Talk:Spanish-American War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

	United States Portal This article is supported by the United States WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cuba, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles of Cuba on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.

Featured on Template:April 25 selected anniversaries (may be in HTML comment)

Contents 1 Comments from historian 2 USS Maine 3 the Sampson-Schley controversy 4 embalmed-beef scandal 5 edit "end of the war" 6 Manifest Destiny and The Philippines 7 Hearst 8 Last Surviving Vetran? 9 No mention of Platt Amendment 10 Title page 11 Balance 12 diddling with figures 13 POV on Hearst 14 Dates changed 15 US/Spanish losses were inverted 16 Disease and war 17 Inconsistent 18 Revising the Politically Correct Account 19 Headline text 20 Number of deaths 21 Worldwide view 22 POLITICAL STATEMENT? 23 Academic peer-reviewed criticism of this article 24 Offers to purchase Cuba made by McKinley and other stories 25 Charge at San Juan Hill 26 "Remember the Maine/To HELL with Spain!" 27 America beat Mexico but they never beat Spain 28 The Maine sinks twice 29 Sundry 30 Edit moved from article page 31 Vandalism

[edit] Comments from historian

The below comments are from a Spanish-American war historian, who was shocked at the content of this page (this is why I added the accuracy comment to the article):

The cause of the war had virtually nothing to do with Yellow Journalism,and, really, little to do with the MAINE...it was Mahanian naval theory and the need for coaling bases to support a world-wide navy. The outcome was that the U.S. became a world power....as for it being the first war of American imperialism, someone is completely overlooking the Mexican War. It has McKinley being in favor of the war, when the complete opposite is the case. The comments on the actions in the Philippines and Cuba mistate the situation and the important actions involving Puerto Rico, Guam and Hawai'i are completely missing.

I following the links to some of the related sites, such as the Battle of Manila Bay, and what is written is simply fiction!!

I will follow up with him on whether he has any time to edit. - Aion 17:59 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

Still is kinda forgetful about how America was the only winner on this war.

---

Hey Historian!

I agree that McKinley didn't want to go to war, but you state that the Yellow Journalim and the USS Maine had nothing to do with the start of the war. The Yellow Journalism portrayed the hardships that the Cubans had to encounter, and the hostilities that they faced from the Spanish. Furthermore, this helped people know that US citizens in Cuba that were growing sugar and other crops were being terrorized by the Spanish. Also, I'm sure that you have seen the quote "Remember the Maine!" This quote itself shows the reaction of the people residing in the US. People like Theodore Roosevelt and Henry Cabot Lodge were animated by the destruction of the ship, and even the common citizens were now noticing the Spanish tensions as a big deal.

Thus, the addition/keeping of the USS Maine and Yellow Journalism as causes of the war are fully valid.

Just to let you know, I am also a historian. This is what I have learned from many sources, and even now, while I am typing this text, I am looking at several books on the Spanish American War. Unless you are disagreeing with all these trusted sources (or you have a major typo), I see no reasoning in your comment above.

Yellow Journalism affected two big New York City newspapers but it did NOT affect newspapers elsewhere. NYC split on the war, with most big businesses against it. As for the atrocities, they were already well publicized (by non-yellow ordinary newspapers). Botton line: Yellow Journalism was a very minor factor. (say Ernest May book) Rjensen 05:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Just because it was only in New York doesn't mean it wasn't a cause for the war... Also, don't you think that a good historian would take all factors into account? If it really bothers people, make the article have two paragraphs for causes, one for major ones, and another for the so called "minor" causes...

[edit] USS Maine

yo ***** (I have removed this as it can be considered as profane language in this context...) I really think that the Spanish-American War was very drastic on us, but then it was also very hard on the other countries that were involved in war as well. Since we are the ones that got shot at first, and what I mean by that is our american battleship, the USS Maine in Havana Harbor.

I think part of the point of this is that the U.S.S. Maine's demise is not clearly a result of having been "shot at first". There are many hypotheses as to what happened to that ship and very few facts to back any of them up. Claiming that the U.S.A. was hard done by because "they shot us first" is, as a result, highly disingenuous.

That being said, I question strongly the NPOV stance of this article. It looks very much like a rant against purported U.S. imperialism and not an encyclopaedia entry on a war. I lack sufficient knowledge of the war itself to correct this, however. --Michael 10:25 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Which sentences particularly are you having trouble with? Kingturtle 18:02 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)

The earliest warning sign for me was the "Background" section which babbled on about newspapers as if newspapers fought the war. Inserting references to a purported "Black Legend" without further explanation raised alarms. Chronic use of Random Capitals lends the whole article the slight appearance of a crackpot's street leaflet. ("American Press", "Peace Treaty", "Imperialism", "Empires of Europe", etc.)

Pretty much the whole article starting with "Aftermath" and going onward looks like a thinly-veiled rant against purported U.S. imperialism to me. The first paragraph of it, for example, talks about a war that's not directly related to the Spanish-American war. At best it should be a sentence along the lines of "the Spanish-American War was a triggering event for the Phillipine-American War" (if this is, in fact, the case -- as I said, I don't know enough about the war to write anything about it). To my critical eye, that first paragraph of "Aftermath" is there strictly to show how evil Americans are and how imperialistic they are. (And before the usual accusations start: I'm neither American nor an American apologist.)

Continuing, the next paragraph has an unsupported assertion. "...It is considered the first war of USA Imperialism..." Considered by whom? Which sources provide this consideration? Then the later invocation of "American Empire" (which ironically links to an article referring to it as an "informal term") continues the hatchet job.

Additionally, the old saw "you furnish the pictures, I'll furnish the war" is recited again as "reported". Reported by whom?

If I read this article in a newspaper, I'd assume it was some anti-American, very likely left-wing hack-rag. It's too full of judgemental language, questionable assertions and dubious quotations. I really would like a chance to fix it, but, as stated before, don't know where to begin. --Michael 06:58 9 Jun 2003 (UTC)

The "You furnish the pictures..." quote is very well known. Who first reported it, I don't know, but it's a famous line. I'm sure it can be found in some suitable source. But I do agree, such a quote, well-known as it is, should have an associated with it, and the entire article could be more encyclopedic in nature.

Has anyone noticed thatthe sinking of the Maine is mentioned twice in the same paragraph, but with two conflicting dates that are three months apart, and different names for the ship! Can we please get our fingers out? Secondly, forensic evidence suggests that the explosion on the Maine was actually the result of an on-board fire in one of the coal bunkers. While it is important to point out the public outrage at the apparant treachery of the Spanish, it would beprudent to point out somewhere that the Spanish were probably not to blame. Finally, as long as the article is accurate and justified in its criticism of the US, we shouldn't seek to change the article simply because it paints the reactionary nature of the American public in a realistic light! God knows it's relevant now!

[edit] the Sampson-Schley controversy

Could someone with time, energy and interest add to this article the story of the Sampson-Schley controversy? Here are some good references to help:

• http://www.warscholar.com/Articles/Samps-Schley.html
• http://www.bartleby.com/65/sc/Schley-W.html
• http://www.spanamwar.com/schley.htm
• http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/schley.htm
• http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/papr:@field(NUMBER+@band(sawmp+0794))

Maybe it should be its own article? Dunno.

Thanks in advance! Kingturtle 07:31, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] embalmed-beef scandal

Another important event in the war was the embalmed-beef scandal. I don't have time to write it. If someone wants to take a stab at it, i beg you :) Kingturtle 07:44, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] edit "end of the war"

Can someone edit it again? Thank you.

Why? What's the problem? Wondering, -- Infrogmation 10:12, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Now it's OK. I don't know what happend but before that, I could only see another version.

[edit] Manifest Destiny and The Philippines

Throughout the nineteenth century the concept of Manifest Destiny applies to American expansion throughout the continent. In American continental expansion, the Monroe Doctrine policy toward Latin America, and the Seward attempts at Caribbean and Pacific outposts like the nineteenth century basis of the imperialism of the 1890s. In addition an ideology combining social Darwinism, Christianity, racism, and pseudoscientific theories were sweeping across Europe and America. These nineteenth century factor laid the basis for America?s quest for empire.

The United States took possession of the Philippines Islands as a consequence of the Spanish American War. The Philippines crisis was part of a "psychic crisis of 1890's" The Psychic crisis was caused largely by the great depression that started in 1893 and continues into the early twentieth century. The Depression alone would not cause such a crisis: The Populist movement (the free-silver agitation) campaign of 1890 was a radical movement caused by the depression and caused a "drastic social convulsion" Maturation and bureaucratization of American business, the completion of its essential industrial plant, and the development of trusts on a scale that made it seem like the current era of economic opportunity was ending. The continent was filling up and the frontier line appeared to be gone. To the people of the 1890?s, it seemed resources formerly vacant were exhausted. The situation seemed grim to the rising middle class citizens brought up thinking in terms of 19th century economics Farmers had "gone mad over silver and Bryan". In addition Workers were stirring in bloody struggles including strikes. Furthermore the Supply of new land appeared to be depleted, trusts threatened spirit of business enterprise, civic corruption was high in cities, and masses of immigrants formed slums. New tendencies in public thought fell into two basic moods: 1) Intensification of protest and humanitarian reform 2) Populism, Utopianism, Christian Social gospel, the growing intellectual interest in Socialism, and protest in the realistic novel all express this mood.

McKinley had said the he might be "obliged" to go to war as soon as he entered the presidency, and had expressed a preference that the Cuban crisis be settled between his election and inauguration. McKinley wanted to have a military victory to campaign on. Newspapers sympathized with Cubans and hated Spain. Propaganda aided in changing American public while viewing the Cuban situation?Spain was portrayed as waging heartless and inhuman war, Cubans were depicted as the victims of this war. Sectional and political elements most enthusiastic about war: Bryan sections of the country, in the Democratic party, patrons of yellow journals, those who thought people wanted a costly war in Cuba so we could return to free silver, press said those who did not support it were heartless. There were economic motives made by both sides The war was an outlet for aggressive impulses but also an idealistic and humanitarian crusade American public did not want material gains in Cuba, nor did they think war would go to Philippines--yet war soon had imperialistic motives

The movement for Imperialism was made up of mostly a small group of politicians, intellectuals and publicists. Most of men in imperial movement were well-off financially They were committed to expansion and wanted imperialism for fear of US losing prestige, they believed that strategic places were necessary for the US military and wanted to acquire naval basses in the Caribbean and the Pacific. Some radicals went as far as to call for the annexation of Canada - Interested in far east for trade investments - Roosevelt responsible for the US entering into the Philippines - 1st attempt at Philippines was a defensive action- protected the west coast from Spain - The last step taken in controlling the Philippines was having the US military invade the rest of the Philippines from their stronghold of Manila - Public opinion of the Filipino's attacking the Americans forced Congress to be biased in making a decision to go to war - Business man began to side w/ the expansionist movement - Protestant clergy--seeking potential enlargement of missionaries - Business---Philippines become a possible gateway 2 markets of East Asia - 4 ways to fix Philippine problem

1. Return islands to Spain
2. Selling the Philippines to a foreign power (with the possibility of causing a European war and immoral)
3. America could leave the Philippines, giving independence to Aguinaldo's natives
4. American "colony"

- Could be considered as a naval base - American public is not informed about Philippines - Literary Digest (leading Republican paper) writes about expansion - President McKinley: wanted public sentiment - Peace Commission negotiating treaty in Paris (asked 4 all Philippine Islands) - 2 Phases of Debates of Philippines - 1st-Decemner 1898 - 2nd ?February 1899

   -American policy toward the Philippines becomes matter of general pubic discussion

- Republicans were for expansion - Democrats were against expansion - America is geographically divided - South has a strong liking toward expansion - Decision for expansion is made by Theodore Roosevelt - Americans are divided in making a choice. -Reasons for taking Philippines: -potential markets, White Man's Burden, struggle for existence, racial destiny, traditions of Expansion, dangers of war if left to Europeans, incapacity of Filipinos for self-government. -Duty and Destiny -to reject annexation = would be 2 fail fulfilling an obligation -expansion was inevitable and irresistible -God made whites organizers to establish systems where there was chaos

Americans believed that the theme of destiny was similar to the theme of duty. Destiny always arrived and was believed to be in the "inexorable logic of events? People believed that expansion had long been familiar to Americans Albert Weinberg said that American expansion took on a new meaning in the nineties Previously, when we "willed" expansion, nobody could resist us at all. During the nineties it was evident that Americans could not resist expansion themselves. President McKinley said that Duty determines Destiny. Duty meant that we had a moral obligation and destiny meant that we would certainly fulfill it. It is not surprising that the public was familiar with the concept of inevitable destiny when the United States involved itself with the fate of the Philippines. Senator Lodge wrote to Teddy Roosevelt saying "the whole policy of annexation is growing rapidly under the intensive pressure of events?. It was evident that the idea of destiny was effective even on people that had grave doubts about the United States' occupation in the Philippines. Not only were high moral and metaphysical concepts employed in the imperialistic argument. Our right to hold the Philippines was the right of the conquerors

American imperialism in the 1890s should not be interpreted in terms of rational economic motives. Markets and investments were factors but not the only ones the ideal of the war being a "newspaper's war" has some point but does not explain the war. The press is not powerful enough to impose a view on the public. Newspapers must work with preexisting predispositions. In addition not all newspapers were yellow journals and newspapers themselves could not create public opinion. Newspapers decided they could increase sales by exploiting jingo sentiment but newspapers cannot turn opinion into action. Complex political interests created action Public opinion was affected by the depression, the closing of the frontier, trusts, and social conflict, and the defeat of Bryan. Statesmen and publishers were worried by the growing imperialism of Russia, Germany, and Japan. Expansionists were upper middle-class conservative reformist. Psychologically people tend to respond to frustration with aggression Underdogs were more anxious for war with Spain than the upper class. Conservatives were indifferent to Cuban freedom but interested in Filipino markets Anti-expansionists considered imperialism a betrayal of American ideals, but Anti-imperialists did not have numbers, morale, or unity No effort has been made to compare the war with other parallel expansion crises Parallels can be found in other nation's histories in the role of the press in starting foreign crisis. Historians should study how our behavior compared. The interests groups that pushed for war did not gain all of their goals. Business--gigantic markets of East never materialized, value of Philippines is arguable--absorb only a little over one percent of all US investments abroad. In 1907 even Theodore Roosevelt came to the opinion that the strategic position of the Philippines was negligible.

The above text, posted by User:172.137.61.197 without explanation, was obviously pasted from some other work. (Non-Wiki formatting with special characters give it away.) This may be a copyright violation. — Jeff Q 08:05, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The above text is notes on Hofstader's Manifest Destiny and the Phillipines. However it is not the actual work itself.--207.156.201.242 12:44, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Whose notes? Has that person released this text under the GFDL or to the public domain? — Jeff Q 03:41, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hearst

"William Randolph Hearst emerged as an institution: the world's first true media baron." This is an inaccurate statement on three counts:

1.Hearst's media empire is predated by Lord Northcliffe's by about three years. I will grant that the foundation of Hearst's newspaper holdings began in 1887, but, as this article notes, it was the war that made him.

2. Hearst was not a "media baron" per say, as this term refers to the Fleet Street publishers that were given peerages in the late 19th and early 20th century.

3. His holdings were limited to the USA giving him the title of the "world's" media baron is a little hyperbolic. Additionally it seems to violate the NPOV rule by generalising America's interests as world interests.

May I suggest changing it to:

"William Randolph Hearst emerged as a national institution: the first media tycoon in American history."

Regards, GDB

You've made a good case and I agree. Please be bold and make the change. Cheers, -Willmcw June 30, 2005 21:05 (UTC)

[edit] Last Surviving Vetran?

According to data from the United States Department of Veterans Affairs, the last surviving U.S. veteran of the conflict, Nathan E. Cook, died on September 10, 1992 at the age of 106.

If he was 106 in 1992, that would mean he was only 12 during the Spanish-American War. Obviously there's some mistake here. -- Nik42 05:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

What, when were 12 year olds barred from the military? I know children younger than that served as drummers, officer's aids, and other roles in the US Civil War. -- Infrogmation 16:38, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

-so you personally kow a 12 year old who served in the army...right! The last time that this ocured, blacksmithmanship was the highest grossing career and the best type of farm equitement was a horse.... get a grip.... this would make you over 200 years old!

                                                  - student subjected

You are seeing double. There is only one "that" in "I know children younger than that served as drummers..." had there been two "that"s, then your comment would be apropos. Had there been two, then Infrogmation would have been saying that he personally knows such soldiers. However, the fact that there is only ONE "that" i.e. the fact that the sentence reads as it does, means he KNOWS the fact that twelve-year olds served in the Civil War. Not that he KNOWS the people. Perhaps the "than" before the "that" confused you ... get a grip... or some glasses.... 68.158.121.107 19:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No mention of Platt Amendment

Im surprised, this document is vastly euphemized, no mention of one of the first imperialist moves of the U.S., wich of course is t Platt Amendment.

You're right, the Plat amendment should be metnioned in this article, perhaps right after the "peace treaty" section. Would you like to do the honors? Thanks, -Willmcw 21:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Title page

• Motivations of material gain for U.S. government and financial interests are made clear in many different ways in the volume represented by the following title page, published in 1899.

A picture may say a thousand words, but I don't see that this "title page" from a contemporary history is sufficient to use instead of our own explanatory text. We had previously discussed the U.S. domnation of the Cuban economy and the U.S. Navy's desire for the Philippines. This new edit doesn't seem to cover the background as well. Any thoughts? -Willmcw 20:14, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I did not think I had deleted any of the explanatory text -- I thought it was all excellent. I thought I had just rearranged it to flow nicely with the picture of the title page, which I wanted to add to help persons who have a hard time believing that the U.S. did these things. If I deleted needed text, I apologize. I actually have the whole book for that title page in my possession, and if anyone has some info or scene or situation description they would like me to pull out and post up with nice and thorough citation, I will be happy to do it. Another excellent old reference for this material is the words written on the stonework on Theodore Roosevelt Memorial Island, in D.C.; I just might be able to scrounge enough time to write some of it down and take some digital pics, next year. Jonathan E. Brickman 23:30, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Less was deleted than I'd thought, and I've added back the little bit that I felt was missing. As for the reference to the book, perhaps instead of of the roundabout description, "the volume represented by the following title page", we can simply give its title and significance? For example, "History books from the time, such as the 1899 History and Conquest of the Philippines, make clear the motivations of material gain for U.S. government and financial interests." How would that be? -Willmcw 23:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Sounds excellent. Done! -Jonathan E. Brickman 11:41, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Balance

The article still needs balance, and far better descriptions of the actions and debunking of mythology. Added notes on the action around Fort Canosa, and the role of gatling guns at San Juan, etc. Details of Cuban civilian losses, and tried to balance the raging attacks on Hearst. Done what I can for now will do more later. El Jigüe 1-13-06

[edit] diddling with figures

There are it seems some who diddle with figures e.g. "Still by the end of the war in 1898 despite deaths in childbirth "Widows in postwar Cuba represented 50% percent of the adult female population" and women suffered considerably [3]." was changed to "4%." Amazingly nobody noticed. El Jigüe 1-28-06

[edit] POV on Hearst

All balance was removed when discussing Hearst reporting on the war, while the very POV rant was left alone. El Jigüe 1-28-06

[edit] Dates changed

Apparently in two weeks since I last read this section nobody notice the change from:

"This US intervention put end to the 1895-1898 far bloodier Cuban War of Independence."

to the quite different

"this US intervention put end to the 1565-1788 far bloodier Cuban War of Independence.

and nobody noticed? El Jigüe 1-28-06

[edit] US/Spanish losses were inverted

Some more diddling US/Spanish War (1.500/9,500) combat losses have been inverted. Somebody forgot about the Pilipinos Tagalos see Juan Alonso Zayas I corrected what I could. Is everybody else at sleep at the wheel? El Jigüe 1-28-06

[edit] Disease and war

Non-battle deaths and illness commonly exceed the battle casualties.

An official history http://history.amedd.army.mil/booksdocs/wwi/communicablediseases/chapter9.htm gives some figures on Smallpox before, during and after the S=A war.

Widely copied assertions that America produced an apidemic of Smallpox with massive civilian casualties are part of the anti-vaccinationists propaganda. In this case I think it is revisionist - improbable - and as an oft-repeated assertion deserves attention in this article.

In general, the health of the troops is a reasonable topic for an account of a campaign (possibly I'd be expected to think that, as a doctor and sometime army doctor) and teh effect of war on civilians is also worthy of note. Midgley 02:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Disease was rampant and catastrophic for all parties involved (accounting for over 90% of Spanish Army casualties). In case you're wondering, I originally omitted disease deaths from the warbox because it's very difficult to form a clear picture regarding these, particularly on the Spanish/Cuban side. Spain was essentially engaged in a full-scale war against the nascent Cuban Republic and the armies involved had the highest wastage rates anywhere on Earth–most of Spain's and Cuba's casualties in 1898 had zero to do with the war against the United States.

But the matter definitely deserves attention in the text of article. Albrecht 05:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm pursuing my interest, not criticising anyone else's work here, BTW. I do think society has changed, such that interest in the civilians and outside the battles is now encyclopedic. I'll look forward to soemone who knows it writing it, I can't here. Midgley 14:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

In a lecture at Yale in 1913, William Osler, a very famous physician from Canada mentioned, half way through http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/Books/osler/modern_medicine.htm that the American occupying force eliminated (almost completely) Yellow Fever from Havana "thus saving, since then, more lives than had been lost in the Cuban War". This actually followed on demonstrating the cuasation of Yellow Fever, and from that, the Panama Canal became possible.

---

The Aftermath of the war is important even today, so I added an example of how US war planners still look to the conquest of the Phillipines as a model. --NYCJosh 23:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

1. Its not true, 1 person's opinion is not suddenly the opinion of "US planners" and you and I know that it is a disgusting lie that the events in the Philippines are used as a model for Iraq (i.e., total subjugation and annexation and scorched Earth policies).
2. Its unrelated to the article, if anything it belongs in the Iraq War article.

CJK 23:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

1. I've heard the comparison made by pundits several times, so it isn't just NYCJosh's view.

2. Nonetheless, CJK is right that any such analogy is better placed in a Iraq War article.

3. We should certainly include a short summary of the aftermath, just as we included a short summary of the events leading to the war. -Will Beback 09:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inconsistent

The statement: In Spanish-American War

• ‘The resulting Philippine-American War was long, bloody, and ultimately unsuccessful in squashing the Filipino nationalists' drive for independence,”

Seems inconsistent with the statement:

In Philippine-American War

• “With the surrender of Malvar, the last truly capable general of the Philippine Army, the Filipino fight began to dwindle even further. Command changed hands frequently, as each general one after another, was killed, captured, or surrendered. Although unorganized bands of guerillas roamed the countryside for nearly a decade, with the occasionally clash with American Army or Philippine Constabulary patrols, the Filipinos, for the most part, accepted that the Americans had won, and would live on to become their future allies and finally gain their independence.”

The Pilipino independence movement was crushed in 1902 and the U.S. unilaterally granted The Philippines independence in 1946 (postponed from 1945 due to WWII.) What was “ultimately unsuccessful” about that? It seems like one of the most successful colonial experiment of the late19th and early 20th centuries. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.129.142.199 (talk • contribs) .

Compared to that of Puerto Rico, the independence movement of the Philippines was ultimately successful. But I agree: 42 years, or two generations, is a long time and the "nationalists' drive for independence" was not a major factor during most of that time, having been virtually squashed. Let's see if we can correct that. -Will Beback 03:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revising the Politically Correct Account

How did the "demoralized Spanish troops, (who) often more quickly surrendered than fought," cause over 1000 casualties at Kettle and San Juan hill? The politically correct account of the ground operations ignores the facts where it suits the author.

Even in his highly critical article in the US National Archives Magazine, Prologue, on TR and Cuba, by archivist, Mitchell Yockelson, " 'I Am Entitled to the Medal of Honor and I Want It,' Theodore Roosevelt and His Quest for the Medal of Honor," Prologue, Spring 1998, Vol. 30, no. 1., Yockelson recounted how a force of only five hundred Spaniards held up sixty-six hundred regular army troops. Yockelson wrote, ""The Battle of Santiago began early in the morning of July 1 with Lawton attacking El Caney, but his force of sixty-six hundred men met heavy resistance from the five hundred Spaniards garrisoned at the village. Not until late afternoon did El Caney come under American control." See: http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/1998/spring/roosevelt-and-medal-of-honor-1.html

How did five hundred Spaniards, termed "demoralized Spanish troops, (who) often more quickly surrendered than fought," stave off sixty-hundred American soldiers?

The writer betrayed much ignorance of the war, calling an army Corps a "Corp," and incorrectly stating that Roosevelt was, at the Battle of San Juan a LtCol, when he had assumed command of the regiment when Leonard Wood had been promoted to brigade commander and Roosevelt had been promoted to colonel.

Yes, American casualties were exaggerated. But there is no doubt that the Spanish put up a stiff resistance at Kettle and San Juan Hills. Yes, Roosevelt was a self-promoting personality who even resorted to using former "rough riders" in his run for govenor of New York. Fine, but NO ONE contradicts the accounts of his TR's courage and those of Americans who charged up those hills. The Spaniards did not simply cut and run under gatling gun fire.

The original account ignored the role played by Theodore Roosevelt before and during the war. That writer must think of Roosevelt as a capitalist, war-mongering, jingo, imperialist, - all of which he was. It would not be until the death of his favorite son, Quentin Roosevelt, shot down in France, that Roosevelt would tone down his praise and glorification of war. SimonATL 16:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Spanish armies in Cuba were in pretty bad shape when war broke out with the United States. There seems to be a legitimate current of thought that on the whole, Spanish performance in the field suffered from the demoralization and war fatigue growing in officers and other ranks. Certainly the Cubans had made large and admirable exertions to bring about this state of affairs. But to suggest, as the contributor in question apparently suggested, that this was anything like the norm among Spanish troops is an odious misrepresentation of the facts. Most survey accounts I've read say nothing but good things about Spaniards in the field. According to Nofi, who wrote an excellent account of the war (the only one I can consistently find in Canadian libraries, at any rate), the testimony of the American soldiers themselves seems also to echo this view.

San Juan Hill (and El Caney especially) speaks for itself, and certainly the author of those unfavorable statements wasn't familiar with (or deliberately ignored) episodes like the Siege of Bayer and Escario's March. In any case, the whole matter should be reexamined. Albrecht 17:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

(also: American casualties at the San Juan Heights have never been exaggerated. The opposite is in fact true: The U.S. Army first reported 400 dead or wounded, which led military experts and members of the foreign press to scratch their heads and wonder privately how the Spaniards had ever managed even to conquer Cuba in the first place. In the end of course it turned out the Americans had lost about four times that number.)

this war seems to be very confusing -highschool student this

[edit] Headline text

[edit] Number of deaths

"The war killed at least 1,500 US troops (disease losses were much higher)"

No it didn't! The US lost 5,000 to disease, and 379 in combat. I believe the Spanish losses are wrong too.

Both are dead wrong. The article used to have some semblance of accuracy in this area, but some clowns came along and fudged things up with what looks like borderline Original research (irresponsible research, at any rate). The mistakes of months can't be remedied in an hour, but I'll take immediate measures to correct the worst of it. Albrecht 20:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I've actually done my research, and I have two books on American history here that support my number of US deaths to combat and disease. They certainly did not lose over 1,000 - lets put it that way. Additionally, this article is critically wrong in many areas indeed. It really needs a makeover.Schizmatic 20:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Um, the figure I listed in the Warbox included combat deaths and wounds. As far as I know, it is correct. Albrecht 21:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Alright, but the deaths and wounds should be separated either way. Schizmatic 00:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I agree. Albrecht 00:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

"Dead wrong" eh? Excuse the pun. Bobak 00:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Worldwide view

Is that wiki-talk for an article so water-down and politically correct to be rendered useless? I think this article should be re-written from many perspectives, American, Spanish as well as Cuban. My wife's grandfather, who was born in Cuba in 1902 and not at all from the upper crust of society told me in Spanish in 1992 that Cuba was greatly improved as a result of the US's helping win the country's independence. In the space of a couple of years, Havanna went from dirt streets to paved roads, electricity, sewage treatment and thousands of schools all paid for by the "Norte Americanos/gringos" and ably administered by Theodore Roosevelt's Army doctor friend, General Leonard Wood.

Sure the Americans exploited the country from an economic point of view and did little from the 30s on to prevent the widespread corruption that led to the communist dictatorship of Fidel Castro. But that's another article, isn't it. SimonATL 02:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Rjensen seems to have odd ideas about what constitutes systemic bias and how one fixes it. Let me remind him that the fundamental focus of the article needs a drastic shift for it to represent a worldwide view, and this would necessarily involve huge structural changes, narrative rewrites, and the addition of major new content—so far he's added a few bibliographic sources and called it a day. Not good enough, compadre. I've done a mere smattering of research on the topic (and have never consulted Philippine or Cuban accounts), and yet the article's deficiencies, to list just a few, seem painfully obvious:

1. No adequate summary of the concurrent colonial insurrections in Cuba and the Philippines, which in their scale, destruction, and casualties completely eclipsed the war with the U.S.
2. A massive guerrilla campaign flared and burned across Cuba, but aside from the passing reference, it is described only insofar as the Americans delivered supplies to it. The smallest raid or skirmish involving Americans is given ample mention, while major battles with Cubans and Filipinos are marginalized and ignored.
3. A peripheral American figure like Colonel Roosevelt, important perhaps to the subsequent course of U.S. history but having little impact on the present war, enjoys his own section, while Spanish and Cuban military heroes such as Garcia, Colonel Escario, Admiral Cervera, Vara del Rey, and Major Zayas are given almost no mention.
4. Naval operations are described from a purely American perspective, with no word on the movements of the Spanish squadrons, their strategic options, and their unique problems.
5. U.S. politics, popular sentiment, and military institutions are explored in meticulous detail. Conversely, only token reference is made to Spanish domestic politics and their effect on the conduct of military operations, despite the fact that this has been widely acknowledged as a major factor governing the outcome of the war.
6. The cultural impact of the war in the U.S. is scrupulously explained, as is its effect on foreign policy, yet equally far-ranging and decisive social and political movements on the Spanish side, namely the "Disaster of '98," the artistic "Generation of '98," the consolation colonialism in Morocco, the rapprochement with France, and the slide towards reaction and radicalization, are excluded entirely.[1]
7. Propaganda in the American press has a section, while the follies, excesses, and sensationalism of the Spanish press are barely mentioned.
8. Not a word on international sentiments and involvement—Britain denying the use of its coaling stations to Spain and sealing-off the Suez Canal to prevent the reinforcement of the Philippines; German squadrons facing of against the U.S. Navy, etc.

In effect, the article reads like an awkward collection of disjointed essays on the U.S. history of the period. If Rjensen wishes to impose his will and ignore this reality he can continue to remove these notices. I won't stop him. But he's only fooling himself and misleading others by pretending the article gives every point of view its own voice. It doesn't, and ignoring the problem does nothing to solve it. Albrecht 18:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The article is about a war, it is not about the Philippines (which has its own length article); it is not about Cuba (which has its own lengthy article).

Interesting red herring. Now are you going to address the points I gave above about the necessity of representing Cuban and Filipino points of view pertaining to this conflict?

The "Generation of 98" is very impirtant and has its own article.

If it's so important, then why, pray tell, is it not summarized on this page? Reconstruction, the Rough Riders, Teddy Roosevelt, Hearst and Mark Twain all have their own articles as well as lengthy appearances on this one. Any idea what that's called? Systemic bias.

It is about the US and Spain going to war.

Then it should include the Spanish perspective. And since it was fought substantially in Cuba and the Philippines, with Cubans and Filipinos doing most of the actual fighting, it should include their perspectives as well. It doesn't.

Albrecht seems to have numerous misconceptions which suggests that he has not studied the Spanish or the American side of the war.

I've studied them enough to know they haven't been evenly represented on this article.

He has for example not listed ANY Spanish books and articles for the referemce section.

You're right. My contributions have generally focused on improving content—and, on occasion, dealing with people with their eyes closed to the world.

He has made one contribution a month ago regarding Kettle Hill.

If you're going to attack my contributions, the least you could do is get your figures right. Last time I checked, I'd made 11 edits to this article as well as 20 to Battle of Las Guasimas, 20 to Battle of San Juan Hill, 11 to Joaquín Vara del Rey y Rubio, 10 to Battle of Rio Manimani, 10 to Battle of Cárdenas, 8 to Battle of San Juan, 7 to Puerto Rican Campaign, 6 to Battle of Santiago de Cuba, 5 to Battle of Cienfuegos, and hundreds more to Spanish military history topics.

We await the input of Spanish scholars, who have been notably silent. In part because this was is not a major part of Spanish historiography.

No, we don't just wait for them. We guide them here by letting them know their input is sorely need. Hence, the tag.

Albrecht is invited to add in the missing material about the Spanish figures --he should start by writing their separate biographies. that will take many hours of work-- better get started.

Those many hours certainly won't be available to me if you keep up this nonsense. You haven't yet responded to a single point I listed above about why the article doesn't represent a worldwide view.

Slashing at the article with a nasty label degrades Wiki and solves no problems whatever. Rjensen 09:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing degrading in acknowledging what any right-thinking person can determine at a glance. Trying to deny it, on the other hand, degrades everyone involved. Albrecht 14:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POLITICAL STATEMENT?

“Federal income tax however any and all commerce is controlled and highly taxed before impporting or exporting it effectively raising cost two and three times the cost of products in the U.S.”

I find this statement totally political motivated and incorrect! I don’t think a wholesale tax of 6.6% is going to triple the cost of an item in PR; the shipping to the island is going to raise the price some. As far as I know there are no export taxes to the US.

Quoted from Government Development Bank of Puerto Rico

“There is no sales tax in Puerto Rico; however, there is a 5% jewelry tax. 11% tax on room charges in hotels with casinos, 9% tax on hotels without casinos, and 7% on small inns. All inbound shipments to Puerto Rico are subject to a local excise tax. Merchandise and/or articles arriving from the U.S. that will be sold, consumed, given away, and/or remain in Puerto Rico are subject to a 6.6% Puerto Rico excise tax that is calculated from the commercial invoice value. This is payable upon entry to Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico has it own tax system. Although it is modeled after the U.S. system, there are differences in law and tax rates. The Puerto Rico tax system is based on self-assessment. Taxes are paid to the state. In addition, a premium is paid to the Social Security. Individual taxpayers are required to file an annual income tax return when minimum-income thresholds are met. They report taxable income and deductions, compare their final tax liability to any income tax withheld or estimated tax paid, and determine any balance due or overpayment of tax due from the Treasury. “

Thumb 17:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Academic peer-reviewed criticism of this article

From Rosenzweig's article:"The entry on the Spanish-American War examines in considerable detail whether the Maine was sunk by a mine (a subject in the news as the result of a 1998 National Geographic study) but pays no attention to the important (to professional historians) arguments of Kristin L. Hoganson’s book of the same year that “gender politics” provoked the war".--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Offers to purchase Cuba made by McKinley and other stories

The article states that no formal financial offer was made by the US to the Spanish for Cuba. It is my understanding that an offer of $300 million was made in 1898 immediately prior to the war. That is if one reads Cuba or the Pursuit of Freedom. Also the statement "No major American leader proposed annexing the island" contradicts many accounts of Cuban history. For instance, Arthur Schlesinger writes: Jefferson thought Cuba "the most interesting addition which could ever be made to our system of States" and told John C. Calhoun in 1820 that the United States "ought, at the first possible opportunity, to take Cuba." John Quincy Adams, James Monroe's secretary of state and his successor in the White House, considered the annexation of Cuba "indispensable to the continuance and integrity of the Union itself" and thought Cuba would inevitably fall to the United States by the law of political gravitation. [2] (That's what the Cubans called the ripe apple phenomenon) --Zleitzen 07:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Charge at San Juan Hill

The image that accompanies the main article on the Spanish American war was done by Frederic Remington and is titled "The Charge of the Rough Riders", but it appeared in an article in Scribner's written by Theodore Roosevelt as "Charge of the Rough Riders at San Juan Hill" Roosevelt's actual charge was at Kettle Hill. The original painting may be seen at the Frederic Remington Art Museum in Ogdensburg, NY - Ed LaVarnway Executive Director

[edit] "Remember the Maine/To HELL with Spain!"

Wasn't this the oft-repeated slogan for the war? I think it's one worth including in the article, as it contributed to the popularity of the war. Citizen Premier 04:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Find a reliable source to cite and you can add it yourself. -- Donald Albury 11:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] America beat Mexico but they never beat Spain

Give me one battle the U.S army(not Marine) out casualty the SpanisH? This is indeeed a very contorversial victory

[edit] The Maine sinks twice

I don't know if something has been messed up, but the section called sinking of the Maine goes off on a long deviation, and then we get the Maine sinking and war declared. Was the other stuff before the sinking ? This needs tidying up. -- Beardo 07:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

good point and i fixed it. Rjensen 08:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sundry

Well a lot of U.S citizen owned a lot of property with goods in Cuba( 1/4 of them to be exact) and If a bunch of black guys can humiliate them why not white America, no —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Black Legend Negra (talk • contribs) on 22:33, 27 September 2006.

Arsenio Linares gave Teddy Roosevelt and all the american commanders the worst beating by some bunch of Spaniards —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.161.34.61 (talk • contribs) on 28 September 2006.

[edit] Edit moved from article page

I moved this edit, In 1898 what would be Veterans of Foreign Wars Post #1 in Denver, Colorado was formed by Spanish-American War veteran John S. Stewart., here because I do not feel it belongs in this article. I think a better place can be found for in in another article. -- Donald Albury 03:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

I was about to ask for semi-protection and it stopped. Do you think the vandals don't work weekends ? Or have got bored and gone away ? -- Beardo 13:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The schools are closed on weekends. -- Donald Albury 00:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)