When we think about resistance to foreign rule, images of brave fighters in jungles or revolutionaries storming cities often come to mind. This was certainly true during the early years of American occupation in the Philippines, with the Philippine-American War being a fierce armed conflict. However, after the main fighting ended, Filipino leaders and the Filipino people didn’t give up their dream of independence. They shifted their strategy. Instead of primarily using guns, they used politics, diplomacy, and legal means to challenge American authority and work towards self-governance. This political resistance American rule Philippines was a complex, long-term effort that shaped the nation’s history.
This article will explore how Filipinos, within the framework of the American colonial system, actively sought to regain their sovereignty. We will look at the political structures created, the key figures who led the charge, the missions sent to the United States, and the landmark laws that ultimately led to the establishment of the Commonwealth and, later, full independence. It’s a story of perseverance, political skill, and unwavering national aspiration.
From Armed Struggle to Political Arena
The Philippine-American War officially ended in 1902, although pockets of resistance continued for several years. With the military phase winding down, the American government established a civil administration. While some Filipinos continued advocating for armed struggle, many leaders recognized that a different path was necessary. The new strategy involved participating in the political system that the Americans were setting up, but with the ultimate goal of dismantling colonial rule from within.
This transition wasn’t easy. It required a difficult balance: cooperating with the Americans to gain influence and experience in governance, while simultaneously pushing back against colonial control and constantly demanding independence. Filipino leaders had to prove they were capable of self-rule while navigating the complex politics of both Manila and Washington, D.C.
Setting Up the American Colonial Government
Following the Schurman Commission and the Taft Commission, the United States began organizing a government structure in the Philippines. This included establishing local and provincial governments and setting up a central government in Manila. Initially, power was heavily concentrated in the hands of the American Governor-General and the Philippine Commission, which was initially all-American.
However, the Americans, particularly figures like William H. Taft, believed in a “policy of attraction.” This policy aimed to win over the Filipino elite and eventually gain popular support by providing education, infrastructure, and limited opportunities for political participation. This was a calculated move to pacify the population and create a stable colony, but it also inadvertently provided the platform that Filipino leaders would use for political resistance American rule Philippines.
The Birth of Filipino-Led Politics
One of the key outcomes of the policy of attraction was the allowance of Filipino participation in the political process. This started at the local level and gradually moved upwards.
The Philippine Assembly (Established 1907)
A major milestone was the establishment of the Philippine Assembly in 1907. This was the first truly elected legislative body with a majority of Filipino members. While the upper house, the Philippine Commission, remained predominantly American, the Assembly provided a powerful platform for Filipino voices.
The elections for the Assembly were hotly contested. Two main political parties emerged:
- Partido Nacionalista: Advocated for immediate and absolute independence. Led by figures like Sergio Osmeña Sr. and Manuel L. Quezon.
- Partido Progresista (formerly Federalista): Initially favored eventual independence after a period of tutelage under American rule, and some earlier members even advocated for statehood.
The Nacionalistas won a resounding victory in the 1907 elections, demonstrating the strong desire for independence among the electorate, even within the constraints of the American-organized political system. This victory solidified the Nacionalista Party as the dominant force in Filipino political resistance during this period.
Leaders of the Assembly: Osmeña and Quezon
Sergio Osmeña Sr., from Cebu, was elected Speaker of the Philippine Assembly. He was known for his cautious, strategic approach, focusing on gaining concessions gradually and building capacity within the existing system. Manuel L. Quezon, from Tayabas (now Quezon province), was elected majority floor leader. Quezon was known for his charismatic personality, eloquent speeches, and more assertive style in demanding independence.
These two figures, despite their different styles and occasional rivalry, formed a formidable partnership in the early years. They dominated Philippine politics for decades, skillfully using their positions in the Assembly to push the nationalist agenda. They passed resolutions demanding independence and used the Assembly as a forum to critique American policies and administration.
“My loyalty to my party ends where my loyalty to my country begins.” – Manuel L. Quezon
This famous quote attributed to Quezon captures the essence of the nationalist drive that guided Filipino political leaders. While operating within the American system, their ultimate loyalty remained with the goal of a free Philippines.
Gaining Greater Autonomy: The Filipinization Movement
From their positions in the legislature and other government roles they began to occupy, Filipino leaders relentlessly pursued the goal of “Filipinization.” This meant replacing American officials with qualified Filipinos at all levels of government. The argument was twofold: it was a matter of national dignity and a practical step towards proving Filipinos were ready and capable of running their own affairs.
This movement gained significant traction. Filipino leaders, particularly under the leadership of Osmeña and Quezon, consistently lobbied the U.S. Congress and the American administration for greater autonomy and increased Filipino participation in government.
The Jones Law (Philippine Autonomy Act of 1916)
A major achievement of this political campaign was the passage of the Jones Law in 1916. This act was a direct result of the sustained pressure from Filipino leaders and their allies in the U.S. It represented a significant step forward for Philippine autonomy American era.
Key provisions of the Jones Law included:
- Establishing an elected Senate in the Philippines, creating an all-Filipino legislature (both the Senate and the House of Representatives, which replaced the Assembly).
- Promising eventual independence to the Philippines “as soon as a stable government can be established therein.” While this promise was conditional and without a specific timeline, it was the first official declaration by the U.S. government of its intention to grant independence.
- Expanding the powers of the Filipino legislature, giving them more control over domestic affairs, though the American Governor-General still held significant veto power.
The Jones Law marked a shift from a government dominated by Americans to one where Filipinos held significant legislative power. It empowered leaders like Osmeña and Quezon even further, allowing them to consolidate control over the political narrative and administration, further advancing the cause of Philippine nationalism American period.
The Long March to Washington: Independence Missions
With the passage of the Jones Law, the focus of political resistance American rule Philippines intensified its external dimension: directly lobbying the U.S. government and public. Starting in 1919, Filipino leaders began sending formal “Independence Missions” to the United States.
These missions, composed of prominent Filipino politicians and leaders (often led by Osmeña or Quezon, or both), traveled to Washington D.C. to meet with the U.S. President, members of Congress, and other influential figures. They also campaigned across the United States to gain public support for Philippine independence.
Goals and Strategies of the Missions
The primary goal of every mission was clear: convince the U.S. Congress to pass a law setting a definite date for Philippine independence. Their strategies included:
- Presenting petitions and resolutions from the Filipino legislature.
- Highlighting the stability and capability of the government established under the Jones Law.
- Appealing to American ideals of self-determination and liberty.
- Countering arguments from American business interests who benefited from colonial rule.
- Building alliances with American groups sympathetic to the independence cause.
Several missions were sent throughout the 1920s and early 1930s. While they didn’t immediately achieve their ultimate goal, they kept the issue of Philippine independence on the U.S. political agenda and educated Americans about the Filipino desire for freedom.
Here is a table summarizing some of the key independence missions:
| Year(s) | Leader(s) | Key Goal/Outcome | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1919 | Manuel L. Quezon | First official mission, presented independence case | Kicked off direct lobbying campaign in the US |
| 1922 | Sergio Osmeña Sr. | Continued lobbying efforts after a political split | Sustained pressure despite internal politics |
| 1924 | Manuel L. Quezon | Focused on specific independence bill proposals | Gained support for legislative action |
| 1931 | Sergio Osmeña Sr., Manuel Roxas | Led to passage of Hare-Hawes-Cutting Act (HHCA) | Achieved legislative approval, but controversial |
| 1933-34 | Manuel L. Quezon | Led fight against HHCA, sought better terms | Secured passage of Tydings-McDuffie Act (TMA) |
Note: This table provides a simplified overview; many missions had multiple members and spanned several months.
Internal Political Dynamics and the “Pro” vs. “Anti” Split
While presenting a united front for independence to the Americans, Filipino politics at home were anything but simple. The partnership between Osmeña and Quezon, while effective, was also marked by rivalry. Their differing personalities and approaches sometimes led to friction.
A major political crisis erupted in the early 1930s regarding the independence bills being debated in the U.S. Congress. Two key pieces of legislation were considered:
- Hare-Hawes-Cutting Act (HHCA): Passed by the U.S. Congress in 1932. It proposed granting Philippine independence after a 10-year transition period (the Commonwealth period). However, it contained provisions that were controversial in the Philippines, such as retaining U.S. military and naval bases and imposing quotas and tariffs on Philippine exports to the U.S.
- Tydings-McDuffie Act (TMA): Passed in 1934, replacing the HHCA.
The debate over accepting the HHCA split the Filipino political leadership into two camps:
- “Pros” (Pro-HHCA): Led by Sergio Osmeña Sr. and Manuel Roxas. They argued that the HHCA, despite its flaws, was the best deal they could get and represented a concrete step towards independence.
- “Antis” (Anti-HHCA): Led by Manuel L. Quezon. He vehemently opposed the HHCA, particularly the provisions on military bases and economic restrictions. He believed a better deal could be negotiated.
Quezon, using his political savvy and influence, successfully rallied support against the HHCA in the Philippine Legislature, leading to its rejection. He then personally led a mission back to the U.S. to lobby for a new bill. This mission resulted in the Tydings-McDuffie Act, which was largely similar to the HHCA but made some minor adjustments and, critically for Quezon, seemed like a political victory as he had secured a new law. The Tydings-McDuffie Act was accepted by the Philippine Legislature and paved the way for the Commonwealth of the Philippines.
This political drama highlights the sophistication of Filipino political resistance. Leaders were not just pushing for independence; they were also engaging in complex internal debates about the terms of that independence and using political maneuvering to achieve their desired outcomes, even against powerful figures like Osmeña.
The Commonwealth Period (1935-1946): Preparing for Independence
The Tydings-McDuffie Act established the Commonwealth of the Philippines, a transitional government that would exist for 10 years before the granting of full independence on July 4, 1946. The Commonwealth had its own constitution, an elected President and Vice-President, and expanded powers over internal affairs.
Manual L. Quezon was elected the first President of the Commonwealth, with Sergio Osmeña Sr. as Vice-President. This period was crucial for preparing the Philippines for full sovereignty. The Filipino government focused on:
- Building national defense (e.g., establishing the Philippine Army).
- Developing the economy and improving social welfare.
- Strengthening democratic institutions.
- Establishing a national language (Tagalog-based).
While the U.S. High Commissioner still represented American authority and the U.S. retained control over foreign affairs, defense, and currency, the Commonwealth government provided Filipinos with extensive experience in running their own country. This period demonstrated the capability of Filipino leaders and administrators, fulfilling the condition of establishing a “stable government” promised in the Jones Law.
Political life during the Commonwealth continued to involve internal struggles and negotiations with the U.S., particularly regarding economic matters and the future status of military bases. The Filipino government, under Quezon and later Osmeña (after Quezon’s death during WWII), continued to assert its autonomy and prepare for the final transfer of power. This was another facet of political resistance American rule Philippines – asserting control within the defined limits and pushing those limits where possible.
The Broader Context: Education, Culture, and Social Movements
Political resistance wasn’t confined solely to the halls of the legislature or diplomatic missions. The American period also saw the flourishing of Philippine nationalism American period expressed through various means:
- Education: While the American public school system was initially a tool for assimilation, it also produced generations of educated Filipinos who became the leaders and activists of the independence movement. They learned about democratic ideals and used these principles to argue for their own self-determination. Filipino teachers often subtly incorporated nationalist ideas into their lessons.
- Literature and Journalism: Writers, poets, and journalists used their craft to express nationalist sentiments, critique American policies, and advocate for independence. Newspapers, magazines, and books became important tools for shaping public opinion and fostering a sense of national identity. Figures like Claro M. Recto, Rafael Palma, and Teodoro Kalaw were prominent in this intellectual resistance.
- Labor and Agrarian Movements: While often focused on economic and social issues, labor unions and peasant organizations also represented a form of resistance to the existing power structures, which were intertwined with colonial rule and the Filipino elite who collaborated with it. These movements sometimes articulated nationalist grievances and demanded reforms that challenged the colonial economic order.
These various forms of expression and organization contributed to the broader environment of political resistance American rule Philippines, strengthening the nationalist movement and providing a popular base of support for the efforts of the political leaders.
Blockquote example:
“The flag of the Philippine Republic waves nowhere… We are not ashamed to confess that we cannot raise it as yet; but we shall continue to work so that we may finally see it waving, symbol of a free and independent Philippines.” – Sergio Osmeña Sr., 1907
This quote from the first Speaker of the Philippine Assembly shows the early commitment to independence and the strategic decision to work within the American system while keeping the ultimate goal in sight.
Legacy of Political Resistance
The period of American rule and the strategy of political resistance adopted by Filipino leaders had a lasting impact on the Philippines.
- Development of Political Institutions: The experience gained in the Philippine Assembly, Senate, and the Commonwealth government provided Filipinos with valuable knowledge and practice in running democratic institutions. This laid the groundwork for the post-independence republic.
- Emergence of Strong Political Leaders: The era produced figures like Osmeña, Quezon, Roxas, and others who became central to Philippine politics for decades. Their skills in negotiation, alliance-building, and public persuasion were honed during the struggle for independence.
- Shaping Philippine-American Relations: The debates and negotiations over independence shaped the relationship between the two countries, influencing post-independence treaties on trade, defense, and aid.
- Establishing a Tradition of Diplomacy: The use of independence missions and lobbying as a primary strategy established diplomacy and international relations as crucial tools in pursuing national interests.
While the path to independence through political means was long and involved compromises, it ultimately succeeded in achieving sovereignty. It demonstrated that resistance could take many forms and that strategic engagement within an imposed system could be a powerful way to work towards self-determination. The story of political resistance American rule Philippines is a testament to the resilience and ingenuity of the Filipino people in their quest for freedom.
Key Takeaways:
- After the Philippine-American War, Filipino resistance shifted from armed struggle to political and diplomatic means.
- Filipino leaders participated in American-created political structures like the Philippine Assembly and Senate to push for independence.
- Key figures like Sergio Osmeña Sr. and Manuel L. Quezon skillfully navigated the colonial system while pursuing nationalist goals.
- The Filipinization movement aimed to replace American officials with Filipinos in government, demonstrating capability for self-rule.
- The Jones Law of 1916 promised eventual independence and created an all-Filipino legislature.
- Numerous Independence Missions were sent to the U.S. to lobby Congress and the American public.
- Internal political dynamics, including the Osmeña-Quezon rivalry, influenced the path to independence legislation.
- The Hare-Hawes-Cutting Act and Tydings-McDuffie Act were landmark laws resulting from these efforts, leading to the Commonwealth.
- The Commonwealth period (1935-1946) served as a crucial transition, allowing Filipinos to gain experience in self-governance.
- Beyond formal politics, resistance was also expressed through education, literature, journalism, and social movements, strengthening nationalism.
- The political resistance strategy successfully led to independence and shaped modern Philippine political institutions and leadership.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ):
Q: Was political resistance the only form of resistance after the Philippine-American War? A: No, armed resistance continued in some areas, particularly in the southern Philippines. However, political and diplomatic resistance became the dominant and most successful strategy for achieving national independence against the central colonial government.
Q: Who were the most important Filipino leaders during this period? A: Sergio Osmeña Sr. and Manuel L. Quezon are arguably the most prominent figures, dominating Philippine politics for decades and leading numerous independence efforts. Other important leaders included Manuel Roxas, Claro M. Recto, and many others who served in the legislature and independence missions.
Q: What was the “policy of attraction”? A: It was the American strategy implemented by figures like William H. Taft. It aimed to gain Filipino support by providing education, infrastructure, and limited political opportunities, hoping to foster loyalty to the U.S. While intended to stabilize colonial rule, it unintentionally provided a platform for Filipinos to organize and advocate for independence.
Q: How did the Philippine Assembly help the cause of independence? A: The Philippine Assembly (and later the all-Filipino legislature) provided a legitimate platform for Filipino leaders to express their nationalist aspirations, pass resolutions demanding independence, debate colonial policies, and gain valuable experience in parliamentary procedure and governance, proving their capacity for self-rule.
Q: What was the significance of the Tydings-McDuffie Act? A: The Tydings-McDuffie Act set a definite date for Philippine independence (July 4, 1946) and established the Commonwealth of the Philippines as a 10-year transition government. It was the culmination of decades of political lobbying and negotiation by Filipino leaders and paved the final legislative path to sovereignty.
Q: Did all Filipinos support the political resistance strategy? A: No, there were varying opinions. Some favored continued armed struggle, especially in areas where it persisted. There were also internal debates among political leaders about the best approach and the terms of independence, as seen in the “Pro” vs. “Anti” debate over the Hare-Hawes-Cutting Act. However, the political strategy garnered broad support among the Filipino elite and significant parts of the population as the most viable path forward after the war.
Q: How did the rivalry between Osmeña and Quezon affect the independence movement? A: While they worked together effectively for many years, their rivalry also led to political divisions, notably the “Pro” vs. “Anti” split over independence bills. However, paradoxically, this rivalry also pushed both leaders to work harder and demonstrate their effectiveness, arguably keeping the independence issue at the forefront of both Philippine and U.S. politics.
Q: What was the role of education in political resistance? A: The American-established education system, while intended to spread American ideals, also educated Filipinos in democratic principles and history, which they then used to articulate their own right to self-determination. Educated Filipinos became the journalists, lawyers, teachers, and politicians who led the political and intellectual resistance movements.
Conclusion
The story of political resistance American rule Philippines is a compelling chapter in the nation’s history. It demonstrates that the fight for freedom is not always fought solely on battlefields. Through strategic political engagement, skillful diplomacy, unwavering dedication to national goals, and the collective will of the people expressed through various means, Filipino leaders and citizens successfully navigated the complex landscape of colonialism. They transformed an imposed system into a platform for asserting their rights and capabilities, eventually achieving the long-sought independence. This period highlights the power of political action and intellectual discourse as vital tools in the struggle for national liberation, leaving a rich legacy of democratic ideals and resilient nationalism for future generations of Filipinos.