In 1899, the Philippine-American War took a new turn. The Filipino leader, Emilio Aguinaldo, realized that his army could no longer fight the Americans in traditional battles. Surrounded by American forces, he decided to change his strategy. On November 12, 1899, Aguinaldo dissolved his regular army and shifted to guerilla warfare. This meant smaller, more mobile groups of fighters using surprise attacks, hiding in the countryside, and avoiding big battles.
This new way of fighting was risky but necessary. The Filipinos hoped to outlast the Americans and win their independence. They also placed their hopes on the upcoming U.S. presidential election, thinking a new leader might support their cause. However, the change in tactics led to brutal responses from American forces, making the war even more violent and destructive.
The Shift to Guerilla Warfare
On November 12, 1899, during a meeting of the Council of War in Bayambang, Pangasinan, Aguinaldo made a critical decision. The regular army, which had been fighting in conventional battles, was no longer capable of holding its ground against the better-armed and larger American forces. It was during this council that Aguinaldo announced the dissolution of the regular army. This marked the beginning of a new phase in the war, one that relied on guerilla tactics.
Aguinaldo’s Decision to Dissolve the Regular Army
Aguinaldo’s decision to dissolve the army was not made lightly. The Filipino forces had suffered numerous defeats, and their numbers were dwindling. The American military was well-equipped and relentless in its pursuit. By breaking up his army into smaller, more mobile guerilla units, Aguinaldo hoped to keep the resistance alive while minimizing direct confrontations with the Americans. The goal was to stretch the war out, exhaust the Americans, and force them to reconsider their occupation.
The Transformation into Guerilla Units
After the dissolution of the regular army, Filipino fighters reorganized into smaller groups known as guerilla units. These units operated independently and avoided large-scale battles. Instead, they relied on tactics like:
- Ambushes: Guerilla fighters would surprise American troops, attacking them suddenly before retreating to safety.
- Concealment: The fighters used their knowledge of the local terrain, hiding in forests, mountains, and villages to avoid detection.
- Avoidance of Large-Scale Battles: Instead of engaging the Americans head-on, the guerilla units focused on smaller, more manageable attacks, disrupting supply lines and communications.
This new form of warfare allowed the Filipinos to continue their fight against the Americans despite being outnumbered and outgunned. It was a bold strategy that kept the dream of independence alive, even in the face of overwhelming odds.
The American Military Pursuit of Aguinaldo
Following Aguinaldo’s shift to guerilla warfare, the American military quickly adapted its strategy to hunt down the Filipino leader. Determined to crush the resistance, three American generals launched coordinated efforts to capture Aguinaldo and end the war.
Brig. Gen. Loyd Wheaton (North)
From the north, Brigadier General Loyd Wheaton led American forces in an attempt to block any potential escape routes Aguinaldo might use to flee toward the mountains or further north. Wheaton’s strategy was to cut off Aguinaldo’s access to reinforcements or supplies coming from northern provinces, making it more difficult for the guerilla units to sustain themselves. His forces relentlessly patrolled key areas, aiming to corner Aguinaldo.
Brig. Gen. Arthur MacArthur, Jr. (South)
Brigadier General Arthur MacArthur, Jr., operating from the south, aimed to push upward toward Aguinaldo’s strongholds. MacArthur, already familiar with the complexities of fighting the Filipinos, focused on forcing Aguinaldo into tighter territory, leaving him fewer options for maneuvering. MacArthur’s troops were tasked with cutting off vital southern supply routes, making it harder for guerilla units to regroup and rearm.
Maj. Gen. Henry Lawton (East)
From the east, Major General Henry Lawton, a veteran of frontier battles in the American West, was responsible for preventing Aguinaldo’s forces from retreating to the rugged terrain of the Sierra Madre mountains. Lawton’s troops faced difficult terrain but were determined to close off any escape path that Aguinaldo might try to use. Lawton’s strategy relied on quick, aggressive movements to keep the pressure on the guerillas, hoping to trap them in a tightening circle.
Intense Pursuit in Pangasinan
In Pangasinan, Aguinaldo and his guerilla forces faced an overwhelming military pursuit from all sides. The coordination between the three American generals was designed to limit Aguinaldo’s options, making it nearly impossible for him to escape. The pursuit was relentless, with American forces using intelligence from local informants and conducting constant raids to disrupt the guerillas.
Despite these efforts, Aguinaldo managed to evade capture for some time by using the guerilla tactics he had adopted. The rugged terrain of Pangasinan provided some cover, but the intensity of the American pursuit forced Aguinaldo to keep moving, never staying in one place for long. The American strategy of encirclement and constant pressure demonstrated their commitment to ending the Filipino resistance, but Aguinaldo’s guerilla tactics kept the fight going for months.
Political Hopes and Proclamations
As the guerilla war dragged on, the Filipino forces not only relied on military strategy but also placed their hopes in political change across the Pacific. In 1900, the U.S. was preparing for its presidential election, and many Filipinos believed that the outcome of this election could significantly impact their fight for independence.
Filipino Hopes in the 1900 U.S. Presidential Election
At the center of Filipino hopes was William Jennings Bryan, the Democratic candidate in the 1900 U.S. Presidential election. Bryan was a vocal critic of American imperialism and openly opposed the annexation of the Philippines. Aguinaldo and his supporters believed that if Bryan were to win the presidency, there would be a shift in American foreign policy—potentially leading to the recognition of Philippine independence. This belief gave Filipinos a renewed sense of purpose in their resistance, hoping to prolong the war until the election brought a favorable outcome.
In contrast, the incumbent president, William McKinley, strongly supported American expansion and the continued occupation of the Philippines. The Filipinos viewed his re-election as a major threat to their freedom. Thus, the political climate in the U.S. became a key factor in the Filipino struggle.
Aguinaldo’s Proclamation to His Troops
In light of these political developments, Emilio Aguinaldo issued a proclamation to his troops. He highlighted the potential for change in U.S. policy, pointing out that there was “a great party” in America that supported Filipino independence. Aguinaldo emphasized that this party—led by William Jennings Bryan—could compel the U.S. government to honor the promises of freedom that the Filipinos believed had been made to them, even if those promises had not been officially documented.
In his message, Aguinaldo urged his soldiers to continue fighting bravely, not just for military victory, but in anticipation of a political shift that might bring their dream of independence closer to reality. He called on his troops to remain resilient, expressing faith in the possibility of an American change of heart.
Opposition to Imperialism and the Hope for Independence
In his proclamation, Aguinaldo also voiced his strong opposition to American imperialism. He made it clear that the Filipinos did not see themselves as enemies of the American people, but rather as defenders of their own independence against an unjust imperialist agenda. Aguinaldo stressed that the Filipino struggle was not a war against the United States as a whole, but against the forces seeking to impose colonial rule over the Philippines.
Aguinaldo’s words reflected the broader sentiment among many Filipinos at the time. They hoped that a change in U.S. leadership would bring an end to the imperialist policies they were fighting against, allowing the Philippines to achieve the independence they had long sought.
The Brutality of the American Response
As Filipino forces shifted to guerilla warfare, the American military’s response grew increasingly harsh and brutal. Faced with the challenges of fighting an elusive enemy, the U.S. military adapted its tactics, often with severe consequences for Filipino soldiers and civilians alike. By late 1900, the nature of the conflict had escalated into a brutal and unforgiving war, marked by a series of atrocities committed by American forces.
December 20, 1900: General MacArthur’s Proclamation
On December 20, 1900, General Arthur MacArthur, Jr., the U.S. military commander in the Philippines, issued a significant and controversial proclamation. In this declaration, MacArthur labeled all guerilla fighters as outlaws, stripping them of the protections and rights normally granted to soldiers under the accepted customs of war. This meant that, in the eyes of the American military, any Filipino engaging in guerilla tactics was no longer considered a legitimate combatant and was, therefore, not entitled to the status of a prisoner of war if captured.
MacArthur’s proclamation gave American troops wide-ranging authority to deal with guerilla fighters as they saw fit. In practice, this meant that captured guerillas could be executed without trial or treated as criminals rather than as prisoners of war. The proclamation blurred the line between combatants and civilians, as many guerilla fighters were indistinguishable from ordinary villagers.
Evolving American Military Tactics
As the war continued, American military tactics against the guerilla resistance evolved into increasingly brutal and punitive measures. Frustrated by the guerillas’ ability to hide among civilians and use the terrain to their advantage, American forces responded with a strategy aimed at punishing not only the fighters but also the civilian population suspected of supporting them.
Key tactics included:
- Scorched-earth policies: American troops burned villages, destroyed crops, and killed livestock to deprive guerilla forces of food and shelter. Entire communities were razed, leaving civilians without homes or means of survival.
- Concentration camps: In an effort to isolate the guerillas from the civilian population, American forces created “zones of protection” or concentration camps, where civilians were forcibly relocated. Conditions in these camps were often poor, with widespread disease and malnutrition.
- Reprisals against civilians: American soldiers frequently targeted civilians suspected of aiding guerilla fighters. Villagers were subjected to brutal reprisals, including summary executions, torture, and other forms of collective punishment.
The Atrocities Committed
These evolving tactics led to numerous atrocities during the conflict. American troops, emboldened by MacArthur’s proclamation, often acted with impunity. The dehumanization of the Filipino people, fueled by racial prejudices, contributed to the severity of the violence. Reports from American soldiers themselves revealed shocking levels of brutality, with widespread reports of massacres, torture, and the deliberate targeting of civilians, including women and children.
The shift in American tactics reflected a growing desperation to end the war quickly and decisively. However, the cruelty of these measures only deepened Filipino resentment and resistance, prolonging the conflict and leaving a legacy of bitterness and trauma in its wake.
Racial Attitudes and Justifications
Throughout the Philippine-American War, racial prejudices played a significant role in shaping both American military tactics and public opinion. These racist views dehumanized the Filipino people and provided a justification for the extreme brutality displayed by American forces.
American Racial Prejudices Against Filipinos
The racial attitudes held by many Americans during this time were deeply rooted in a sense of racial superiority, particularly the belief in Anglo-Saxon dominance. Filipinos were often portrayed as uncivilized, primitive, and incapable of governing themselves. This portrayal made it easier for American forces and the public to justify the harsh measures used during the war, including the brutal response to guerilla warfare.
These racist beliefs were reinforced in American society through media and military leaders, contributing to a widespread perception that Filipinos were not worthy of the same rights and respect afforded to other nations.
Comments from Key Figures
Maj. Gen. Elwell S. Otis on American Marksmanship and Racial Theories
Maj. Gen. Elwell S. Otis, one of the senior American commanders during the war, contributed to these racist narratives by claiming that the high number of Filipino casualties was due to the superior marksmanship of American soldiers, particularly those from rural areas in the southern and western U.S. He attributed this to their experience in hunting and shooting from a young age. However, underlying this claim was a racial theory that Americans, particularly Anglo-Saxons, were inherently more resilient and less likely to succumb to wounds than Filipinos, who Otis characterized as a racially “inferior” people.
This view justified the killing of large numbers of Filipinos and minimized concern over the vast disparity in casualties, further dehumanizing the Filipino fighters in the eyes of American soldiers.
John Roberts and Richard E. Welch Jr. on Dehumanization
American soldiers themselves often held deeply racist views toward Filipinos, as evidenced by John Roberts, a bugler in the 13th Minnesota Volunteer Infantry Regiment, who remarked that American forces had been “vastly more cruel than the Spanish” during their occupation. He admitted that orders were given that essentially instructed troops to leave no wounded among the enemy, meaning that Filipino fighters were to be killed rather than captured.
Similarly, Richard E. Welch Jr., a professor of history, noted that the American soldier viewed Filipino fighters with contempt. Welch explained that this disdain was rooted not only in their physical appearance—Filipinos were often described as small, dark-skinned, and weak—but also in their refusal to engage in what Americans considered “honorable” combat. The guerilla tactics used by Filipinos, such as ambushes and retreating into villages, were seen as cowardly and proof of their “half-savage” and “half-bandit” nature. To American soldiers, this justified treating Filipinos as less than human, making brutal reprisals seem acceptable.
Press Narratives Characterizing Filipinos as “Inferior” and “Unreliable”
The American press also played a crucial role in spreading racial prejudices against Filipinos. Newspapers frequently referred to Filipinos as “unreliable,” “ignorant,” and “lazy.” The Associated Press correspondent Charles Ballantine painted a particularly negative picture, describing Filipinos as “vicious” and “immoral.” These press narratives reinforced the idea that Filipinos were not only incapable of self-government but also fundamentally untrustworthy as a people.
This racist rhetoric was not limited to descriptions of Filipinos’ behavior but extended to their very character as a race. The San Francisco Argonaut, an influential Republican newspaper, famously stated that the U.S. wanted the Philippines for its resources but did not want its people. Filipinos, it said, were an unfortunate obstacle to America’s imperial goals. In stark terms, the paper advocated for methods of extreme cruelty, suggesting that torture techniques like “the rack” or “boiling insurgents alive” might impress the “Malay mind.”
Such statements, while extreme, reflected the broader sentiment that Filipinos were subhuman and thus deserving of the harsh treatment they received from American forces.
Atrocities Committed by American Forces
As the Philippine-American War intensified, the brutality of the American response reached shocking levels. Guerilla warfare frustrated American forces, leading them to adopt increasingly violent methods to suppress Filipino resistance.
Reports from Soldiers: Leonard F. Adams and the Massacre of Villages
One of the most harrowing accounts of American atrocities comes from Leonard F. Adams, a soldier in the 1st Washington Volunteers. In letters sent home, Adams described the destruction caused by his regiment in stark and chilling terms. He recounted how they marched through villages in Luzon, leaving a trail of death and devastation behind.
Adams wrote about the massacre of over 1,000 Filipinos, many of them civilians, during one such campaign. The soldiers burned homes, slaughtered livestock, and killed indiscriminately, with women and children among the dead. Adams casually mentioned that soldiers from Tennessee, after being tasked with transporting prisoners, instead arrived with chickens and no prisoners, implying that they had executed the captives along the way.
These letters reflect the grim reality of the war, where American soldiers were often encouraged to take extreme measures against anyone they suspected of aiding guerilla fighters. The destruction of entire villages became a common tactic, designed to eliminate any support for the resistance. For many American soldiers, the lines between combatants and civilians blurred, leading to widespread violence and the devastation of Filipino communities.
Justifications from Officers: General Robert Hughes
American officers, including high-ranking officials, openly defended these brutal tactics. General Robert Hughes, one of the U.S. commanders in Manila, provided a chilling justification for the targeting of Filipino civilians. He argued that women and children were part of the family structure and that punishing civilians could serve as a more effective form of punishment than simply targeting men.
Hughes suggested that by harming or killing the families of Filipino guerillas, the American forces could inflict deeper emotional and psychological pain, potentially weakening the resolve of the fighters.
Such statements reflect the calculated cruelty that underpinned American strategy during the war. The belief that terrorizing civilians would force the guerilla forces to surrender led to an escalation of violence, with women and children often caught in the crossfire. Civilians were treated as pawns in the conflict, used to send a message to the guerillas that their defiance would come at a steep cost.
Media Advocacy for Extreme Violence: The San Francisco Argonaut
The American media played a significant role in shaping public opinion about the war, with some outlets openly advocating for extreme violence against Filipinos. One of the most notorious examples comes from the San Francisco Argonaut, an influential Republican newspaper that made no effort to hide its contempt for the Filipino people. The paper expressed a desire for the Philippines’ wealth and resources but dismissed the Filipino population as an obstacle to American imperial ambitions.
The Argonaut shockingly suggested that extreme methods of torture and punishment—such as the rack, thumbscrews, and boiling insurgents alive—would be effective in subduing Filipinos. It argued that such cruelty would “impress the Malay mind” and quickly end the war. Although these suggestions were extreme, they reflected a broader sentiment among certain segments of the American public that saw Filipinos as subhuman and believed that only the harshest measures would break their resistance.
Other media outlets echoed these views, often portraying Filipinos as savage, backward, and incapable of self-rule. This dehumanizing rhetoric provided moral cover for the atrocities being committed by American forces in the Philippines, making it easier for the public to accept the brutal tactics used during the war.
Conclusion
The shift to guerilla warfare in 1899 marked a turning point in the Philippine-American War. Emilio Aguinaldo’s decision to dissolve the regular army allowed Filipino forces to continue resisting American occupation, but it also led to brutal retaliation from U.S. forces. American military tactics became increasingly harsh, fueled by racial prejudice and a desire to quickly end the conflict.
The atrocities committed during the war left a lasting impact on the Philippines, as both soldiers and civilians suffered greatly. Despite the violence, the Filipino fight for independence continued, highlighting their resilience in the face of overwhelming odds.