Final answer:
Albert Beveridge justified U.S. control over the Philippines by invoking imperialistic notions of a civilizing mission and the economic need for access to Asian markets, whereas the Negro National Democratic League opposed it as antithetical to the nation's foundational principles of liberty and self-governance.
Step-by-step explanation:
The justification for the United States taking control of the Philippine government advanced by Albert Beveridge can be understood through his speeches. Beveridge's endorsements echo an imperialistic rationale, specifically anchored on the belief in a civilizing mission and the duty of the United States to bring progress and democracy to the Philippines. This idea supported a strategy for projecting American interests in global trade, particularly as a means for securing economic and strategic advantages in Asia.As Beveridge articulated it, the Philippines would serve as a gateway for U.S. commerce, rooting the justification of imperialism in the economic necessities of the times, as well as a perceived racial hierarchy wherein Filipinos were regarded as incapable of self-government. Dominant at the time, this belief neglected the viewpoints and desires of the Filipino people themselves, many of whom were fiercely resistant to American rule and aspired for their own independence and self-governance.In contrast to Beveridge's rhetoric, the Negro National Democratic League took a strong stand against annexation, equating imperialism with a betrayal of the fundamental principles of liberty that were vital to the United States' identity. By drawing parallels between overseas imperialism and domestic racial discrimination, particularly in the South, the League made a firm case for anti-imperialist sentiment, accentuating the contradictions within American foreign policy and the mistreatment of non-white peoples both at home and abroad.