as critical to the United States commercial expansion during the twentieth century.
In his speech, he scoffed at the idea of that the former possessions of Spain could manage or govern themselves. He asked whether these people should be turned back to the malodorous hands from which they had taken them. He also asked whether they should be saved from those countries to give them the independence of tragedy; stating that it would like giving a razor blade to a child and asking it to use it in shaving itself. He maintained that America should continue its march towards supremacy (Beveridge, para 4). According to Beveridge (para 10), it is the responsibility of America to save the world.Want an expert to write a paper for you Talk to an operator now
On the other hand, the Anti-Imperialist League was purposely established to oppose the territorial expansion of the United States, specifically the acquisition of the Philippines Islands, which was strongly advocated for by Albert Beveridge. The league was opposed to the idea of the annexation of Hawaii, the passing of the peace treaty to end the Spanish-American War; which involved the Philippines' acquisition by America, and the military operation against the Filipino rebels (Anti-Imperialist League, para 1).
According to the league, the idea of Imperialism was unreasonable, preventable and ineffective. They held that the policy of imperialism was unfriendly to liberty, implying that it was kind of tyrannical (Anti-Imperialist League, para 1). To further demonstrate the intensity and opposition to the matter, we find that the Anti-Imperialist League even threatened to re-elect anybody who tried to practice suppression or subjugation against innocent individuals just for the purpose of gaining un-American interests (Anti-Imperialist League, para 8).
Nevertheless, as much as the differences existing between the ideas or arguments presented by these two parties outweigh the similarities, we find that there are some substantial similarities to be considered. The main subject of dispute here is the republic of Philippines, whereby both agree that the state can and should only be saved from the bloody wars by the United States, but in different ways. Albert argues for the acquisition of the state to bring it under the control of America, while the league advocate for a more diplomatic way of solving the problems, since governing Filipinos without their consent will be denying them self-independence (Remy 62). The Anti-Imperialist League also admits that the United States is the world's superpower and that is a fact that should be accepted and maintained but it is not right to use it repressively.