IndexThe Annexation DebateFreedom and ConsentHypocrisy and Self-GovernanceEthical ConsiderationsConclusionWorks Cited:Political power is the ability to influence or control the actions of individuals and the extent of this influence determines the extent of political power that is exercised. In the late 19th century, the United States found itself in possession of newfound political power after emerging victorious in the Spanish-American War of 1898. This victory led to the acquisition of new territories, including Cuba and the Philippines. While Cuba was granted 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 an American government. But should the United States have annexed the Philippines? This essay delves into the controversial issue of the annexation of the Philippines, highlighting the contradictions, controversies, and ethical concerns surrounding this crucial moment in American history. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original EssayThe Annexation DebateThe annexation of the Philippines sparked a fervent debate within the United States. While the majority of Americans supported annexation, a strong anti-imperialist movement emerged, vehemently opposing the expansionist policy. At the heart of the debate were questions of freedom, consent, and the moral implications of extending American power into foreign lands. Freedom and Consent Fundamentally, the annexation of the Philippines raised crucial questions about the principles of freedom and consent. Annexation supporters argued that the United States was saving the Filipinos from Spanish rule and believed it was granting them a favor. However, this benevolent facade masked the harsh reality faced by Filipinos. Despite promises of protection, the Filipino population has been denied educational opportunities and stripped of its 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 exposed 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 global powers such as Germany, England, and Japan. This argument, while seemingly rooted in concern for the welfare of the Filipinos, suggested that they were incapable of self-government. This position contradicted the principle that every just government derives its authority from the consent of the governed. Abraham Lincoln's belief that no one should rule another without consent clashed with the United States' attempt to impose its rule 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 the annexation, spoke of educating, edifying, civilizing, and Christianizing the Filipinos. However, this perspective overlooked the moral implications of imposing religious beliefs on others and obscured the true extent of America's intentions. McKinley failed to recognize that annexation would deprive Filipinos of their freedom, liberty, and basic rights. Please note: this is just an example., 11(3), 293-308.