In 1902, the Lodge Committee in the US Senate held hearings on alleged American war crimes during the counterinsurgency in the Philippines. While these hearings did not lead to major prosecutions, they did help convince the American government to wind down the war effort and set a precedent in Congressional oversight.The American Occupation of the PhilippinesA photo of US troops firing from a trench during the fighting on Luzon, 1898. Source: The Filipino Veterans Recognition and Education ProjectFrom 1898 to 1902, American forces were locked in a brutal counterinsurgency against the Philippine revolutionaries led by Emilio Aguinaldo. For years, the Filipinos had fought against Spain and were happy to have American support when the United States offered to kick the Spanish out during the Spanish-American War. However, Aguinaldo and his allies underestimated the American desire to occupy the islands themselves. When talks between both parties broke down, American forces took advantage of a clash on the outskirts of Manila to launch an offensive against Aguinaldos forces. In a series of battles, American forces overwhelmed their smaller, weaker Filipino opponents.As American forces advanced out of Manila, they found themselves fighting in difficult terrain against an enemy supported by much of the civilian population. This became a major issue for American troops and led Washington to deploy more men to help control the ground the American VIII Corps had taken. American commanders quickly learned that the fighting was similar to what many of them had experienced when fighting Native American tribes in the Wild West. As a result, the campaign became less of a conventional military offensive and more of an occupation and a counterinsurgency.At the height of the war in 1900, the United States had just over 74,000 men stationed on the islands, not including naval and marine contingents supporting ground operations. Around 30,000 to 40,000 men were engaged in patrolling the islands to fight the rebels, while the remainder were engaged in garrison and reconstruction duties. Against this force were 80,000 to 100,000 men and women, although the Filipinos were very disorganized after the capture of Aguinaldo and the deaths of many of his subordinates.The Culture in the US MilitaryAmerican troops waterboarding a Filipino, 1902. Source: Time MagazineThe tactics employed by American forces to crush the Filipinos were brutal and enabled by their commanders. At the start of the war, 26 out of 30 American general officers who deployed to the Philippines had experience fighting the indigenous peoples in the American West. They brought with them a mindset that insurgents like the Filipinos were savages that needed to be crushed by brute force. Some American veterans even referred to the Filipinos as Indians. The United States, at the time facing enormous racial tensions and violence at home, saw the conflict largely through a racial prism that infected the mindset of its troops.The US Army often had difficulty identifying who was an insurgent versus a civilian. They began using the practice of the water cure,today known as waterboarding, on random Filipinos suspected of supporting the guerrillas. Additionally, they burned down villages suspected of supplying the guerrillas. These incidents were not random; they were approved by American commanders, who hoped that ruthless force could end the revolt. Because the United States never recognized the independence of the Philippines, the US military did not treat Filipino prisoners as POWs but as detainees that could be abused and mistreated.The scale of the abuse and ill-treatment came to a head with the Samar campaign in 1901-1902. After an ambush on American troops in the village of Balangiga, President Theodore Roosevelt ordered the US to pacify the island. Brigadier General Jacob Smith ordered his subordinates to torch every village they could and said he considered everyone over 10 years old a combatant. After a series of atrocities, the general and Marine Major Littleton Waller were put on trial for misconduct and murder. While Wallers acquittal caused an outcry, there had been an attempt to hold them to account, while other American officers who committed the same atrocities evaded scrutiny.The Anti-Imperialist League and Opposition Within CongressSenator George Frisbie Hoar, a major opponent of the war and one of the senators on the Lodge Committee, 1870s-1880s. Source: Library of CongressIn June 1898, a coalition of American politicians, businessmen, and academics formed the American Anti-Imperialist League. Their purpose was initially to oppose the American annexation of the islands, but soon evolved to demanding a full American withdrawal and recognition of Philippine independence.Among their members were the author Mark Twain, businessman Andrew Carnegie, and former president Grover Cleveland. Their motives for opposing the war differed. In some instances, members opposed the war on moral grounds, claiming that Americas annexation of the islands was against the values of the country. Others, especially southern politicians, feared that the war would lead to an influx of Filipinos to the US and sought to pander to nativist attitudes.When news of the atrocities began to reach American newspapers, the League pounced on the Roosevelt administration. Handing out leaflets and organizing protests, the League convinced a significant number of members of Congress to declare their opposition to the war. Even some supporters of the war and administration officials were concerned about the optics of American war crimes making it to the newspapers. Increasingly, members of the public began demanding accountability for American actions overseas.Leading the charge was Senator George Frisbie Hoar. When news of Smith and Wallers actions began to reach the US, he convinced Republican senator Henry Cabot Lodge to hold hearings through the US Select Committee on the Philippines. Lodge, an ally of President Roosevelt, hoped that these hearings would dispel any notions that the US was committing war crimes on a systemic level. Membership of the committee included seven supporters of the administration and six opponents, and the hearings began in January 1902.The Start of the HearingsA photo of a Filipino village that was burned by American troops. Source: Library of CongressAs soon as the hearings began, it became clear that Senator Lodge was attempting to limit the damage they could do to the administration. Witnesses being called were supposed to be from a safe list provided by Secretary of War Elihu Root. Attempts by some anti-war Democrats to call Filipino leaders like Aguinaldo and Apolinario Mabini as witnesses were shut down by Lodge and his allies. Lodge initially held the hearings behind closed doors. He only allowed representatives from three major press associations to attend, citing inadequate space as a justification.However, these efforts failed. Future president William Howard Taft, then the governor of the Philippines, tried to downplay the atrocities committed by American forces. However, in the course of the questioning, he admitted that the use of torture (especially the water-cure) was widespread. His attempt to claim that the Filipinos were the main actors behind the wars atrocities led to accusations of perjury. Additionally, his admission of the use of torture led to mockery of his other claims that the US presence on the islands benefited the Filipinos.Subsequently, Lodge called General Robert Hughes, David Barrows, a school director on the islands, and General Elwell Otis, who commanded the VIII Corps for a period of time. Hughes admitted that American troops burned down villages and homes as a way of collectively punishing the islands. Otis openly claimed that there was no state of war, something even Lodges allies on the committee found unbelievable. As the hearings continued, it became clear that the administration was losing the narrative.Testimony From US Troops and CommandersGeneral Arthur MacArthur and his staff. He testified before the committee. Source: United States Department of DefenseCommittee members insisted on having some members of the military testify before the committee to discuss American troop conduct. The press began receiving letters from American troops describing what they witnessed in the Philippines. The Anti-Imperialist League published many of them in case they werent exposed in the hearings. A captain from Kansas wrote: Caloocan was supposed to contain 17,000 inhabitants. The Twentieth Kansas swept through it, and now Caloocan contains not one living native. Others exposed the rampant racism that was pervasive among American ranks.Major Cornelius Gardner, who was the provincial governor of Tayabas, the province next to Batangas, submitted a report which Lodge laid before the committee on April 10. The report indicated that American commanders were encouraging their men to burn villages and torture locals for information. He claimed that he was very concerned that these atrocities would only cause more attacks from the locals on American troops. The military actively tried to discredit him and even announced an investigation into his conduct. Even though Lodge agreed to allow his letter to be read in public, he was not allowed to testify in person at the committee.Other American soldiers testified that they witnessed atrocities, including the future actor Richard Garrick, then a soldier stationed in the Philippines. General Arthur MacArthur was brought to testify, where he distanced himself from General Jacob Smiths orders to kill everyone over ten years old on Samar. Other American officers claimed that the use of concentration camps was normal and that conditions in the camps were better than those in the villages around them. As testimony went on, Lodges allies routinely feuded with Hoars allies, engaging in shouting matches over the rules set by Lodge.The Legacy of the HearingsA detachment of American troops around the bodies of Moro insurgents near the village of Bud Dajo, 1906. Source: John R. White Papers, Knight Library, University of OregonOn June 28, 1902, the committee concluded its hearings on atrocities in the Philippines and published a 3,000-page report on what it uncovered. However, because there was no consensus on what the hearings actually proved, it was written to reflect the administrations line, leading it to whitewash much of the testimony that exposed wrongdoing. Excepting those against Smith and Waller, no further criminal charges were filed and the media turned its attention elsewhere.Hoping to turn the page and take advantage of the weakness of the Filipinos, President Roosevelt announced a general amnesty for everyone in the conflict and an end to major military operations. This meant that, while no Filipino would be tried for taking part in the insurrection, no American would be tried for involvement in war crimes committed there. Hostilities did not totally end; Muslim rebels in the southern islands continued fighting the Americans until 1913. American forces committed additional atrocities there, such as the Bud Dajo Massacre. Attention in the US turned elsewhere: the war in Europe, the invasion of Mexico, and growing labor tensions at home. While Congress debated the future status of the Philippines, few Americans thought about what happened there.The hearings did set a precedent. Never before had the US Congress held an extended hearing on alleged atrocities committed by American forces during a war. The brutality of the American crushing of the rebellion meant that many Americans were unwilling to control the islands for a long time and supported efforts by Congress to recognize Philippine independence. Additionally, the taboo of Congress addressing American troop conduct was shattered.In 1971, Senator J. William Fulbright chaired hearings that exposed American troop misconduct towards Vietnamese civilians. These hearings, like the Lodge Committee, did not lead to serious prosecutions, but they helped turn the American public against the war.