How Mindanao, Sulu, and Palawan Were Nearly Lost to the United States
/
(Source: The Independent, republished in the Philippine Free Press Editorial)
Two U.S. government commissions – the Wood-Forbes Mission (1921) and the Thompson Commission (1926) – concluded that the Philippines was not ready for independence, reinforcing American oversight. This political environment spawned tension in Mindanao, where the Moros, a Muslim group, resisted Filipino rule and sought an alternative political status.
In 1926, U.S. Congressman Robert L. Bacon introduced the Bacon Bill to sever MINSUPALA from the Philippines, creating a separate U.S.-controlled territory. This bill sparked debates about American imperialism, Filipino independence, and the future of the Southern Philippines' diverse population.
Background to the Bacon Bill
The Bacon Bill owes its history to the tensions between the U.S. and Filipino nationalists following the Jones Act of 1916, which promised Filipinos more self-rule. Despite this, there was increasing agitation in Mindanao, especially among the Moros, who felt alienated from the predominantly Christian Philippines.
In 1924, Moro leaders sent a petition to Washington, advocating for Mindanao, Sulu, and Palawan to be separated from the Philippines and placed under direct U.S. control. This petition mirrored the findings of the Wood-Forbes Commission, which reported that the Moros were adamant about not integrating into the Philippine state and preferred continued American protection.
The Bacon Bill, introduced in 1926, proposed to separate the Moro provinces from the Philippines and establish a distinct U.S. territory encompassing Mindanao, Sulu, and Palawan, with Zamboanga as its capital. The bill aimed to address the onerous "Moro problem," with Bacon justifying it by claiming that the Moros' loyalty was with the U.S., not the Filipinos, and that they needed protection from Filipino "tyranny."
Robert L. Bacon (Source: Library of Congress: Catalog: https://lccn.loc.gov/2016861985)
Economic and Imperialist Motives
Although Bacon framed the bill as a humanitarian effort to protect the Moros, many believed it was motivated by economic and imperialist interests. Mindanao was rich in natural resources such as rubber, hemp, tobacco, and lumber, all valuable products to the U.S., especially during a rubber shortage caused by British monopoly. Bacon's proposal aligned with U.S. geopolitical and economic interests, as securing control over Mindanao's resources would help maintain American dominance in the region and counter European and Japanese imperial interests.
Thus, the Bacon Bill was a broad strategy to maintain American control over the Philippines, particularly in Mindanao, which had strategic global significance.
Filipino Nationalist Opposition
The Bacon Bill faced strong opposition from Filipino nationalists, who saw it as an attempt to undermine Philippine sovereignty and delay independence. Key figures such as Emilio Aguinaldo, Manuel Quezon, and Sergio Osmena argued that the bill was a pretext to dismember the Philippines and thwart their path to full independence. Filipino lawmakers like Jose P. Melencio contended that the solution to the "Moro problem" was not separation but development, which could integrate Mindanao into the national framework.
Filipino leaders saw the creation of a separate Moro province as a threat to Philippine unity. National identity, symbolized by the three stars on the Philippine flag (representing Luzon, the Visayas, and Mindanao), was at stake. The bill was an affront to the concept of one nation.
Moro Reactions and Divisions
The Moros, however, were not solid in their response to the Bacon Bill. Some Moro leaders, particularly those benefiting from the colonial system, supported the bill, believing that continued U.S. control would ensure their autonomy and protect their interests. They argued that the Philippines was not ready for independence and that remaining under U.S. protection would safeguard their distinct identity.
Other leaders believed that the Moros were not so different from Christian Filipinos and that Mindanao, Sulu, and Palawan should remain part of the Philippine nation. These leaders saw the bill as a step towards further division and conflict, and they pushed for unity with the rest of the Philippines despite differences in religion and culture.
Had the bill passed, the Moros might have gained autonomy under U.S. protection, but the separation could have deepened divisions between the two groups.
Defeat of the Bacon Bill
The Bacon Bill failed to pass in the U.S. Congress, mainly due to the combined opposition from Filipino legislators, American critics, and Moro protests. Filipino lawmakers like Pedro Guevara argued that the differences between the Moros and Filipinos were the result of colonialism, not inherent cultural divides. The bill was eventually shelved after failing to gain enough support in the House of Representatives.
Although the Bacon Bill was defeated, the issues about the future of MINSUPALA and the Moros lingered. The debate continued to shape Philippine politics, with the bill highlighting the complexities of Filipino-Moro relations under American colonial rule.
Lasting Implications
The Bacon Bill marked a pivotal moment in Philippine history, representing the struggle between American imperialism, Filipino nationalism, and Moro self-determination. Its defeat was a victory for Filipino nationalists but also exposed the unresolved issues between Filipinos and Moros. Had the bill passed, the Moros might have gained autonomy under U.S. protection, but the separation could have deepened divisions between the two groups.
The Bacon Bill's failure allowed the Moros to remain part of the Philippines but left lasting challenges regarding the political dynamics in Mindanao and Sulu. The issues of Moro autonomy, Filipino-Moro relations, and the complex legacy of U.S. colonialism continue to influence the region's political landscape today.
Dr. Federico V. Magdalena is an Associate Specialist at the Center for Philippine Studies, University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa. This article is an extract from the paper he presented with Dr. Juvanni Caballero at the Philippine Sociological Conference on October 2-4, 2024 at Caraga State University, Butuan City. he has published feature articles in Hawaiʻi Filipino Chronicle, such as “Empowering Hawaiʻi Filipinos: Quo Vadis?” (with Belinda Aquino) and “Mindanao – Almost the 50th State of USA,” among others.
