which statement from march of the flag addresses a counterargument

thorney

2 min read

·

06-03-2025

12

0

Share

Which Statement from "March of the Flag" Addresses a Counterargument?

Introduction: "March of the Flag," an 1898 speech by Albert Beveridge, passionately advocated for U.S. annexation of the Philippines. While powerfully persuasive to its original audience, the speech also faced, and anticipated, counterarguments. Understanding which statements directly address these opposing viewpoints is key to grasping Beveridge's rhetorical strategy. This analysis will explore specific passages that preemptively counter potential criticisms of American imperialism.

Understanding the Context of Counterarguments

Beveridge's speech, delivered during a period of intense debate surrounding American expansionism, didn't exist in a vacuum. Critics raised concerns about the morality, practicality, and financial implications of acquiring the Philippines. These objections formed the counterarguments that Beveridge needed to address to convince his listeners.

H2: Key Counterarguments and Beveridge's Responses

Beveridge anticipated several key counterarguments, including:

• Moral Objection to Imperialism: Many questioned the ethics of taking over a nation and imposing American rule. Beveridge directly addresses this by asserting a "benevolent assimilation" – a paternalistic view that the U.S. had a duty to uplift and civilize Filipinos. A passage that exemplifies this is his assertion that Americans were bringing "liberty" and "justice" to a people supposedly incapable of self-governance. This claim preemptively counters arguments against the inherent injustice of imperial expansion.

• Economic Concerns and Financial Burden: The cost of administering the Philippines was a significant worry. Beveridge attempts to neutralize this by emphasizing the potential economic benefits of controlling the islands, highlighting their strategic location and rich resources. He frames the financial investment as an opportunity for American economic growth, thus mitigating concerns about expense.

• Violation of Self-Determination: The principle of self-determination – the right of a people to govern themselves – was gaining traction. Beveridge subtly deflects this by suggesting that Filipinos were not capable of governing themselves. This portrayal framed American rule not as oppression but as necessary guidance, thereby sidestepping accusations of denying Filipino autonomy.

H2: Analyzing Specific Passages Addressing Counterarguments

Let's examine a specific section of the speech that directly tackles a counterargument:

"We are in the presence of a great destiny. We are committed by the logic of events to the fulfillment of a high purpose. . . . Our institutions, our laws, our literature, our civilization, are for all mankind. It is the mission of the United States to carry this light into the darkest corners of the world."

This passage, among others, functions as a rebuttal to critics who viewed American imperialism as selfish or unprincipled. Beveridge casts American expansion not as mere conquest but as a divinely ordained mission to spread American ideals. This elevated moral justification directly countered arguments based on ethical objections.

H2: The Limitations of Beveridge's Counterarguments

While Beveridge skillfully addressed several counterarguments, it's important to acknowledge the limitations of his approach. His arguments often relied on paternalistic and racist assumptions about the Filipinos, ultimately ignoring their own desires and agency. His economic justifications, while persuasive at the time, ultimately failed to consider the long-term costs and consequences of colonial rule.

H2: Conclusion: Rhetorical Strategy and Historical Context

Beveridge's "March of the Flag" exemplifies a powerful, albeit problematic, use of rhetoric to sway public opinion. By anticipating and directly addressing counterarguments, he attempted to neutralize opposition to American imperialism. Understanding which statements address these counterarguments reveals a key element of his persuasive strategy. However, analyzing his responses in the context of historical critiques illuminates the inherent biases and limitations of his arguments. The speech remains a valuable historical artifact, illustrating the complex debates surrounding American imperialism at the turn of the 20th century.