Question

I have read carefully the treaty of Paris [between the United States and Spain], and I have seen that we do not intend to free, but to subjugate the people of the Philippines. We have gone there to conquer, not to redeem.... ---Mark Twain • What is the main idea? Evidence? • Interventionists or non-interventionist? Why?

a) The U.S. intends to subjugate the people of the Philippines.
b) The U.S. intends to redeem the people of the Philippines.
c) The U.S. intends to free the people of the Philippines.
d) The U.S. intends to conquer and redeem the people of the Philippines.

Answer 1

Mark Twain's assertion is that the United States aimed to subjugate the people of the Philippines per the Treaty of Paris, indicating a non-interventionist stance critical of American imperialism.

Step-by-step explanation:

Mark Twain's critical commentary on the Treaty of Paris (which ended the Spanish-American War and resulted in the U.S. acquisition of the Philippines) highlights his belief that the United States did not intend to free the people of the Philippines but rather to subjugate them. The evidence Twain presents suggests that the U.S. sought to conquer and impose its rule over the Filipino people, rather than to redeem or liberate them. This position aligns with a non-interventionist viewpoint, critiquing the imperialistic actions of the U.S. and rejecting the notion of America administering government to 'savage and senile peoples' as Senator Albert J. Beveridge had suggested. The history tells us that the Filipino leaders like Emilio Aguinaldo desired independence and self-governance, but the U.S. did not recognize the new government they established. Eventually, this led to the Philippine-American War, further indicating American intent to control rather than liberate.