Compare And Contrast Beveridge And Norton

Albert J. Beveridge and Charles Eliot Norton had very different ideas on what to do with the Philippines after the Spanish-American War. Beveridge saw it as an amazing opportunity for American expansionism, yet Norton saw it as a travesty to Filipinos. Since both were extremely influential figures of history, their views helped shape the perspective of Americans. Beveridge and Norton both had high impacts on not just America but the world on freedom, democracy, and citizenship. The Spanish-American War started in April of 1898 and lasted until August of 1898. The United States wanted to provide aid to Cuba to help them gain freedom from Spanish rule. Although this was a short war, it ended in terms more than favorable to the United States

America effectively entered the Philippines to liberate them from Spanish rule. However, with the freeing of the Philippines, as the war neared the end, a great debate sparked much controversy. Some felt as though the Philippines should be annexed to the United States, however others felt that the Philippines should be granted freedom and democracy. Two major voices of opposing opinions are Charles Eliot Norton and Albert J. Beveridge. Charles Eliot Norton was a professor at Harvard, progressive social reformer, a liberal activist, and regarded as the most educated man in the United States by his contemporaries. Norton believed that the Philippines should not be annexed to the United States. He thought that they should be completely liberated and have their own choice in democracy. Norton’s beliefs pursued him to writes letter to the opposing view of Senator Albert J. Beveridge.

Senator Beveridge was an American historian and intellectual leader of the progressive. He was an influential Republican who spoke passionately about the spreading of westernization throughout the world. His view on the plight of the Philippines was to annex them to the United States. He thought that the annexation of the Philippines into the United States would be extremely benevolent. Senator Beveridge saw it as an incredible trading opportunity that would increase American profits. Both of these Americans had very opposite perspectives, but what did the

They had high criticism for President McKinley's decision to not liberate the Philippines immediately. Americans felt it was hypocritical to reprimand European empires while expanding one of its own. However, as time went on the outlooks of Americans changed.

Then, most Americans supported the ideology of Senator Beveridge, seeing expansionism as a good thing that would greatly benefit America. They felt empowered by the thought of expanding American westernization and democracy to other countries. Americans, almost as a whole, supported the annexation of the Philippines. However, others still disagreed.

Subsequently, Norton and Beveridge had key roles in American’s view after the Spanish-American War. One major difference, besides their views, was their outreach. Beveridge had the political platform to vocalize his expansionist views and to more easily reach an audience. As opposed to Norton, who although respected, did not have the publicity to make his opinion heard nearly as much. This factor helped the American ideology change from Norton’s view to Senator Beveridge’s. Therefore, the United States did not fully liberate the Philippines until