payment page
What factors led into the conflict between Spain and the Cuban Nationalists in 1895?
The drive for independence from far-away European domination had cost Spain most of its formerly vast Western Hemisphere holdings much earlier, and the general opposition within Cuba to Spanish control was certainly the driving factor in the actions of the Cuban Nationalist in 1895. However, the insurrectos moved against Spain at that time partly because they thought the US was likely to aid them. The US was investing increasing amounts of money into Cuban sugar production ($50 million by 1895) and conducted a trade with Cuba worth $100 million annually. From the 1860s on, the US had even tried to purchase Cuba from Spain several times. Another cause behind the Cuban revolt in 1895 was the Wilson-Gorman Tariff of 1894, which raised prices on sugar imported from Cuba in order to protect sugar growers in the southern US and hurt the Cuban economy significantly. Hard times in Cuba contributed to public unrest and conflict with the Spanish regime.
What was “yellow journalism” and why did it have such an impact in the 1890s?
While increasingly rare in current times, printed newspapers and magazines were extremely popular throughout US history up, and were the primary source of day-to-day information for most people before radio and then television took hold in the 20th century. Successful newspapers and magazines could also be extremely profitable for their owners. Late in the 19th century, multiple-city newspaper chains owned by moguls such as William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer rose in number and prominence as the competition between local markets increased significantly. Into this caldron, a new kind of journalism was introduced which contrasted sharply with the mostly staid and straightforward reporting practices of prior times.
The whole point of this new “yellow journalism” was to produce exciting, sensational stories, even if the truth had to be stretched or a story had to be made up. While these stories cost its purveyors—including Hearst and Pulitzer—a great deal of respect, they also increased sales, something that could be crucial to some of those who practiced in it during this period. To some degree, “yellow journalism” never really went away, but rather some of its more explicit practices were refined over time as the sensational transformed itself into the routine.
How was “yellow journalism” employed in reporting the news from Cuba?
Regarding the situation in Cuba in the mid-1890s, yellow journalism sought to exploit the Spanish repression in Cuba to sell more magazines and newspapers. Spanish behavior was always represented as exaggeratedly bad, and political cartoons depicted “Spain” as a nearly subhuman and brutal monster, while “Cuba” was usually depicted as a pretty white girl being pushed around by the Spanish monster. As soon as hostilities erupted, the yellow presses knew they had a story. Once US opinions were inflamed over Cuba, William Randolph Hearst in particular stopped at nothing to whip the public into a frenzy increase the likelihood that a war would break out. Hearst knew that war would provide his papers with no end of sensational articles to publish and that his sales and profit would increase accordingly.
Why did the USS Maine explode?
The short answer is that no one knows for sure, as the explosion of the Maine remains a topic for debate. When the explosion happened, Americans claimed a Spanish mine had blown it up, while the Spanish investigation team said it blew up because of internal mechanical problems. At the time, Americans largely accepted the mine hypothesis, which made war almost inevitable. However, a 1970s study by the US Navy provided support for the original Spanish explanation by suggesting that an internal boiler room problem may have caused ammunition and weapons magazines to explode. Later studies, by the Smithsonian and National Geographic, suggested other possibilities. The real reason for the explosion of the Maine will likely never be known for sure.
Why did Congress pass the Teller Amendment?
To suppress any plans the McKinley administration might have had to annex Cuba outright as well as to bolster the righteousness of the US cause in the war against Spain, Congress passed the Teller Amendment in April 1898. In it, the US promised not to annex Cuba, but to liberate it as an independent state once hostilities had ended. Thus, the US claimed to be fighting the war not for selfish gain, but to liberate an oppressed people and promote justice in the world. As events would show, US behavior in the war did not remain so totally pure and idealistic.
What was the long-term strategy goal of the US attack on the Spanish fleet in the Philippines?
Admiral Dewey’s May 1, 1898, assault on Spanish naval operations at Manilla Bay in the Philippines, which was urged by Theodore Roosevelt and backed by President McKinley, followed the ideas of influential naval historian and strategist Alfred Thayer Mahan. In order to protect US trade and influence throughout the world, Mahan advocated a series of island coaling stations throughout the world. (Since US ships ran on coal at the time, they needed places to stop and refuel) In taking the Philippines from the Spanish, the US gained a coaling station to better enable the US Navy to patrol in the Far East, keeping Asian markets open to US traders and merchants.
In what ways was the US imperialist annexing of four colonies in 1898 an aberration?
Up to and including the April 1898 adoption of the Teller Amendment, the US has generally claimed to be against colonies, and an advocate of freedom, democracy, and self-government for all. However, later in the same year in the swell of excitement over the successes of Spanish-American War, the US uncharacteristically grabbed four colonies—Puerto Rico in the Caribbean and Hawaii, Guam, and the Philippines in the Pacific. Some historians believe that this imperialist spree was a “Great Aberration,” a mistake that the US would never repeat, and one that goes against everything the US stands for.
In what ways was the US annexing of colonies in 1898 a harbinger of the future?
Some observers think that even though the US refrained from overtly grabbing colonies after the backlash against the imperialist spree of 1898, the US has continued to have a type of “informal colonial” influence around the world in the years since. They believe that with this type of influence—which is also called “neo-imperialism”—the US has promoted its influence in other countries as a way to open markets for its manufactures and sources of raw materials, in the same economic relationship that European powers traditionally had with their colonies. The US holds the upper hand in this relationship since the “partner” nations tend to become economically dependent on the US under such a set up. To holders of this view, the colony grabbing of 1898 was only the most overt episode of American imperialism before it discovered more subtle methods of economic domination.
What statistic about the US casualties in the Spanish-American War stands out the most?
The most glaring fact about US deaths in the war is that disease took a much greater toll than combat. Although the US defeated the Spanish army handily, disease had a far deadlier impact on the US forces. Malaria, typhoid, dysentery, and yellow fever plagued US troops, who were fighting in the tropics for the first time in US history. In all, while Spanish forces killed about 400 American soldiers, around 5,000 US soldiers died from disease. One silver lining to this horrific situation is that as a result of the Spanish-American War, Walter Reed, a pathologist working for the US Army, picked up on groundbreaking work done by Cuban epidemiologist Carlos Finlay into the causes of the yellow fever virus that would lead to much improved treatment, which has saved a huge number of lives since then.
What factors led to the US annexation of the Philippines under the Treaty of Paris?
As described above, adherents of Alfred Thayer Mahan’s theories saw the Philippines as a suitable solution to the US need for a coaling station and naval base to protect American trade interests and maintain stability throughout Asian waters. Other factors included widespread prejudiced views on religion and race among the American public and the support of US big business interests. With both big business and large portions of the American public behind annexation, McKinley pushed for the acquisition of the Philippines.
What role did religion play in the US annexation of the Philippines?
Some supporters of the US annexation of the Philippines after the Spanish-American War cited the need to “Christianize” the Filipinos, which seems to make little sense, since the Filipinos were almost entirely Catholic, and had been for centuries. Partially, this rationale for annexation and imperialism was cynically based on the ignorance and religious prejudices of many Americans, who just assumed that the Filipinos were all "heathens." While plenty of Americans knew that the Filipinos were Catholics, Americans of some Protestant denominations considered Catholicism only barely removed from heathenism.
What role did racial prejudice play in the US annexation of the Philippines?
Arguments made for the annexation of Philippines represent some of the most racist and paternalistic strains in American thought. The decision to annex was justified by some in terms of an American adoption of the British idea of a “white man's burden,” which required that “racially superior” nations such as the United States had a duty to share their wisdom and government with their (using a popular expression at the time) “little brown and yellow brothers” all over the world.
What role did big business play in the US annexation of the Philippines?
Big business interests had provided massive financial backing for McKinley’s presidential run in the 1896, so he and the Republican Party were particularly attentive to their views. Even though some Wall Street and business insiders like Mark Hanna had originally opposed the Spanish-American War, they were united in supporting the annexation of the Philippines. The Philippines, they pointed out, had a population of 7 million people, which was a sizeable new market for American manufactured goods.
Where did William Jennings Bryan and the Democrats stand on imperialism?
Democrats were largely opposed to the imperialistic annexations in the aftermath of the Spanish-American War. Indeed, in 1900 they once again nominated William Jennings Bryan to oppose McKinley, and this time Bryan ran on an anti-imperialist platform. In 1899, however, Bryan had made the political calculation to not stand in the way of the US Senate’s approval of the Treaty of Paris, since he believed the nation would see the Republicans as responsible for annexation, which he expected to become more unpopular after passage. (Bryan also suggested that the sooner the US annexed the Philippines, Guam, and Puerto Rico, the sooner the US could prepare them for independence.) Unfortunately for Bryan and the Democrats, not enough voters were upset about imperialism by 1900 to aid his cause, and he still lost to McKinley.
How did the Filipino people react to US annexation?
During the Spanish-American War, the Filipinos had fought with the Americans against the Spanish, thinking that the Americans were there to liberate them, just as the Americans were liberating Cuba. When they learned that the Americans were not going home, they felt betrayed. On Jan 23, 1899, the Filipinos proclaimed an independent republic and elected long-time nationalist Emilio Aguinaldo president. The US did not recognize these actions, and instead sent in reinforcements to put down this “rogue” government in a conflict that has been given many names but is most generally referred to as the Philippine-American War. The war against Aguinaldo’s guerilla fighters was much more difficult and deadly for the US than the relatively easy war against Spain. Fighting against the Filipino nationalists, who were using guerilla warfare, lasted for about three years, ending in 1902.
However, another revolt against US occupation, which was dubbed the Moro Rebellion, would drag on for another 11 years, not ending until 1913. The US control over the Philippines would continue although it would gradually loosen, with the US Congress approving the Philippines Independence Act in 1934 that lead to the creation of the Commonwealth of the Philippines in 1935. Full independence was delayed by World War II and by the Japanese occupation of the Philippines from 1941 to 1944. In 1946 the Treaty of Manila finally granted full independence to the Philippines.
