Title: The Philippine-American War
Description: :::in pictures
Rapidfire - May 3, 2005 03:40 AM (GMT)


Locomotives and Cars wrecked by Insurgents at Bamban Bridge, Luzon, Philippine Islands.



Gen. del Pilar's troops, killed at Tirad Pass
a platoon of Filipino soldiers
Filipino POWs
After the Battle of Mount Dajo, March 9, 1906. Photo from the National Archives. Copies of this photo, which was later described as "the most hideous Philippine picture . . . published in the United States during the subjugation of the islands," were distributed to the press by the Anti-Imperialist League


Alamid - May 3, 2005 03:55 AM (GMT)
Deserves a sticky. :thumb:
saver111 - May 12, 2005 06:44 AM (GMT)
Nice find Rapidfire! :bow:
Here's one I got about the one who brought the .45 to the Philippines.
flipzi - May 12, 2005 07:45 AM (GMT)
Nice find, RapidFire! :thumb: :thumb:
More of this, please!
saver111 - February 24, 2006 06:52 AM (GMT)
91 Bravo - October 24, 2006 01:08 PM (GMT)
what i don't understand is why are WE, the insurgents, when we were just trying to protect the motherland? and it is indeed funny that this incident went down in the history known as the Philippine Insurrection (here in the US books anyways), tho it lasted for more than a decade, while the so-called skirmish with the spaniards are still being labeled as the Spanish-American War, and that only lasted 3 months! :dontgetit: could it be that we were a bunch of savages and we don't count as a real opponent?
kyle_katarno - November 10, 2006 12:53 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE (91 Bravo @ Oct 24 2006, 09:08 PM) |
| what i don't understand is why are WE, the insurgents, when we were just trying to protect the motherland? and it is indeed funny that this incident went down in the history known as the Philippine Insurrection (here in the US books anyways), tho it lasted for more than a decade, while the so-called skirmish with the spaniards are still being labeled as the Spanish-American War, and that only lasted 3 months! :dontgetit: could it be that we were a bunch of savages and we don't count as a real opponent? |
You are correct. More likely a bunch of ethnic groups that are too loosely held by Aguinaldo. The US has a special interest in the Philippines does to name it as an insurrection would propel them to international acclaim as just controlling the rebels I their territory. We were a war reparation to the US by Spain.
Aguinaldo cannot even control his government. Why the need to kill one of the his most qualified general in time where good generals are scarce. This speaks about the ineptitude of the Aguinaldo's leadership. It's not a gov't it's just a bunch of armed partisans sick of 300 years of Spanish hegemony.
Judd - November 11, 2006 09:34 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE (91 Bravo @ Oct 24 2006, 09:08 PM) |
| what i don't understand is why are WE, the insurgents, when we were just trying to protect the motherland? and it is indeed funny that this incident went down in the history known as the Philippine Insurrection (here in the US books anyways), tho it lasted for more than a decade, while the so-called skirmish with the spaniards are still being labeled as the Spanish-American War, and that only lasted 3 months! :dontgetit: could it be that we were a bunch of savages and we don't count as a real opponent? |
the americans call it the Philippine Insurrection because they don't recognize the first philippine republic at the time. for many decades the filipinos have been revolting against spain with no apparent success. the right timing however came at the height of the revolution and the spanish-american war. when the americans defeated the spanish in the philippines, the filipinos thought that they've won the revolution. so what they did is they set up the first philippine republic with aguinaldo as president. but for the americans, the authority over the philippines is to be shifted from spain to the united states, according to the treaty of paris, wherein the US bought us for a mere 20 million dollars. in other words, the philippine islands is already a part of american sovereignty. the filipinos, having set up their own state, revolted against the americans. the americans, recognizing no filipino state labelled the event as a rebellion or a refusal to accept sovereignty - hence the philippine insurrection.
what bothers me most here is our independence day. june 12 is when the first republic of the philippines was founded right? i don't believe we have tasted independence because immediately after spain's defeat, power over the philippines was shifted from spain to the US. hence, we weren't really independent after all. and that continues until the end of the second world war..
epigone - November 14, 2006 01:11 AM (GMT)
HOW MUCH FOREIGN AID HAS USA DISPENSED TO US? BILYON BILYON NA. PLUS THEY ALLOW US TO IMMIGRATE TO US TO SEEK GREENER PASTURES. ANG DAMING GINAWANG MILYONARYO NA PILIPINO SA ESTADOS UNIDOS NG MGA AMERIKANO. KINUPKOP SA MGA KOMPANYA. SA MGA OSPITAL. SA MGA BANGKO BILANG KLERK, SECURITY GUARD! NGAYON SA MGA PUBLIC SCHOOLS.MALAKI ANG PAKINABANG NATIN SA ESTADOS UNIDOS. IF SISON WERE IN POWER, TORTURED TAYO LAHAT. HABANG BUHAY TAYONG TINOTORTURE NI SISON. ANG MGA AMERIKANO, KINAKAIBIGAN TAYO. BINIGYAN TAYO NG MGA INSTITUSYONG DEMOKRASYA AT MALAYANG PAGPAPAHAYAG! LET US BE THANKFUL TO AMERIKA! LET US NOT BE SENTIMENTAL AND LEAVE THE PAST BEHIND.
Let us all give accolade to USA by way of a warm thundering round of applause for our constitution which we inherited from her and which she implanted on our soils with the rights to freedom of speech and the press, freedom of association, freedom of religion, other kinds of freedoms and their human rights code. Surely, America has been the envy of the world for the freedoms and privleges accorded to her citizens which were passed to us generation by generation through her guided colonialism until our independence granted in 1945.
Jose Maria Sison has nothing good to say but "kill all americans", presumably even the innocent child of a US army servicemen or the innocent children of George W. Bush". Sison has nothing good to say but to kill all "alleged cheaters" who has the support of majority of the elected congressmen and Senators without allowing them to undergo due process or court trial but who accorded him fair trial, released him from prison and even had him acquitted on several counts of crimes imputed except his unabated terrorism and continuing rebellion.
Sison's depravity might be able to linger with us for a number of years. But the punishment is severe for terrorists and murderers. Let us pray that our sons and daughters may not be misled by this hardened terrorist-criminal whose penchant for murder has been beyond compare. Worse than a criminal convict made to suffer 66666 years in prison until his lethal injection and his fatwa.
Under Sison's communist constitution, I bet he cannot stand a minute watching our fellow citizens' frowns and indescribeable facial contortions as they listen mute on communist terrorist propagandas spewed on blaring loudspeakers in the streets, thereby hastily whisked away in labor camps and made to perform slave labor just like the plight of innocent victims of Chinese gulags and the Soviet Gulag archipelago.
sushi - November 14, 2006 01:53 PM (GMT)
My humble opinion:
America has, indeed, handed out a big amount of aid and help which has benefitted us immensely. But I hope that the choice available are not just USA, Sison, or the muslim extremists. I hope that we find some sort of middleground like our dignity, self-respect, our great nationalism. The friendship america offers, in my opinion, is a double a edged sword. She offers relief but one that cuts at the very fabric of our society, at the expense of our national will. Allow me try to articulate my opinion.
As a matter of american policy, she offers aid and other benefits, like investments, to countries that will be beneficial to her own vital interests. Economic aid is granted to friendly countries that she needs to counterbalance a rival country in each region or corner of the world. It is also given when it opens up opportunities for her own business, however disadvantageous to the local populace. A few million dollars for our own national interes. tIn this manner, US friendship and interest are paved over our own national interest. Our government is thereby bought and moved around the chessboard like pawns for the USA, in order to countercheck US regional concerns and to open up ourselves to the american big business exploitation.
The Marshall Plan was conceived to address US vital interests abroad. She did not grant this out of kindness. She used it as a weapon to combat the spread of communism. Europe, indeed, prospered and grew strong but it was done to preserve american democracy. For the first time in history, the world is able to produce a civilization (USA) that sees it's continued existence dependent on how the global community evolves, politically and economically. Unlike previous great civilizations, events on the other side of the world are able to effectively affect US supply of oil, trade, currency, and sometimes even prestige. Some mayl present a "clear and present danger and compel her to act, yet some are rectified by economic embargoes or sanctions. She recognizes that true power does not emanate from her military, but from her economic prowess. She was able to outlast another superpower in a expensive arms race and out perform russia in peddling aid for influence.
enough said. i like america but am weary when our government gets a grant or agrees to treaties like VFA. It makes me wonder how much compensation we paid for these "billions of dollars". :ssalute:
Zero wing - December 30, 2006 05:26 PM (GMT)
Ya thats right but it was double edges sword good things we became 3rd English speaking nation and American style Democracy and we learn more about democracy then anyone even our first republic was a american coppy from other people who coppy the americans so that was good thing but in the process we lost most of our culture and most immigrated to the state all our best and brightest went there to fine a better life so we had the greater lost even if we got something out of it if only if our rich people supported ur brothers supported each other the war could have been won and if the americans follow mark tarwin and just made us a protectorate and train us without removing our freedom was in hes word a worthy mission for the US so if we can only trun time thx soilders and long live the people and the army of the republic :thumb: :salute:
spellspinner - February 10, 2007 11:44 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Judd @ Nov 11 2006, 05:34 PM) |
| QUOTE (91 Bravo @ Oct 24 2006, 09:08 PM) | | what i don't understand is why are WE, the insurgents, when we were just trying to protect the motherland? and it is indeed funny that this incident went down in the history known as the Philippine Insurrection (here in the US books anyways), tho it lasted for more than a decade, while the so-called skirmish with the spaniards are still being labeled as the Spanish-American War, and that only lasted 3 months! :dontgetit: could it be that we were a bunch of savages and we don't count as a real opponent? |
the americans call it the Philippine Insurrection because they don't recognize the first philippine republic at the time. for many decades the filipinos have been revolting against spain with no apparent success. the right timing however came at the height of the revolution and the spanish-american war. when the americans defeated the spanish in the philippines, the filipinos thought that they've won the revolution. so what they did is they set up the first philippine republic with aguinaldo as president. but for the americans, the authority over the philippines is to be shifted from spain to the united states, according to the treaty of paris, wherein the US bought us for a mere 20 million dollars. in other words, the philippine islands is already a part of american sovereignty. the filipinos, having set up their own state, revolted against the americans. the americans, recognizing no filipino state labelled the event as a rebellion or a refusal to accept sovereignty - hence the philippine insurrection.
what bothers me most here is our independence day. june 12 is when the first republic of the philippines was founded right? i don't believe we have tasted independence because immediately after spain's defeat, power over the philippines was shifted from spain to the US. hence, we weren't really independent after all. and that continues until the end of the second world war..
|
Correction please. General Emilio Aguinaldo took over the leadership of the Katipunan from the Supremo Andres Bonifacio because the latter kept losing battles. Aguinaldo turned that around and won battle after battle until the Spaniards were cornered in Intramuros. It then became a simple matter of cutting off the supply until the Spaniards begged for mercy.
The Philippine Revolution was won by the Katipunan under Emilio Aguinaldo's military leadership, and not by the Americans. Aguinaldo had already sued for recognition of the Philippines as an independent state once the Spaniards were on the run. His emissary was Apolinario Mabini, who could speak fluent English. However, it was Aguinaldo who negotiated that fiasco in Hong Kong, of buying ammunition from the Americans, who were then brought into the equation.
Admiral Dewey sailed into Manila Bay to provide naval support to the Katipunan. The Battle of Manila Bay, was actually no contest. The Spanish ships were mostly commercial ones, though there were a few outdated battleships.
The Treaty of Paris represents the biggest scam committed by the United States. It bought the Philippines from Spain at a time when independence had been declared in 1898, and after it had negotiated with the Philippines as an independent country. The Philippine American War commenced immediately thereafter. The US calls it the Philippine Insurrection to cover up their malice. Historians there are now working to rectify the error.
This is a principle in international law, that if one country deals with another as an independent state, the former is estopped from saying that the land is res nullius (belonging to no one). The dealings are considered recognition of the sovereignty of the latter state. Thus, a takeover of the latter state is considered a belligerent act -- in layman's terms, an act of war.
kyle_katarno - February 18, 2007 05:36 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE (spellspinner @ Feb 11 2007, 07:44 AM) |
| QUOTE (Judd @ Nov 11 2006, 05:34 PM) | | QUOTE (91 Bravo @ Oct 24 2006, 09:08 PM) | | what i don't understand is why are WE, the insurgents, when we were just trying to protect the motherland? and it is indeed funny that this incident went down in the history known as the Philippine Insurrection (here in the US books anyways), tho it lasted for more than a decade, while the so-called skirmish with the spaniards are still being labeled as the Spanish-American War, and that only lasted 3 months! :dontgetit: could it be that we were a bunch of savages and we don't count as a real opponent? |
the americans call it the Philippine Insurrection because they don't recognize the first philippine republic at the time. for many decades the filipinos have been revolting against spain with no apparent success. the right timing however came at the height of the revolution and the spanish-american war. when the americans defeated the spanish in the philippines, the filipinos thought that they've won the revolution. so what they did is they set up the first philippine republic with aguinaldo as president. but for the americans, the authority over the philippines is to be shifted from spain to the united states, according to the treaty of paris, wherein the US bought us for a mere 20 million dollars. in other words, the philippine islands is already a part of american sovereignty. the filipinos, having set up their own state, revolted against the americans. the americans, recognizing no filipino state labelled the event as a rebellion or a refusal to accept sovereignty - hence the philippine insurrection.
what bothers me most here is our independence day. june 12 is when the first republic of the philippines was founded right? i don't believe we have tasted independence because immediately after spain's defeat, power over the philippines was shifted from spain to the US. hence, we weren't really independent after all. and that continues until the end of the second world war..
|
Correction please. General Emilio Aguinaldo took over the leadership of the Katipunan from the Supremo Andres Bonifacio because the latter kept losing battles. Aguinaldo turned that around and won battle after battle until the Spaniards were cornered in Intramuros. It then became a simple matter of cutting off the supply until the Spaniards begged for mercy.
The Philippine Revolution was won by the Katipunan under Emilio Aguinaldo's military leadership, and not by the Americans. Aguinaldo had already sued for recognition of the Philippines as an independent state once the Spaniards were on the run. His emissary was Apolinario Mabini, who could speak fluent English. However, it was Aguinaldo who negotiated that fiasco in Hong Kong, of buying ammunition from the Americans, who were then brought into the equation.
Admiral Dewey sailed into Manila Bay to provide naval support to the Katipunan. The Battle of Manila Bay, was actually no contest. The Spanish ships were mostly commercial ones, though there were a few outdated battleships.
The Treaty of Paris represents the biggest scam committed by the United States. It bought the Philippines from Spain at a time when independence had been declared in 1898, and after it had negotiated with the Philippines as an independent country. The Philippine American War commenced immediately thereafter. The US calls it the Philippine Insurrection to cover up their malice. Historians there are now working to rectify the error.
This is a principle in international law, that if one country deals with another as an independent state, the former is estopped from saying that the land is res nullius (belonging to no one). The dealings are considered recognition of the sovereignty of the latter state. Thus, a takeover of the latter state is considered a belligerent act -- in layman's terms, an act of war.
|
In the end the Philippines along with Puerto Rico and Cuba was ceded by Spain to America, during the treaty of Paris< is it>. 300 years in a convent and now 40 yrs of Hollywood. Still a colonized people.
spellspinner - February 21, 2007 09:24 AM (GMT)
That is correct Mr. Katarno. But what is a little known fact is that even in 1911, when the Americans trumpeted their so-called destiny to Christianize their little brown brothers, the American judiciary in the 11 Diamond Rings case, was busy securing American colonization by denying the Filipinos rights of basic citizenship that a colonized people are normally entitled to. Despite their claims to the contrary, Americans treated us no better than the Spanish colonizers did.
Boombanger - February 21, 2007 09:41 AM (GMT)
^^^
But they are now reaping the 'awards' of their past misdeeds during the colonial wars, in Iraq and in Afghanistan. :demon:
maniegom - February 23, 2007 10:54 AM (GMT)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_th...ne-American_WarLet us learn from the past, instead of merely talking about it....
saver111 - June 5, 2007 12:23 PM (GMT)
American Units involved in the campaign
| QUOTE |
PHILIPPINES VIII Army Corps, under the command of Maj. Gen. Wesley Merritt
2nd Division (the VIII Corps had one Division, oddly numbered as the Second Division. The Second Division was under the command of Brig. Gen. Thomas M. Anderson.)
1st Brigade - Brig. Gen. Arthur MacArthur
*23rd U.S. Infantry (Col. John W. French) 14th U.S. Infantry 13th Minnesota Volunteer Infantry 1st North Dakota Volunteer Infantry 1st Idaho Volunteer Infantry 1st Wyoming Volunteer Infantry Astor Battery
2nd Brigade - Brig. Gen. F. V. Greene
*18th U.S. Infantry, 1st Battalion under Col. C. M. Bailey, 2nd Battalion under Maj. Charles Kellar. 3rd U.S. Artillery, 1st Battalion under Capt. James O'Hara, 2nd Battalion under Capt. W. E. Birkhimer. *U. S. Engineers, Co. A (2nd Lt. William D. Connor) 1st California Volunteer Infantry (Col. James F. Smith) *1st Colorado Volunteer Infantry (Col. Irving Hale) *1st Nebraska Volunteer Infantry (Col. John P. Bratt) *10th Pennsylvania Volunteer Infantry (Col. A. L. Hawkins) *Utah Volunteer Artillery, Light Battery A (Capt. R. W. Young) *Utah Volunteer Artillery, Light Battery B (Capt. F. A. Grant) 2nd Oregon Volunteer Infantry California Volunteer Heavy Artillery Detachment
(*) Indicates that these troops arrived on June 15, 1898. The remainder arrived subsequently.
22nd US Infantry arrives at Manila, Philippines March 4, 1899.
22nd US Infantry Station List For The Philippine Islands June 1901.
RHQ, B, C, and D Company's - San Isidro
"A" Company - Jaen
"E and F" Company's - Aragat
"G" Company - Apalit
"H" Company - Baler, Principe
"I" Company - San Antonio
"K" Company - Georgiapan
"L" Company - Cabio
"M" Company - Mexico and Santa Ana
February 1902 the 22nd US Infantry returns to Fort Crook, NB. with two Congressional Medal Of Honor recipients, Charles H. Pierce and Charles W. Ray |
saver111 - June 5, 2007 12:58 PM (GMT)


Presidential Mansion - Phillipines.......

4th Cavalry at the Signing of the Peace Treaty ending the Phillipine Insurrection
http://www.quarterhorsecav.org/pg9.htm
spellspinner - June 19, 2007 01:45 PM (GMT)
The second photograph is a rare picture of the Barasoain Church where the first Malolos Congress was held. The interiors burned in the war. Wow. I dont think even the NHI has that one.
ColdDeadFish - September 10, 2007 04:04 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE (saver111 @ Jun 5 2007, 08:23 PM) |
American Units involved in the campaign
| QUOTE | PHILIPPINES VIII Army Corps, under the command of Maj. Gen. Wesley Merritt
2nd Division (the VIII Corps had one Division, oddly numbered as the Second Division. The Second Division was under the command of Brig. Gen. Thomas M. Anderson.)
1st Brigade - Brig. Gen. Arthur MacArthur
*23rd U.S. Infantry (Col. John W. French) 14th U.S. Infantry 13th Minnesota Volunteer Infantry 1st North Dakota Volunteer Infantry 1st Idaho Volunteer Infantry 1st Wyoming Volunteer Infantry Astor Battery
2nd Brigade - Brig. Gen. F. V. Greene
*18th U.S. Infantry, 1st Battalion under Col. C. M. Bailey, 2nd Battalion under Maj. Charles Kellar. 3rd U.S. Artillery, 1st Battalion under Capt. James O'Hara, 2nd Battalion under Capt. W. E. Birkhimer. *U. S. Engineers, Co. A (2nd Lt. William D. Connor) 1st California Volunteer Infantry (Col. James F. Smith) *1st Colorado Volunteer Infantry (Col. Irving Hale) *1st Nebraska Volunteer Infantry (Col. John P. Bratt) *10th Pennsylvania Volunteer Infantry (Col. A. L. Hawkins) *Utah Volunteer Artillery, Light Battery A (Capt. R. W. Young) *Utah Volunteer Artillery, Light Battery B (Capt. F. A. Grant) 2nd Oregon Volunteer Infantry California Volunteer Heavy Artillery Detachment
(*) Indicates that these troops arrived on June 15, 1898. The remainder arrived subsequently.
22nd US Infantry arrives at Manila, Philippines March 4, 1899.
22nd US Infantry Station List For The Philippine Islands June 1901.
RHQ, B, C, and D Company's - San Isidro
"A" Company - Jaen
"E and F" Company's - Aragat
"G" Company - Apalit
"H" Company - Baler, Principe
"I" Company - San Antonio
"K" Company - Georgiapan
"L" Company - Cabio
"M" Company - Mexico and Santa Ana
February 1902 the 22nd US Infantry returns to Fort Crook, NB. with two Congressional Medal Of Honor recipients, Charles H. Pierce and Charles W. Ray |
|
You have to separate the state volunteer regiments from the federal volunteer regiments and the regular army regiments. It may look like organic formations but this table shows the composite divisions organized in country.
Lorenz_Mallari - October 4, 2007 04:14 AM (GMT)

A late 19th century photograph of Filipino rebels, known as the Katipuneros.

Filipino soldiers outside Manila in 1899.
91 Bravo - January 1, 2008 05:38 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (spellspinner @ Feb 11 2007, 07:44 AM) |
the americans call it the Philippine Insurrection because they don't recognize the first philippine republic at the time. for many decades the filipinos have been revolting against spain with no apparent success. the right timing however came at the height of the revolution and the spanish-american war. when the americans defeated the spanish in the philippines, the filipinos thought that they've won the revolution. so what they did is they set up the first philippine republic with aguinaldo as president. but for the americans, the authority over the philippines is to be shifted from spain to the united states, according to the treaty of paris, wherein the US bought us for a mere 20 million dollars. in other words, the philippine islands is already a part of american sovereignty. the filipinos, having set up their own state, revolted against the americans. the americans, recognizing no filipino state labelled the event as a rebellion or a refusal to accept sovereignty - hence the philippine insurrection.
what bothers me most here is our independence day. june 12 is when the first republic of the philippines was founded right? i don't believe we have tasted independence because immediately after spain's defeat, power over the philippines was shifted from spain to the US. hence, we weren't really independent after all. and that continues until the end of the second world war.. [/QUOTE] Correction please. General Emilio Aguinaldo took over the leadership of the Katipunan from the Supremo Andres Bonifacio because the latter kept losing battles. Aguinaldo turned that around and won battle after battle until the Spaniards were cornered in Intramuros. It then became a simple matter of cutting off the supply until the Spaniards begged for mercy.
The Philippine Revolution was won by the Katipunan under Emilio Aguinaldo's military leadership, and not by the Americans. Aguinaldo had already sued for recognition of the Philippines as an independent state once the Spaniards were on the run. His emissary was Apolinario Mabini, who could speak fluent English. However, it was Aguinaldo who negotiated that fiasco in Hong Kong, of buying ammunition from the Americans, who were then brought into the equation.
Admiral Dewey sailed into Manila Bay to provide naval support to the Katipunan. The Battle of Manila Bay, was actually no contest. The Spanish ships were mostly commercial ones, though there were a few outdated battleships.
The Treaty of Paris represents the biggest scam committed by the United States. It bought the Philippines from Spain at a time when independence had been declared in 1898, and after it had negotiated with the Philippines as an independent country. The Philippine American War commenced immediately thereafter. The US calls it the Philippine Insurrection to cover up their malice. Historians there are now working to rectify the error.
This is a principle in international law, that if one country deals with another as an independent state, the former is estopped from saying that the land is res nullius (belonging to no one). The dealings are considered recognition of the sovereignty of the latter state. Thus, a takeover of the latter state is considered a belligerent act -- in layman's terms, an act of war. |
my original statement was a rethorical one. thank you, spellspinner for articulating it.