Lewis H. Douglass on Black Opposition to Mckinley (1899).
How is it that such promises are made to Filipinos thousands of miles away while the action of the administration in protecting dark citizens at home does not even extend to a promise of any attempt to rebuke the outlawry which kills American citizens of African descent for the purpose of gratifying blood-thirstiness and race hatred? (qtd. in Zinn and Arnove 243)
The American-Spanish War and other conflicts, which became its consequences, received condemnation from the African-American population in the US. One of their arguments against war can be seen in a document written by Lewis H. Douglass on black opposition to Mckinley. The author mentions that president Mckinley promised Filipinos freedom, equality, and justice. However, Douglass draws attention to the fact that, at the same time, the president’s country does not protect the rights which he promises to other people. From a domestic point of view, Mckinley’s actions show indifference to the fate of their people. Given the state of affairs within the country, the president’s speech emphasizes that discrimination and injustice are the norms for him. From an international perspective, the president’s position demonstrates the promises’ unreliability. While he cannot ensure freedom and equality in his country, Mckinley cannot act as a guarantor of the same rights for other countries. Thus, the mismatch of the prospect proposed by the US with an actual state of affairs in the country is one of the African-Americans’ arguments against wars abroad.
Missionary Department of The Atlanta, Georgia, A.M.E. Church, “The Negro Should Not Enter the Army” (1899).
“If it is a white man’s government, and we grant it is, let him take care of it. The Negro has no flag to defend.” (qtd. in Zinn and Arnove 244)
Representatives of the church made another argument against the Spanish-American War. Their message, “The Negro Should Not Enter the Army,” emphasizes that African-Americans have no reason to participate in the war as soldiers. In a country where only the white population has rights, people of color have nothing to protect. America did nothing for African-Americans and brought only deprivation and therefore cannot demand that the people give their lives. Moreover, having gone through the horrors of war, the survivors will still return to their former lives without receiving recognition. In this way, the church indicates that there is nothing for which African-Americans can be grateful and begin to fight and nothing that they can get as soldiers. From a national perspective, the argument emphasizes that the United States is not fulfilling its obligations to protect its people. It also draws attention to the oppressed position of African-Americans. From an international point of view, the country’s position demonstrates what other non-white people can expect if they recognize American leadership. Thus, the lack of grounds for African-Americans to give their lives for a country that does not protect them is an essential argument against foreign wars.
I. D. Barnett et al., Open Letter to President Mckinley by Colored People of Massachusetts (1899).
Mr. President, had that “chronic condition of disturbance in Cuba so injurious and menacing to our interest and tranquility as well as shocking to our sentiments of humanity,” which you wished to terminate and did terminate, a federal aspect, while that not less “chronic condition of disturbance” in the South, which is a thousand times more “injurious and menacing to our interests and tranquility,” as well as far more “shocking to our sentiments of humanity,” or ought to be, none whatever? (qtd. in Zinn and Arnove 247)
Another argument presented by African-Americans against foreign wars can also be seen as a criticism of the Platt Amendment. Barnett et al. note that the United States intervened in the Cuban war, finding it inhumane and considering it a threat to the country’s interests. At the same time, the violence occurring in the American South does not receive the intervention. Therefore, the government sees it as humane and safe enough. In Platt Amendment III, the US reserves the right to intervene to protect lives and freedom (United States Government para 11). However, as Barnett et al.’s message demonstrates, such protection is not carried out domestically. From an internal position, the argument again draws attention to default and support for discrimination. From the global perspective, it demonstrates that the United States cannot fulfill the promises of protection but uses them as an excuse to interfere in the internal affairs of another country. Thus, the third argument against war is restoring order and establishing justice in one’s territory before helping other countries in this issue.
Work Cited
United States Government.Treaty Between the United States and the Republic of Cuba Embodying the Provisions Defining Their Future Relations as Contained in the Act of Congress Approved March 2, 1901. National Archives, 2022.
Zinn, Howard, and Anthony Arnove. Voices of a People’s History of the United States. 2nd ed., Seven Stories Press, 2009.