Military strategy in the Philippines followed President William McKinley’s interest in keeping his options open. With Manila in American control, he had flexibility in negotiating peace with Spain and could also deal with the Filipinos from a position of strength. If it worked out that the United States ended up annexing some part of the archipelago, then possession avoided the problem of “retaking” the city. While not using those words exactly, McKinley ordered the military to “use any means in your judgment necessary” to maintain American authority over Manila, its bay, and the surrounding area against the Filipinos.11
The fateful decision to take Manila, however, created a genuine dilemma as to what to do with it along with the entire archipelago. McKinley might have simply freed the Philippines. But he worried the islands might be gobbled up by a growing German or Japanese empire (both seemed interested). He also wanted to open Asian trade and markets, and the Philippines provided a strong foothold in the Western Pacific. Finally, in an age when to the victor went the spoils, he feared a political backlash if he simply walked away from a great military victory “empty-handed.” Certainly race played a part in his thinking. Whatever the motivation, in the end he decided to make the entire archipelago an American colony. The Spanish had stalled the peace negotiations in the hopes that the American people would repudiate the acquisition of the Philippines in the 1898 midterm election. They didn’t. Once the election returns became known, Spanish negotiators conceded. The final treaty, signed on December 10, 1898, ceded the Philippines to the United States for a payment of $20 million. It also made Cuba independent (although still under American supervision) and added Guam and Puerto Rico to the American empire.12
Despite the election returns, an imperial project remained controversial if for no other reason than it seemed contrary to an American identity born out of a revolution against an imperial power.13 Perhaps to finesse this uncomfortable historical fact, McKinley argued that Americans should take hold of the Philippines in the interest of the Filipinos. The Filipinos would become “Christian” and “civilized” under the supervision of their more experienced older brothers. “Bear in mind that the government which they are establishing is designed not for our satisfaction or for the expression of our theoretical views, but for the happiness, peace, and prosperity of the people of the Philippine Islands,” McKinley explained.14 American rule would be temporary and benevolent, which would distinguish it from the permanent subservience demanded by European empires.15 More to the point, “Every step taken was in obedience to the requirements of the Constitution,” McKinley liked to say of his foray into imperialism.16 But his concern with the American Constitution and interest in distinguishing American empire from its European alternative meant that he had made little preparation for governing the Philippines once they became an American possession. In short, what entity would do the actual job of governing the Filipinos and how would that entity fit within the broader institutional framework of American governance?
The army became the default answer—at least to the question of which entity would do the actual job of governing abroad. The logic of the situation dictated as much. The army was already there, in large numbers, with clear lines of communication and a functioning command structure. No other branch of the federal government possessed these capabilities in a form that allowed for extension outside of the continental United States. In a scenario that would repeat itself in future conflicts, the army was always “there” wherever “there” happened to be.
As it turned out, in the Philippines the job of military governor fell to Arthur MacArthur, Douglas MacArthur’s father. Arthur MacArthur was a career soldier and decorated veteran of the Civil War. After the treaty with Spain, he stood at the center of McKinley’s effort to remake the Filipinos in an American image. Arthur MacArthur initially took this to mean using the army to restore basic services: fixing sewers and roads, sponsoring schools and markets, and generally pursuing the basic aims of “normal” civic life.17 At the same time, he had the obligation to put down a growing insurrection as Filipinos realized the war had largely traded one colonial overlord for another. Already armed and practiced at fighting an empire, the Filipinos proved a formidable antagonist.18 Thus, Arthur MacArthur had to make effective on the ground the contradictory orders to subdue the Filipinos in their own interest. At the same time, he had the practical task of retooling what the army does best (organized violence) for the purpose of establishing a legitimate governing authority among a conquered people.
In general, Arthur MacArthur took the position that aggressive violence would, over the long run, undermine American legitimacy. As a result, he issued orders offering amnesty to any Filipino willing to lay down arms and swear loyalty to the American government. He also prohibited his troops from using torture to gain information from captured guerillas (an order often difficult to enforce in practice). When a daring raid captured the rebel leader Emilio Aguinaldo alive, Arthur MacArthur spent weeks convincing him to use his influence to encourage an end to the insurrection. When Aguinaldo finally relented and agreed that the insurrection should end, Arthur MacArthur wanted to release all Filipino political prisoners and send Aguinaldo on a tour of the United States, treating him as an honored diplomat. McKinley recoiled at the thought. In general, Arthur MacArthur showed a surprising lack of racism as well as a willingness to use the promise of American freedom and prosperity to pacify the Filipinos. Mostly, he wanted to get the military out of the job of governing a foreign people as quickly as possible.19
Perhaps his greatest challenge came not from the insurrection but from his own government. While McKinley initially relied upon military government in the Philippines, he soon afterwards decided upon a civilian version of colonial government to supplement the military. While Arthur MacArthur served as military governor, McKinley sent a civilian commission headed by future president William Howard Taft to also function as the American government in the Philippines. Without clear lines of authority the two men never got along. In letters home Taft begged McKinley and anyone else he could in Washington to order Arthur MacArthur home. But officials in Washington worried that the insurrection might have widespread support, suggesting the army should remain in charge. Once, however, the insurrection had dwindled to a small group of incorrigibles, then a civilian government could take charge. In this regard, Arthur MacArthur and Taft sent conflicting reports: Taft insisted the rebellion had spent itself and the last remnants would melt under the heat of more aggressive military action; Arthur MacArthur insisted that the rebellion had popular support, and aggressive military action would prove self-defeating.20
When rebel activity in fact began to decline, Washington officials decided to finally give Taft sole authority in the Philippines. On July 4, 1901, he relieved Arthur MacArthur and assumed all executive power in the occupation. The shift proved ironic. Taft’s civilian supervision inspired the bloodiest period of the occupation, with more than two hundred thousand Filipinos dying as part of a broad-based pacification. In the end, the Filipinos were subdued, but at extraordinary cost in blood and treasure. As opponents of imperial policy liked to point out, the United States spent $20 million to buy the Philippines and another $200 million to subdue it. In the meantime more than four thousand Americans died from disease and wounds.21
While the conflict between Taft and Arthur MacArthur certainly involved each man’s pride, it also turned on genuine questions of law and policy. Since they found themselves in a new kind of state, outside the norms of American governance, they often fought over the nature of their authority. Taft took the position that American government in