Introduction: A War Beyond Official Endings

The Philippine-American War, a significant but often overlooked chapter in the history of American imperialism and Filipino resistance, officially concluded on July 2, 1902, when U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt declared victory. However, this proclamation did not mark the definitive end of hostilities. Filipino resistance persisted, particularly among the Moro populations of Mindanao and the Sulu Archipelago, well into the early 20th century. The conflict, with its myriad campaigns and cultural clashes, reveals much about colonial ambitions, indigenous resistance, and the complexities of nation-building in a diverse archipelago.

The Philippine-American War: Historical Context

The roots of the Philippine-American War lie in the Spanish-American War of 1898, which ended with Spain ceding the Philippines to the United States under the Treaty of Paris. However, Filipinos, having declared independence from Spain earlier that year, saw American control as a new form of colonial subjugation rather than liberation. The war between Filipino revolutionaries and American forces erupted in February 1899, characterized by fierce battles, guerrilla warfare, and widespread devastation.

By 1902, the U.S. military had largely subdued organized Filipino resistance on Luzon and other areas, but pockets of insurgency remained. The surrender of General Miguel Malvar on April 16, 1902, is often cited by Filipinos as the war’s true endpoint. Malvar, one of the last Filipino generals to capitulate, symbolized the persistent spirit of Filipino nationalism. Former Philippine President Gloria Arroyo officially recognized this date in 2002, underscoring its significance in Filipino historical memory.

Roosevelt’s Declaration and Its Implications

President Theodore Roosevelt’s July 2, 1902, declaration of victory was both a political and symbolic act. It signaled the formal conclusion of the war from the American perspective and included a general amnesty for Filipinos who had fought against the United States—except for the Moros, who continued to resist. This selective clemency reflected the ongoing challenges the U.S. faced in pacifying the southern islands, where Muslim populations maintained a distinct identity and vehemently opposed American and Filipino control.

Roosevelt’s announcement also aimed to legitimize American sovereignty over the Philippines and facilitate the transition to colonial administration. Yet, the lingering insurgencies demonstrated that the conflict was far from over, particularly in Mindanao and the Sulu Archipelago.

The Moro Rebellions: A Distinct Theater of Conflict

The Moro Rebellions represent a critical but distinct phase of the broader Philippine-American conflict. The term “Moro” refers to the Muslim inhabitants of Mindanao, Sulu, and adjacent islands who had long resisted Spanish colonization and now opposed American rule. Their resistance was fueled by religious, cultural, and political factors, as they sought to preserve their autonomy and Islamic identity.

### The Mindanao Campaign

In July 1902, shortly after Roosevelt’s declaration, the Moro population in Mindanao erupted in rebellion. Villages were burned, and attacks against American and Filipino forces intensified. The U.S. military responded by dispatching Colonel Frank Baldwin with an infantry company and a mountain artillery battery, totaling around 1,000 troops. Baldwin’s forces engaged the Sultan of Bayan’s troops near Lake Lanao, achieving a decisive victory on May 2, 1902.

This campaign was marked by brutal fighting in difficult terrain and highlighted the challenges of suppressing a determined and culturally distinct population. The Mindanao campaign underscored the limits of American military power and foreshadowed the protracted nature of the Moro resistance.

### The Jolo Campaign

Following the Mindanao operations, the focus shifted to the Sulu Archipelago, particularly the island of Jolo, a stronghold of Moro resistance. The Jolo Campaign involved several American military expeditions between 1905 and 1906, with renewed operations in 1913 aimed at finally subduing the Moro fighters.

One of the most infamous figures in this campaign was Captain John J. Pershing, who led an expedition in 1903 that became the source of sensational stories and myths. Among these was the urban legend that Pershing’s troops used bullets dipped in pig’s blood to desecrate Moro fighters’ bodies, exploiting religious taboos to demoralize the enemy. Although these stories have been debunked, they persisted in American political discourse—even resurfacing in the 21st century during U.S. presidential campaigns—reflecting the lasting cultural imprint of the Moro conflicts.

Cultural and Religious Dimensions of the Moro Resistance

The Moro Rebellions were not merely military confrontations but also clashes between fundamentally different worldviews. The Muslim Moros had maintained a degree of independence under Spanish colonialism and were deeply committed to preserving their Islamic faith and traditional governance structures. American attempts to impose direct control, Christian missionary activities, and land seizures were perceived as existential threats.

This cultural and religious dimension made the Moro resistance particularly intractable. Unlike other Filipino groups who had engaged in nationalist struggles for independence, the Moros framed their fight in terms of defending their faith and way of life. Consequently, American military campaigns often involved harsh measures, including scorched earth tactics, forced relocations, and punitive expeditions.

Legacy of the Philippine-American War and Moro Rebellions

The Philippine-American War and subsequent Moro Rebellions had profound and lasting impacts on both the Philippines and the United States. For the Philippines, the war delayed full independence, which would only be achieved after World War II, but it also solidified a sense of national identity forged through struggle against foreign domination.

The continued Moro resistance highlighted the archipelago’s ethnic and religious diversity and the challenges of integrating disparate groups into a unified nation-state. These tensions persist to this day in the southern Philippines, where autonomy movements and conflicts continue to echo the legacies of early 20th-century struggles.

For the United States, the war marked a significant moment in its emergence as an imperial power. It raised questions about the nation’s role on the world stage, the ethics of colonial rule, and the treatment of colonized peoples. The conflict also exposed the limits of military power in enforcing political control over culturally resistant populations.

Conclusion: Remembering a Complex Struggle

The Philippine-American War and the Moro Rebellions represent a multifaceted conflict that extended well beyond Roosevelt’s 1902 declaration of victory. These struggles were shaped by deep cultural, religious, and political factors that complicated the American colonial project and left enduring legacies in Philippine society.

Understanding this period requires acknowledging the resilience and agency of Filipino and Moro fighters who resisted both Spanish and American domination in pursuit of autonomy and self-determination. Their stories enrich the broader narrative of colonialism and resistance, reminding us that official proclamations of peace often mask ongoing struggles for justice and identity.