This isn't patriotism

[Ban Hammer 13,634]

rey, just because she says it is so don't mean it is. i'm waiting for a link to something that proves it. until then, it's just hot air on her part.

The whole question proves that you are not willing to see things differently that you already do.

In Bush's case, it is clear that he lied to the congress in the state of the union address.

But in McKinley's, history has made it blurry. The fact that the whole rationale for the war on Spain was based on propaganda is well known now. And he was part of the gov't. So if he didn't have anything to do with the propaganda, then he was just used.

Now, tell me, how can the commander-in-chief of the united states be used to declare a war on Spain just based on someone else's propaganda?

Is that what you trying to say?

That McKinley wasn't the real thing behind the Spanish American war?

Isn't that a little to naive (to think that the most powerful man in the country was used like that)?

But, honestly Chuck, what are you defending?

we're not talking about bush right now, sorry. hold that one for later.

again, rey, you seem to forget the topic so here it is once again:

the question was asked "as long as the president can manipulate the ppl and congress to declare war,"

alex stated mckinley did that. i dispute it. you with the topic now?

so i'm still waiting for alex to point out how mckinley manipulated the people and congress to do so. that there was some propaganda going on is not in dispute. i'd term that as affecting the local populace who then raised cain with their senators, who in response declared war. i've not seen one single thing that pins this war on mckinley due to him "...manipulat(ing) the ppl and congress to declare war..."

in regards to your statement about history has made things blurry, how can you or her say then he did such?

get back to me when you have a definitive source regarding the topic (once again, that's how mckinley manipulated the ppl and congress to declare war). till then, you're just wasting my time.

[Alex+R 0]

Charles, Rey just answered your question. Obviously at this point you don't care about history and are more interested in who has a bigger #######, you or me. Rest assured, it's you.

OK?

[Reynaldo 0]

Charles, you are not listening.

And I am not going to keep posting here.

I don't think Alex will either.

You have your answers.

When you are ready to get off the herd and join the human race, we'll be there to greet you, but right now I am done...

[Ban Hammer 13,634]

Charles, Rey just answered your question. Obviously at this point you don't care about history and are more interested in who has a bigger #######, you or me. Rest assured, it's you.

OK?

i'm not asking rey to answer it, i'm asking you to. so far, it seems you have nothing to back up your statement that mckinley manipulated the people and congress in order to declare war on spain.

game, set, and match.

[Alex+R 0]

Charles, look at the whole scenario. McKinley told the U.S. people we were going to war in the Philippines to Christianize the people there, which was popular at the time. And also to free them from the Spanish. (Just like in Cuba right before this.) Now, ask anyone Filipino if that's what the U.S. did in the Phils.

Anyway, you're not going to listen to me, so this is the last I have to say on this.

You're a petulant child, Charles.

[Ban Hammer 13,634]

Charles, look at the whole scenario. McKinley told the U.S. people we were going to war in the Philippines to Christianize the people there, which was popular at the time. And also to free them from the Spanish. (Just like in Cuba right before this.) Now, ask anyone Filipino if that's what the U.S. did in the Phils.

Anyway, you're not going to listen to me, so this is the last I have to say on this.

You're a petulant child, Charles.

ah finally we are getting somewhere, this is like pulling teeth.

in regards to the phillipine war:

The administration of U.S. President McKinley subsequently declared Aguinaldo to be an "outlaw bandit", and no formal declaration of war was ever issued. Two reasons have been given for this:

One is that calling the war the Philippine Insurrection made it appear to be a rebellion against a lawful government.

The other was to enable the American government to avoid liability to claims by veterans of the action.

from wikipedia, lemme know if you need the link

here's the next one for your statement about christianizing the phillipines.

Disputed quotation

In 1903, an elderly supporter named James F. Rusling recalled that in 1899, McKinley had said to a religious delegation:

"The truth is I didn't want the Philippines, and when they came to us as a gift from the gods, I did not know what to do with them.... I sought counsel from all sides - Democrats as well as Republicans - but got little help. I thought first we would take only Manila; then Luzon; then other islands, perhaps, also. I walked the floor of the White House night after night until midnight; and I am not ashamed to tell you, gentlemen, that I went down on my knees and prayed Almighty God for light and guidance more than one night." "And one night late it came to me this way - I don't know how it was, but it came: (1) That we could not give them back to Spain - that would be cowardly and dishonorable; (2) that we could not turn them over to France or Germany - our commercial rivals in the Orient - that would be bad business and discreditable; (3) that we could not leave them to themselves - they were unfit for self-government - and they would soon have anarchy and misrule over there worse than Spain's was; and (4) that there was nothing left for us to do but to take them all, and to educate the Filipinos, and uplift and civilize and Christianize them, and by God's grace do the very best we could by them, as our fellow men for whom Christ also died. And then I went to bed and went to sleep and slept soundly."

The question is whether McKinley said any such thing as is italicized in point #4, especially regarding "Christianize" the natives, or whether Rusling added it. McKinley was a religious person but never said God told him to do anything. McKinley never used the term Christianize (and indeed it was rare in 1898). McKinley operated a highly effective publicity bureau in the White House and he gave hundreds of interviews to reporters, and hundreds of public speeches to promote his Philippines policy. Yet no authentic speech or newspaper report contains anything like the purported words or sentiment. The man who remembered it—a Civil War veteran—had written a book on the war that was full of exaggeration. The supposed highly specific quote from memory years after the event is unlikely enough—especially when the quote uses words like "Christianize" that were never used by McKinley. The conclusion of historians such as Lewis Gould is that it is remotely possible but highly unlikely McKinley said the last part. For a discussion of this question, see Gould 1980, pp. 140-142.

[Reynaldo 0]

WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA, CHARLES?

Ps: If you didn't notice, I will play your game now. Not tell the truth, not know the facts and try to change the subject when other people are making sense.

YOUR ARE AN AMERICA HATER!

Edited January 10, 2007 by Reynaldo

[Ban Hammer 13,634]

WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA, CHARLES?

Ps: If you didn't notice, I will play your game now. Not tell the truth, not know the facts and try to change the subject when other people are making sense.

YOUR ARE AN AMERICA HATER!

nice try rey. now you and alex go dig up more material that is disputed by historians

[Reynaldo 0]

WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA, CHARLES?

Ps: If you didn't notice, I will play your game now. Not tell the truth, not know the facts and try to change the subject when other people are making sense.

YOUR ARE AN AMERICA HATER!

nice try rey. now you and alex go dig up more material that is disputed by historians

WHY DON'T YOU SUPPORT OUR COUNTRY?

[Ban Hammer 13,634]

WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA, CHARLES?

Ps: If you didn't notice, I will play your game now. Not tell the truth, not know the facts and try to change the subject when other people are making sense.

YOUR ARE AN AMERICA HATER!

nice try rey. now you and alex go dig up more material that is disputed by historians

WHY DON'T YOU SUPPORT OUR COUNTRY?

feel better now?

[Reynaldo 0]

feel better now?

WHY DON'T YOU SUPPORT OUR TROOPS?

ETA: I am just leveling with you, Chuck...

Edited January 10, 2007 by Reynaldo

[Ban Hammer 13,634]

feel better now?

WHY DON'T YOU SUPPORT OUR TROOPS?

ETA: I am just leveling with you, Chuck...

because i'm not a jockstrap, rey

[Reynaldo 0]

feel better now?

WHY DON'T YOU SUPPORT OUR TROOPS?

ETA: I am just leveling with you, Chuck...

because i'm not a jockstrap, rey

IF YOU DON'T LOVE AMERICA, LEAVE IT!

[garya505 2]

[Alex+R 0]

Charles, look at the whole scenario. McKinley told the U.S. people we were going to war in the Philippines to Christianize the people there, which was popular at the time. And also to free them from the Spanish. (Just like in Cuba right before this.) Now, ask anyone Filipino if that's what the U.S. did in the Phils.

Anyway, you're not going to listen to me, so this is the last I have to say on this.

You're a petulant child, Charles.

ah finally we are getting somewhere, this is like pulling teeth.

in regards to the phillipine war:

The administration of U.S. President McKinley subsequently declared Aguinaldo to be an "outlaw bandit", and no formal declaration of war was ever issued. Two reasons have been given for this:

One is that calling the war the Philippine Insurrection made it appear to be a rebellion against a lawful government.

1.The other was to enable the American government to avoid liability to claims by veterans of the action.

from wikipedia, lemme know if you need the link

here's the next one for your statement about christianizing the phillipines.

Disputed quotation

In 1903, an elderly supporter named James F. Rusling recalled that in 1899, McKinley had said to a religious delegation:

"The truth is I didn't want the Philippines, and when they came to us as a gift from the gods, I did not know what to do with them.... I sought counsel from all sides - Democrats as well as Republicans - but got little help. I thought first we would take only Manila; then Luzon; then other islands, perhaps, also. I walked the floor of the White House night after night until midnight; and I am not ashamed to tell you, gentlemen, that I went down on my knees and prayed Almighty God for light and guidance more than one night." "And one night late it came to me this way - I don't know how it was, but it came: (1) That we could not give them back to Spain - that would be cowardly and dishonorable; (2) that we could not turn them over to France or Germany - our commercial rivals in the Orient - that would be bad business and discreditable; (3) that we could not leave them to themselves - they were unfit for self-government - and they would soon have anarchy and misrule over there worse than Spain's was; and (4) that there was nothing left for us to do but to take them all, and to educate the Filipinos, and uplift and civilize and Christianize them, and by God's grace do the very best we could by them, as our fellow men for whom Christ also died. And then I went to bed and went to sleep and slept soundly."

The question is whether McKinley said any such thing as is italicized in point #4, especially regarding "Christianize" the natives, or whether Rusling added it. McKinley was a religious person but never said God told him to do anything. McKinley never used the term Christianize (and indeed it was rare in 1898). McKinley operated a highly effective publicity bureau in the White House and he gave hundreds of interviews to reporters, and hundreds of public speeches to promote his Philippines policy. Yet no authentic speech or newspaper report contains anything like the purported words or sentiment. The man who remembered it—a Civil War veteran—had written a book on the war that was full of exaggeration. The supposed highly specific quote from memory years after the event is unlikely enough—especially when the quote uses words like "Christianize" that were never used by McKinley. The conclusion of historians such as Lewis Gould is that it is remotely possible but highly unlikely McKinley said the last part. For a discussion of this question, see Gould 1980, pp. 140-142.

Charles that would have been useful if I had ever used a quotation. I didn't. And it doesn't really matter whether the goal was Christianization (and McKinley was devout, no question) or liberation--that's not what the end result or goal really was. Charles, you're avoiding the point, which is that the public opinion on the war (that we were liberating the Philippines) was completely different from what our real goals were over there. Here's a fact: at the outset of the philippines "conflict," McKinley did not mention retention of the islands. Only during it did he suggest keeping them. Find any McKinley speech from the era on this policy. Go ahead.

The term McKinley DID use was "benevolent assimilation." There's a quote you'll be hard pressed to find disputed. Just try to find that the public opinion before entering the Philippines conflict was that we were going there to torture the people. McKinley also said that he wanted the Philippines, not the Filipinos.

Stuart Creighton Miller's study of the Philippine occupation found that on the island of Luzon, the U.S. Army uprooted entire rural populations, burned homes and destroyed property, including livestock. As in Vietnam, surviving villagers were herded into fenced camps ringed by what General Franklin Bell called a “dead zone” -- meaning “[e]verything outside . . . was systematically destroyed -- humans, crops, food stores, domestic animals, houses and boats.” “These tactics,” Miller concluded, “were the cheapest means of producing a demoralized and obedient population.”

http://hnn.us/articles/21845.html

However, in the article you quoted about the war not being declared (which I never even said it was), the paragraph above the one you used gives a nice example of McKinley manipulating the information to influence the public. It was an outright lie. Why don't you read it again?

2. Doesn't the fact that it wasn't a declared war (which I said) makes= it even more comparable to our situation today? Hmmmmm

As usual, Chuck, you can't see the forest for the trees. Presidents have in the past manipulated public opinion to get to what they want. If we take away our right to question them, we are treating them as infallible; history shows they aren't. Stop arguing over whether or not someone was quoted as saying something and deal with the actual issue.