Talk:Spanish–American War/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

For recordkeeping (IP comment on deleted subpage)

This comment has been moved per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Spanish–American War/Comments. bibliomaniac15 21:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

This article needs to be protected from vandals. Apparently, people have noticed the problem, but haven't done anything about it. 75.31.119.217 (talk) 03:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Clarification

There needs to be some clarification for what actually happened in Cuba during the war. All it talks about is the formation of the rough riders, nothing about the combat. Jedibob5 02:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Declaration of War By Spain

This entry has to put it mildly many faults, but the most serious one is that it misstates the beginning date of the war and the party that declared war. This is likely a result of the pervasive U.S. History POV of this article and the strength of revisionism in U.S. Historical circles.

The war began on April 23, 1898 not April. 25. On that date the Queen Regent of Spain issued a decree reading in part "By agreement of my Cabinet, in the name of my royal son, the King Alfonso XIII, as Regent Queen of the Kingdom, I decree : 1st: War status existing between Spain and United States compels us to cancel the Treaty of Peace and Friendship of October 27, 1795, the Protocol of January 12, 1877 and all agreements, pacts and conventions that, until today, exist between both countries.” Link to the full text here [1]

That is the Spanish declaration of war. The next day the ambassador of the United States was summoned told that a state of war existed and was expelled, in accordance with the law and usages of nations. When the Congress of the United States declared war on the 25th, it was simply picking up the gauntlet that had been thrown at their feet by the Spanish Government.

All this talk of yellow journalism is just typical revisionist pap. What William Randolph Hurts had was a lack of respect for tyrants and a big mouth. Tyrants don’t like people like that. While his paper certainly was pro-war and stirred up feelings against Spain, this was only possible because Spain was oppressing the Cubans.

Since I am not a usual wikipedia contributor, I will not revise the article itself until it becomes clear that this is the only way to rectify this very serious error.

Steph swhoughton@fcsl.edu--71.203.170.12 00:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

that mistake is also made as well with the Japanese declaring war on the US about a few minutes before peral harbor.

SPAIN WAS NOT COMPLETED IN 1902

Will one of you veterans please fix that clunky first paragraph ending? Cheers 71.251.20.204 02:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

(I think what he/she was trying to say is that Cuba did not become fully independent until 1902, which is debatable, but at least semi-intelligent)

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)

While there is perhaps some truth in the claim that American entry into the SAW was, at least in part, due to the desire to expand American naval power through acquisition of new coaling stations in the Far East, it's hard to take this "Spanish-American war (sic) historian" too seriously without knowing who exactly this individual is (their academic credentials, nationality, etc.). Looking at the linked Battle of Manila Bay page, it doesn't look like "simply ficton" but a rather straight forward reporting of events - now if you had commented that the Battle of Santiago de Cuba Wikipedia article as being non-NPOV in the extreme, I'd have to agree. jmdeur 19:30 23 April 2008 (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...

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 Philippine-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!

Hello! Well I was just using this page to help me with some of my homework, and I would like to point out that my history text book say that William R. Hearst is alleged to have said the above quote. "Where atrocity stories did not exsist, they were invented. Hearst sent the gifted artist Frederic Remington to Cuba to draw sketches, and when the latter reported that conditions were not bad enough to warrant hostilities, Hearst is alleged to have replied, 'You furnish the pictures and I'll furnish the war.'" American Pageant (c) 2002 by Houghton Mifflin Company

While I suspect this is all rather bad history, it's hard to tell in part because much of it doesn't make sense as English - there are pronouns referring to G** knows who, poor grammar in general, etc. jmdeur 19:35 23 April 2008 (UTC)

---

About the "You furnish the pictures..." telegram Hearst sent to his illustrator Remington:

According to The Chief, David Nasaw's bio of Hearst, the "You furnish the pictures ..." telegram was sent months before the sinking of the Maine. When Hearst said he would "furnish" the war, he was referring to the war between the Cuban insurgents and Spanish soldiers that had been taking place - not the Spanish-American War, which would start 15 months later. This telegram is usually misinterpreted, as it is here. The article should say that the telegram referred to the rebellion - not the Spanish-American War - and that it was sent before the sinking of the Maine and the resulting groundswell, not after, as the article has it. --- Infectedmop —Preceding unsigned comment added by Infectedmop (talk • contribs) 04:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

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 "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.

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 Philippines. 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)

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)

209.253.33.226 15:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

I have a newspaper article on Nathan Cook at the time of his passing in 1992. His birthdate is correct. He did not serve in the Spanish American War of 1898. He joined the navy at 15 and was posted to the Philippines before the insurrection there came to an end. Veterans of the armed forces who served between 1898 and the end of the Philippine Insurrection in 1902 (or thereabouts) were welcomed into the Spanish War Veterans Association and were recognized by the government as being veterans of the Spanish American War. Lest we find ourselves critical of Nathan Cook's veteran status, he stayed in the Navy for 40 years serving in both World Wars. 209.253.33.226 15:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)gmyersut

-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)

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)

Title page

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)

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 Philippines 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)

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 Filipino 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)

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

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)

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.[2]
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)

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)

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)

The Maine was proven to have been destroyed by a boiler explosion that set fire to the magazine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.150.202.187 (talk) 02:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

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. [3] (That's what the Cubans called the ripe apple phenomenon) --Zleitzen 07:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

"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)

Ok I found multiple sources about the incident, this slogan merit to have a litle place in the article, the problem is right know that I don't know how to place an allusion about that slogan. Any idea ? [4] [5] -- Esurnir 02:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Good grief, get over your Hubris. War isn't a beauty contest. Either you win or you lose. Spain lost. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.150.202.187 (talk) 02:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Not really, the Spanish had no way to resupply their army, having had their fleets destroyed. Casulaties aren't the way battles are said to be won or lost, its the gain or loss of ground or the achieving of some other objective. Gelston 08:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

how about this: the objecrive is winning, no matter what the "casualties" or "resupply" of the opposing force. war is NOT a fair thing. you either win or you loose. and if your so specific on how to define "winning", look at the civil war and the disadvantage of manpower the south had. the north could replace their losses, the south could not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.12.143.140 (talk) 21:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

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 —Preceding unsigned comment 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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.161.34.61 (talk • contribs) on 28 September 2006

Thanks to the help of German Maxim machine guns. Besides Teddy Roosevelt had no experience whatsoever in military command, and the American army at the time was absolutely pathetic. Spain still lost, though, didn't they? How embarrassing for you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.150.202.187 (talk) 02:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

Indeed - the chaos was worse today, so I asked for semi-protection.

Several reverts left prior vandalism intact. The infobox remained messed up through a long chain. (Amid my reversion, I revert one genuine edit - a rearrangement of the photos. I think I preferred the earlier version anyway). -- Beardo 05:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Would spain be innocent?

If thare were not a rebelon in cuba spain would probobly be innocent because the united states would have no reason to send the u.s.s. maine thare if thay sent it with out a rebbelon the spanish amarican war would start from the amaricans and would change the chance of victory over spain. tridentdc24

Well, you also have to consider that Spain had no more reason to be in Cuba or the Philippines than Britain had to be in India. This was a war between colonial powers, and neither the US or Spain can be considered to be wearing the white hat here. Still, if you're going to be a subject of another country, the US is a heck of a lot better than the Spanish Empire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.150.202.187 (talk) 02:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

What's up with the recent vandalism to War articles?

Why are WWII, WWI, American Civil War, and about every war related article semiprotected.TNTfan101

Equally many Cuba related articles seem targets for vandalism. -- Beardo 04:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

U.S.A is a controversial super power

Spain is the lesser of two evils. America did not ask permission to put their own battleship in their colony which is illegal in the monroe doctrine that led to invade the colony anyway. The Spnaish did a good job like the early part of the 80 year war creating more casualties and dictating the fight as real commanders. If the Governemnt in Barcelona did not interfere, the Spanish soldeirs in Havana could have make the biggest counter attack in military history and further prove America never really have a strong infantry but the black infantry —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.161.32.90 (talk) 04:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC).

Are you for real? At the time, Spain HAD better trained and equipped infantry than the US. Yet, for all our obvious mongrel American inferiority we still won didn't we? Just as our infantry and marines beat obviously superior German and Japanese troops (and beat superior British and Hessian infantry in the Revolutionary War). I don't know if you realize this, but most American ARE Europeans, so calling white Americans inferior is no different than calling all Europeans inferior. Get off you European Uberman delusion--or at least take it to YouTube where you can show everybody just how ignorant you. Don't worry, I'm sure Spain will rise again and show everyone just how superior the Spanish soldier really is.

You're a fool. Spain was fighting a near genocidal battle against Cuban rebels (as they did in most of their colonial history). Spain being the lesser of two evils? The only reason Latin America is so poor and unstable compared to the US and Canada is precisely because it was colonized by wonderful, authoritarian Spain or Portugal, countries with no conception of a liberal economic or political tradition. Cuba had a much better chance with the US than with Spain. When the US failed with Cuba it was because the leaders let economic interests (and white racism) overcome American ideals. With Spain, they never had any democratic ideals to be guided with in the first place.99.150.202.187 (talk) 02:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, yes! America is evil! It's the source of all problems in the world and if it wasn't for those meddling kids, Spain would have kicked those honkies asses back to where they came from. Lawyer2b 21:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The earlier editor has a point. There is much we can learn from the involvement of moneyed tycoons, propaganda in the newpapers, and the Monroe doctrine in the Spanish American War that applies to today's political situation and Iraq. This was a war of American aggression, carefully manipulated. And we Americans came out of it "like bandits", gaining lots of territory and economic opportunities, which ultimately led to super-power status. User:GWhitewood (editing without being signed in).

The only territory that we got out of it for the long-term was Guam.

Good thing we did, for if it wasn't for the US being as powerful as it became the entire world would be either the bitch of fascist Germany, Italy, and Japan or a part of a great Soviet Utopia.99.150.202.187 (talk) 02:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Many countries have done this. It's nothing new. America did what many European, Asian, and Arabic civilizations already did at one point or another. --68.207.156.253 (talk) 18:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)Reggie

Indeed, and what the US did here was almost nothing compared to what the Europeans did with their Imperialism.

Vandalism on site

I'm curious to know why this site isn't protected due to the amount of vandalism that is so frequently attacked. --Signaleer 16:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Spanish declaration of war?

In the article it is stated that the Spanihs declared war on the Americans. However, according to this site (scroll down to 21 April, 1898), as well as every book I've ever read, the Spanish considered the US ultimatum a declaration of war and thus were in a state of war. This could be clarified. C0N6R355 19:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm studying it right now for a future examn, and my book says it clear: Spain was creating a new government in Cuba when suddenly the US came to put the ultimatum. 23 April 2007. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.183.248.99 (talk) 20:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

Add it back with appropriate citations; I removed the edits which included the questionable assertion about "the US making up the whole war." Dppowell 04:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Misquotes and vandalism

Roosevelt did not call this a splendid little war--John Hay did. Nor did Roosevelt say he "shot Cubans like rabbits." He did describe one Spaniard (NOT Cuban) he shot as falling "neatly as a jackrabbit." In any case, this entry needs serious editing as well as protection. Vandalism is rampant. Lauri H 20:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The fate of the Cristobal Colon?

In the naval operations section, the Cristobal Colon is said to have survived the Battle of Santiago on July 3, 1898. However, the caption for the picture directly to the right says that the Cristobal Colon was destroyed in this same battle. Which was it? Cerisehumesmith 05:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Food poisoning

The article lacks info on the rampant food poisoning that was caused by Armour and Company's beef. I've added info on that to A&C's article along with a source, so we could add that to this article as well. -- LGagnon 21:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Fitzhugh Lee

Fitzhugh Lee is portrayed here as the son of Robert E. Lee. This is not the case. Fitzhugh was Robert E. Lee's nephew. Dark Lord Skippy 22:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Fix Please

This sentence seems very jumbled, can anybody make it more concise?

It featured re-enactors of the regular forces and volunteer forces white, both USA white as well as African-American as well as Spanish units that fought in Cuba —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.26.110.216 (talk) 22:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

unclear sentence

The first, long, paragraph on "background" contains the clause "the United States wasted no time sending a tepid response". I have no idea what this means. Did they send a response or didn't they? If it was tepid, why the urgency? If it is meant to be a joke, I don't see it. Maproom 20:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

My gast is flabbered!

This article cites http://americanhistory.si.edu/militaryhistory/printable/section.asp?id=7. I'm not a historian, and I'm reluctant to stand up and cast doubt on pronouncements made on the Smithstonian national museum of American History website. Still, looking at that page.....

• "America went to war against Spain to free Cuba from Spanish domination. But the war provided the United States an opportunity to seize overseas possessions and begin building an American empire. After ousting Spain from Cuba, the United States seized Puerto Rico. And subsequently it annexed the Philippines, Samoa, Guam, and Wake Island, followed by Hawaii." Leaving the first part of that out (though it deserves discussion), my understanding is that the U.S. acquired PR, Cuba, and the Philippines together via the 1898 Treaty of Paris. The SI seems to have screwed up (at a minimum) the timeline here.
• "The Maine had come to Cuba to protect American citizens while Cuban revolutionaries were fighting to win independence from Spain. The United States supported their cause, and after the Maine exploded, demanded that Spain give Cuba freedom. Instead, Spain declared war, and America quickly followed suit, moving Commodore George Dewey into position in the Philippines and Commodore Winfield Scott Schley into Santiago Bay." I was under the impression that the American Declaration of War preceded the Spanish one.

Anyhow, my gast has been flabbered. -- Boracay Bill 01:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

That's an opportunity to find/provide better references to establish the points you're bringing up. (The cite was an improvement over the previous text ;-) Tedickey 10:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Tedickey

I think your not being very reasonable with rv's. About Rickover, i only added his name, at a info that was already there, about an investigation conducted in 1976. But anyway, the source tells the same that said that already existing info, only specifying who was the responsible of 1976 investigation and what reactions did that create on Spain and Usa. That's what i added. Thats what exactly source says, that Rickover made a informative document with that investigation, and that his conclusion was that the coal chamber exploded. Source says no more. It dont especify exactly what Rickover said word-by-word, (wich is no needed, and nosense to ask for it) only the results of his study; there are references to studies and opinions wich refute or go against his (wih keeps it neutral), and there is no word-by-word citation in them, and no need of it.Another editor most have knonw it, cause it was there before with no source; i engaded the reference and his name, and the spanish-usa reactions to his investigation, and you put on a cn, isn't it no sense?. Cn has no justification as long text says exactly what source says, with no addings. Same with the opinion climax about the theory that would point Usa made it. The text never says Usa made it, and neither it could. Only says the opinion existed: In Spain and his media, Cuba, German press, even some English press, and that whats the source talks about. And that what the text in article talks about. Thats history, and a famous, well-known part of it. The source provided, is not an opinion. Its an cultural/historic article, documenting that opinion/theory simply existed, thats the history, and thats whats on the books. Please lets work togheter, being reasonable.--Barfly2001 (talk) 18:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm being perfectly reasonable - having previously read many of the sources, I see that the opinion-page that you're citing as a "reliable source" has selectively used and omitted facts. Best to use it as a clue to finding direct quotes from the actual sources rather than convey the opinions which its author has embedded in the article. Tedickey (talk) 18:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Then tell me, at your judgement wich is the "opinion page". Are you mentioning "El Mundo" source as an opinion page?. Then, wich of the expressions, paragraphs, facts, do you consider "opinions". To be more concrete, why the cn on Rickover's investigation, cuoted on "El Mundo" article (wich is not opinion, is a cultural-historical article wroten by experts). Here you find one, [6], a university professor, who has wrotten various historic works. So, what do you ask for?. Then, about the Spanish-cuban opinion about Usa goverment exploding maine. That is cuoted on both sources. I must admit i consider "El Mundo" source more reliable than the other (wich is not inexact, and at the same time, one supports another, cause they talk about some details that are the same), but why that cn, when is already documented in "El Mundo" source?. And, what i dont understand, what opinions do the author embed on the article, when it just references and talks about external opinions (not his own), about a particular theory or opinion (Usa authory) (i say opinion cause it was a more popular and media opinion than a scientific studied one). Tell me, how can i embed my opinion in a text when i am saying "at that time, spanish opinions thought that witches existed". I am not including my particular opinion about existance of witches, i just refer to another. I added that part cause that opinion climax is a very commented and treated fact, and i think its important to mention it. There is no relation on personal reasons or the fact that i'm spanish, cause i personally think its a crazy conspiracy theory. But it had relevance. About the source, i think youre being too picky, if i provide an article written by an expert and published on the most selling spanish diary (El Mundo), and its not reliable to document that simple points, i dont really now what you want. I must say either your critic or explanations are too generic, and i seriously dont know what you mean, cant find the sense. --Barfly2001 (talk) 18:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

What i must say either is that the user is confusing terms. He is saying the new facts are opinions. They aren't. The fact is: "there were opinions at that time, in the sense Usa caused the explosion in order to enter the war". That is the fact. I'm taking it from a newspaper (the most selling in spain) article written by experts (Wikipedia:Assessing reliability: "Reliable sources include most newspaper and magazine articles"); it says all there. All the facts marked with "cn's", are documented on this article, that talks about the results of Rickover investigation, the reactions of spanish government and the Naval history center, and the opinions of the conspiracy theory wich pointed Usa. I dont have exactly what rickover says, i dont have exactly what the spansh government said; that may be highly difficult to find, i have what history experts said about that, and that's enough, and even its better, 'cause Wikipedia is not original research, so is supported by the studies of scientific or experts community. Anyway, there's no controversial fact said here. Its widely in the public dominion that opinion climax existed. To name a fact about opinions wich were relevant in a certain historic moment, is a very different thing that to name a particular opinion. So, taking a look at english wikipedia policys, i dont see justified to say the source is not reliable or that include opinions (It Does Not!). That may be your particular opinion, wich i strongly disagree with, supporting that disagreement on solid arguments.--Barfly2001 (talk) 10:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The political aspects of the Spanish side should be better developed

Though the saying goes that "history is written by the victors", I feel that --while this article explores the US background and approach to the war-- the important Spanish side (it took two to tango) isn't sufficiently addressed... I expect that works exist on that aspect. I suggest adding it, lest this article read like a US high school text book. --216.9.250.104 (talk) 03:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Cuba Libre

...the longest lasting and best tasting consequence of this war is not mentioned! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.177.92.204 (talk) 21:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

2nd para of lede

I've tagged this para {{dubious}} and placed a {{failed verification}} tag after the citation of this source in support of assertions therein.

• Regarding this paragraph's assertion that "The war began after the American demand for Spain's peacefully resolving the Cuban fight for independence was rejected", that sequencing is true enough, perhaps implying Post hoc ergo propter hoc. However, the cited supporting source clearly points out, "On February 15, 1898, a mysterious explosion sank the battleship USS Maine in Havana Harbor, triggering a war between the United States and Spain." (emphasis added)
• Regarding the assertion: "strong expansionist sentiment in the United States motivated the government to target Spain's remaining overseas territories: Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Philippines, Guam and the Caroline Islands.", I don't find support in the cited source for the assertion that there was strong expansionist sentiment in the U.S., though support for that is easy to find elsewhere—as is support that anti-expansionist sentiment also existed.
• Also, I don't find support for the assertion that expansionist sentiment was the motivating factor behind the U.S. seizure of Spain's overseas possessions. Contrary to the point made by this paragraph re expansionist sentiment, the passage of the Teller Amendment by votes of 42 to 35 (54%) in the Senate and 311 to 6 (98%) in the House is a strong indicator of the existence of anti-expansionist sentiment in the U.S., and of the influence which this sentiment had on the U.S. government specifically as regards Cuba. The Teller amendment disclaims any U.S. disposition or intention to exercise sovereignty, jurisdiction, or control over Cuba except for the pacification thereof, and asserts U.S. determination, when that is accomplished, to leave the government and control of the Island to its people.

I'm no expert in this area, but my (mis?)understanding is that expansionist vs. and anti-expansionist debate mostly took place following the conclusion of the war and the U.S. acquisition of Spanish territories (Cuba as a protectorate, others under U.S. sovereignty) via the Treaty of Paris (1898). It looks to me like this second paragraph needs rewriting. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 03:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. (I may have added the SI-link as an example, whose original context may not be preserved). But agreeing that NPOV is not achieved in the discussion Tedickey (talk) 10:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the link works for me, e.g.,

America went to war against Spain to free Cuba from Spanish domination. But the war provided the United States an opportunity to seize overseas possessions and begin building an American empire. After ousting Spain from Cuba, the United States seized Puerto Rico. And subsequently it annexed the Philippines, Samoa, Guam, and Wake Island, followed by Hawaii.

Tedickey (talk) 10:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Any Point in Style Edits?

Thanks, Tedickey, you were right about the sstylistic problem of too many "such"es. But this article desperately needs editing to avoid overgeneralizations and ideological POV, among other problems. At best I can provide a stylistic overhaul, but my familiarity with the subject is no deeper that a high school term paper. Is there any point in editing for style and clarity when the content of the entire article needs such a drastic overhaul? I don't want to paint a condemned building. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjaer (talk • contribs) 20:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

hmm - actually not "condemned", but propped up by a variety of opposing forces - I don't think it's ready to fall down yet. (I'm not disagreeing with your intent here). The tweak for /the/such/ startles the reader; with "the", I think it's apparent that it refers to the yellow-press in the preceding paragraph. Some other editor may disagree Tedickey (talk) 20:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

As for my use of such, the primary meaning of the word is "of the type previously mentioned." This is my usage above, referring back to the previously mentioned yellow press. (Had I used simply the press it would have connoted all press.) There is a derived sense in which such can mean "extreme", but this is not the primary meaning. Indeed, "such" comes from the OE swylc from the Proto-Germanic swa-likaz "so-like" or like so. I am not sure, but I think you are objecting to my the word as if it primarily means extreme? I think it can be left as it stands for now.

I'll come back to this article later and try to edit it to seem a bit more unified. As I said above, I am leary of making any changes that would affect the sense of the article, since my historical familiarity with the topic is limited. I came here for info after listening to the BBC 4 In Our Time broadcast about the Spanish Civil War, which attributes domestic Spanish instability in part to the return home of otherwise unemployed colonial troops. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjaer (talk • contribs) 21:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

k —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.150.164 (talk) 20:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Essay idea (from Lilazngrl4u)

Essay Idea In 1899, David J. Hill wrote that the United States had three options regarding the Spanish Empire. The first option was to conclude that Spain had enjoyed a right to exploit its colonies and, since the United States could defeat Spain, the United States had every right to inherit Spain's empire. The second approach held that, while Spain was unjustified in its conduct regarding its colonies, the United States was hardly justified in interfering. The third possibility was that Spain was so abusive in its actions that the United States had the right to intervene on humanitarian grounds and ensure a more just existence for the colonies. The imperialists would initially argue that they were simply adopting the third approach. The anti-imperialists argued that, good intentions aside, the first approach would prevail more often than not over the altruistic third option and, therefore, the second choice was always the best.

Many anti-imperialists felt that America was more concerned with dominating the western hemisphere than with protecting it from Europeans, although the two causes could be argued by imperialists to go hand in hand. The often-quoted Marine Corps General Smedley Butler stated in the early 20th century that he had "helped in the rape of a half dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street". General Butler felt that his mission was not just to prevent European encroachment, but to safeguard American hegemony over technically independent neighbors. While the United States continued to dominate Central and South America after the Spanish-American War, that conflict was certainly distinct in its conduct and aftermath.

On February 9, 1898 a cable written by the Spanish ambassador to the United States was intercepted and found to contain some rather unflattering references to President McKinley. Following this assault on the national dignity, the battleship Maine blew up in Havana harbor, killing 260 Americans. While it was widely understood that the explosion was most likely an accident, many were willing to seize on the tragedy as a cassus belli. The national media generally facilitated this process with an obvious dose of commercial savvy. Here is where William Randolph Hearst's immortalized words were uttered to an artist he had hired to render the explosion for his newspapers. "You furnish the pictures and I’ll furnish the war".

Much of the early support for the war was predicated on the fact that, by intervening on behalf of the Cuban people, the United States would be coming down firmly on the side of the underdog as well as expelling European influence from the Caribbean. The war was sold as a liberation of Cuba, not as the annexation of that island or of any other territory. It quickly became clear, however, that the war aims were considerably broader than the liberation of the Cuban people. The United States also invaded the Spanish colonies of Puerto Rico and the Philippines and used the surge of wartime nationalism to officially annex Hawaii in July. Despite these previously unprecedented actions, American casualties during the war, which lasted from April to August of 1898, were minimal. The treaty of Paris, signed in December of 1898, ceded Puerto Rico and Guam to the United States, which also remained as occupiers in Cuba and the Philippines. In the other immortal quote from the Spanish-American War, Ambassador John Hay opined that it was "a splendid little war".

The status of Cuba was dictated by the Platt amendment in 1901. While the United States did not technically annex the island, Cuba would hardly be granted genuine sovereignty. The legislation granted the U.S. considerable influence over Cuba's foreign policy and economy as well as reserving the U.S. the right to intervene in Cuba in the event of external or internal threats. The naval base at Guantanamo Bay was thrown in for good measure.

Although President McKinley felt that "The Philippines, like Cuba and Puerto Rico, were entrusted to our hands by the providence of God" , the nation now found itself facing a new type of identity crisis; in addition to finding its domestic identity, the United States now had to confront its role in the community of nations. Despite God's generosity, very few Americans had asked for these new territories; they had supported a war for Cuban liberation, not one for territorial aggrandizement. As a brutal insurgency took hold in the Philippines, Americans of all persuasions began questioning their nation's motives.

When the Treaty of Paris was signed, the Philippine nationalist leader Emilio Aguinaldo, who was in no mood to replace one imperial overlord with another, began to direct a guerilla insurgency against the American occupation. While some anti-imperialists romanticized or at least empathized with the insurgents' cause, the mood among many Americans after the insurgency began was one of disbelief and contempt. Many found it reprehensible that the Filipinos proved to be ingrates in the wake of "liberation". William Howard Taft felt that "the resistance to American authority is nothing but a conspiracy of murder and assassination". Anti-imperialists would have wondered exactly what "authority" Mr. Taft was referring to.

I don't know about the rest of it, but the final paragraph needs work. See the Katipunan, Philippine Revolution and Philippine-American War articles and the supporting sources cited therein for a start. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 22:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The explosion

A total of four USS Maine investigations were conducted into the causes of the explosion, with the investigators coming to different conclusions. The Spanish and American versions would carry on with divergences.[13] A 1999 investigation commissioned by National Geographic Magazine and carried out by Advanced Marine Enterprises concluded that "it appears more probable than was previously concluded that a mine caused the inward bent bottom structure and the detonation of the magazines." However there is still much contention over what caused the explosion.[14]
On the article about the USS Maine, it is stated that the Rickover investigation, concluding that it was the result of an internal explosion, was widely accepted for a quarter of a century. On the other end, the AME analysis of 1999 was controversial since several experts, including some at the AME do not agree with the conclusion that a mine caused the explosion. Then, why providing only this version ? olopa 22:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.199.27.91 (talk)

Time to archive?

This page is huge and most of the topics in it are pretty old. I think it would be worthwhile to archive discussion. I've never created an archive before, so I was either thinking of using a bot to do it or let someone else do it. Is there opposition to this idea? Support? 0x0077BE (talk) 22:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Editing Needed For Guam Section

I'm not a historian, but I'm pretty certain that the info in the Guam section is innacurate (specifically info about Henry Glass). Thanks.

Pcraft2 (talk) 21:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a historian either, but I updated the section and cited some supporting sources. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 02:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Who Wrote This?

"(This bill was adopted by resolution of Congress as introduced by Senator Henry Teller of Colorado the Teller Amendment, which passed unanimously.) The Senate passed the amendment, 42 to 35, on April 19, 1898, and the House concurred the same day, 311 to 6."

There needs to be some grammatical fixes there. Neither 42-35 nor 311-6 is unanimous. Was the bill unanimous and the amendment not so? I can't tell with that crappy wording. Statalyzer (talk) 08:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I've reworded it. I also relocated this talk page section to the bottom of the page where, being recent, it seems to belong. Please correct or further improve my edit as needed. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 19:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

En dash or hyphen?

This article is contradictory; the article uses an en dash in the article but a hyphen in the title. Which is it? I believe it should be an en dash. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it should be an en-dash (a substitute for "versus"), and there should be a redirect page from the hyphenated name. See Wikipedia:MOS#En_dashes. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 04:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I will move this page. If anybody objects, please discuss here before reverting. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Boiler plate

Currently at the foot of this article there is a boilerplate for major conflicts that the US has taken part in. While it is true that they were in this war, I feel that this should be removed as leaving it in as the only national boilerplate on this page, if we were to leave it then similar boilerplates for the Spanish Empire should be placed at the end of this as well. Otonabee (talk) 02:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Infobox assertion questioned

I question the assertion in the infobox that the First Philippine Republic was allied with the U.S.

The insurgent First Philippine Republic was proclaimed on January 23, 1899 with Emilio Aguinaldo as President. On February 4, Aguinaldo issued the following proclamation (see [7]):

“ I order and command:

1. That peace and friendly relations with the Americans be broken and that the latter be treated as enemies, within the limits prescribed by the laws of war.

2. That the Americans captured be held as prisoners of war.

3. That this proclamation be communicated to the consuls and that congress order and accord a suspension of the constitutional guarantee, resulting from the declaration of war.

”

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Digging around a bit further, I've found this NY Times article published February 8, 1899 which also quotes the proclamation (with minor wording variations). That NY Times article mentions a manifesto said to have been published by Aguinaldo on January 6, prior to the proclamation of the First Philippine Republic alleging grievances against the occupying U.S. Army (as of January 6, Aguinaldo headed an insurgent revolutionary government which he had proclaimed on June 23, 1898 [8]).

I think that the above refutes the infobox assertion that the First Philippine Republic was allied with the U.S., so I am removing that assertion from the infobox. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I have replaced the flag, on the Philippines page it says their republic was founded on June 12, 1898. Wrmitchell, you say the U.S. and the First Philippine Republic were not allies, they were indeed allies.

We fought side by side at the Battle of Manila (1898). Maybe our alliance was never official but that is irrelevant, either way we still fought the same enemy at the same time. During World War One, the United States was not officially allied with the British and French but because we fought the enemy together and at the same time we were considered apart of the allied forces. The same principle applies here.

About Emilio Aguinaldo's proclamation, I am not 100% sure but I think that proclamation was issued at the start of the Philippine-American War. By this time the Spanish-American War was over. Just because the First Philippine Republic and the United States were at war in 1899, that does not mean they weren't friendly to each other a year earlier during the war with Spain. --Az81964444 (talk) 03:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

You say, "We fought side by side at the Battle of Manila (1898). " Yes, but who is "We"?

• On May 19, 1898, Aguinaldo arrived back in Manila from exile in Hong Kong and assumed command of Katipunan forces (see History of the Philippines (1898-1946)#U.S. preparation for land operations and resumption of the Philippine revolution).
• On May 24, 1898, Aguinaldo issued a proclamation establishing an insurgent dictatorial government, saying that he was assuming "command of all the troops in the struggle for the attainment of our lofty aspirations, inaugurating a dictatorial government to be administered by decrees promulgated under my sole responsibility..."[9]
• On June 12, 1898, the insurgent revolutionary government proclaimed its independence.[10]
• On June 23, 1898, Aguinaldo issued a proclamation changing the character of the insurgent government from a dictatorial to revolutionary.[11]
• The capture of Manila by U.S. forces took place on August 13, 1898, a bit after the signing of a peace protocol between Spain and the U.S. in Washington D.C. (word of the signing had not yet reached Manila). At the time of the Battle of Manila, the U.S. was informally allied with Aguinaldo's revolutionary forces, but had not recognized his insurgent government.
• On December 10, 1898, the U.S. and Spain signed the Treaty of Paris. That treaty transferred sovereignty over the Philippines from Spain to the U.S. With the signing of that treaty, Aguinaldo's insurgent revolutionary government became an insurgency against the U.S.
• On December 21, 1898, U.S. President William McKinley issued his Benevolent assimilation proclamation.[12]
• On January 23, 1899, the proclamation of the First Philippine Republic changed the character of Aguinaldo's insurgent government yet again.
• On February 2, 1899, general hostilites commenced between the U.S. forces and Aguinaldo's forces.
• On February 4, 1899, Aguinaldo issued the proclamation quoted above.
• On June 2, 1899, the Malolos Congress, the legislative body of the insurgent First Philippine Republic government enacted and ratified a declaration of war against the U.S. That declaration was proclaimed by Pedro Paterno, Prime Minister of the insurgent First Philippine Republic government.

This article currently lists the Katipunan as being allied with the U.S. during the Spanish-American war. It seems to me that the article could reasonably say (perhaps in a footnote to the mention of the alliance with the Katipunan) that the US was informally allied with the Katipunan until the absorption of Katipunan forces by a proclaimed indigenous insurgent government May 24, 1898, and remained informally allied with insurgent government forces from that date until the end of the war. I will boldly add such a footnote to the article.Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

---At the time of the Battle of Manila, the U.S. was informally allied with Aguinaldo's revolutionary forces, but had not recognized his insurgent government.

Even you admit that the First Philippine republic and the U.S. wwere informally allies, so why are we having an argument.

Even If they were not allies, you still cannot delete the Philippines flag from the combatants section. You are distorting history. I could not care less if the Philippines and the U.S. were allies in 1898, all I care about is your deletion of the Philippines flag from the combatanst section.

In other words, you need not write a long reply because i wont read it because it is irrelevant. During the Spanish-American War the First Philipune Republic and the U.S. were allies, informally or not, they were still allies.

I wont explain but you will see my option.--Az81964444 (talk) 04:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that you have misinterpreted the intended meaning of my words. I said, "the U.S. was informally allied with Aguinaldo's revolutionary forces", and "but had not recognized his insurgent government" (in any of the various characters which it assumed). The point which I had in mind was that there was an informal alliance between U.S. and Filipino forces, but no recognition by the U.S. of or alliance of U.S. forces with any Filipino insurgent governmental entity.

However, I am going to get away from the question of who was allied with whom since the infobox does not present info directly relating to that. The infobox presents a list of belligerents.

Aguinaldo returned from Exile in Hongkong on 19 May, assuming command of Filipino forces. AFAICT, Filipino forces under Aguinaldo were a belligerent party for 206 days, from 19 May to 10 December, when the war ended. For five of those days, it is fair to name the Filipino belligerent party "Katipunan", and the infobox lists such a belligerent party. That article also says that the official flag of the Katipunan during the five day period of its involvement as a belligerent in this war was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Philippines_flag_1st_official.svg, so I've changed the infobox to use that flag to symbolize the Katipunan.

On 24 May, Aguinaldo established an insurgent dictatorial government and placed Filipino forces under that government. These non-Katipunan Filipino forces were a belligerent party, first under Aguinaldo's insurgent dictatorial government and later under his insurgent revolutionary government, for the next 201 days until 10 December. At the time of the end of the war, no entity named "Republic of the Philippines" or "Philippine Republic" existed or had ever existed. Accordingly, I have replaced the infobox entry listing "Republic of the Philippines" as a belligerent party with an entry naming "Insurgent forces". Perhaps someone can suggest a better name for these forces, but "Republic of the Philippines" (the name of an entity which did not exist during this war) does not seem to me to be a good name. The Flag of the Philippines article says that a flag similar to the current Philippine flag first flew on 24 May, 1898 and was used as a battle flag. Accordingly, I've retained {{flagicon|Philippines|old}} to symbolize the "Filipino insurgent forces" infobox entry. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The Philippines and the United States were allies

Both those countries were allies at the time of the war. But I believe that that discussion is irrelevant since User:Wtmitchell's hidden agenda is to remove the First Philippine Republic from the template. Emilio Aguinaldo recognized American support during the war, in spite of his grievances. This could be proven by the presence of an American during the Philippine Declaration of Independence.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.95.7.96 (talk • contribs) 13:47, October 20, 2009

I don't do hidden agendas. Above, you are improperly casting the insurgent Indigenous military organization under Aguinaldo and the various flavors of Aguinaldo's insurgent governments as a country named The Philippines. A declaration of independence by an insurgent group does not a sovereign nation make. In 1898, the time of the Spanish-American War, The Philippines was a country under Spanish sovereignty. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

A Call to Improve this Article

To all concerned,

After years of reluctantly ignoring the deplorable state of this article (poorly worded sentences, confusing paragraph construction, passive voice, irrelevant information, and general oversimplification) I’ve begun its total renovation. Unfortunately, I have more ideas on how to improve this article than time for doing so. For this reason I hope to encourage others with an interest in this subject to help me rework the entire article.

Initially at least, I plan a top-down renovation. I’ve already updated the introduction to make it more concise and readable. I removed the clumsy attempts to explain the surrounding context of expansionist sentiment, yellow journalism, and the demise of the USS Maine. These are important topics that deserve a great deal of attention in the article; but they were sloppily discussed and including them in the introduction made the entire article overly top heavy. Here’s what I’ve written and posted:

The Spanish-American War is the name most commonly used by English-speaking historians to describe the 1898 conflict between the Spanish Empire and the United States. While many routinely include the indigenous struggles for independence in Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Philippine archipelago under this heading, the name Spanish-American War (explicitly suggesting the period of US military involvement, as it does) narrowly refers to the US sponsored punctuation to the late-nineteenth-century turmoil in the Spanish colonies.

Ostensibly fought over the issue of Cuban independence, the short four-month war developed into a global conflict as the US Navy sought to dislodge Spain from longstanding colonial outposts in both the Caribbean and the South Pacific. Its outcome—with temporary administrative authority over Cuba and indefinite colonial authority over Puerto Rico and the Philippines ceded to the US through the December 10, 1898 Treaty of Paris—had long-range implications for both belligerent parties. For Spain, the conflict, thereafter referred to as “the Disaster,” contributed to the further weakening of the Restoration Government, the eventual rise of the Primo de Rivera dictatorship, and Spain’s military insignificance in the twentieth century. The victorious United States, however, assumed its role as full-fledged Empire, with colonial possessions spanning the globe and a modern navy capable of defending them.

I think this introduction does a much better job of focusing on a general definition of the war: what’s most important about it and the major implications of its outcome. Also, since the previous introduction included mention of Spain only as a passive victim of US aggression, I’ve attempted to inject into it a bit of balance to show that there were indeed two belligerents. I’m open, however, to any suggestions for making this contribution better. I’ve already begun reworking the Historical Background section; so I’d appreciate assistance there also once I begin to post it.

I’m a fan of the Spanish-American War and of late-nineteenth-century Spain. It would be a shame to let this article reflect the continuing trend in American scholarship of neglecting the historical importance of the conflict. This article doesn’t have to remain in the terrible shape it’s in now. I hope everyone who reads this will help to make it better.

--JCWBB (talk) 21:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

none of your goals were achieved in the edit - it's wordy, unsourced opinion Tedickey (talk) 21:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The intro is certainly an improvement overall. I'm concerned over the lack of details of the "war" itself, plus I think the placement of several details in the text are incorrect. Example, TR raising the Rough Riders should be in the background section no? If I can be of assistance please let me know. :) Souled4 (talk) 04:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Despite the coarseness of your comment, I appreciate both your honesty (if that’s what it is) and your criticisms. Noting that it’s “wordy,” as you say, is a valuable observation. Unfortunately, since you don’t qualify this rather general comment with any specifics, it does little to help me focus on the problem parts. As for it being “unsourced [SIC] opinion,” I’m afraid I must disagree. While it’s true that I have not footnoted the information in the paragraphs, it is most certainly not opinion. You seem to be making the common sophomoric mistake of confusing statements of general knowledge (which typically don’t require attribution; i.e. noting that Jefferson was once president or that Cánovas del Castillo was from Spain are generally accepted facts that need not be accompanied with citations from documents that say as much) with statements of opinion. Since you’ve made that mistake, however, it stands to reason that others may make it as well. For this reason, I’ll take your advice (if that’s what it was) and include a few sources in a footnote.

P.S. I do appreciate your criticisms. But I’m very serious about working on this article. Having only your terse and rather testy comment to go by, it doesn’t seem as though the same can be said of you. If, I’ve somehow misunderstood your comment, I offer my most sincere apologies. If, on the other hand, you have nothing constructive to contribute, I’d appreciate it if you let those who would like improve this article work on it. --JCWBB (talk) 00:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

EXPLANATION OF HISTORICAL BACKGROUND EDIT

I’ve made some substantial edits to the Historical Background section. Previously the section discussed only the connection between the Monroe Doctrine and the war (a tenuous connection at best); and it had the Monroe Doctrine incorrectly dated to 1923. I’ve redesigned the section to include an explanation of how and why the respective histories of the United States and Spain influenced the way each valued Cuba. It’s not as sharp as I would like; but I plan to continue working on it.

Here’s my edit:

Historical background

US Expansion

“In America there is more space where nobody is than where anybody is—that is what makes America what it is.” -Gertrude Stein[8] While the Monroe Doctrine[9] of 1823 gave faint legitimacy to US intervention in Cuba, it was President Theodore Roosevelt’s Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine (a policy he developed years after the campaign in Cuba) that made the Monroe Doctrine an effective vehicle for US expansion and international intervention. The origins of the war in Cuba are much more firmly rooted in the Western Frontier than in the United States' Latin America policy. From the early days of the American Republic, territorial expansion had been a vital component of the emergent US national character. Yet it was in the wake of the US Civil War, as veterans from both armies armed with barbed-wire and rifles spread across the vast west, that expansion became an integral part of the American experience. By 1890 the frontier, defined by congress as land occupied by two or more but less than six persons, on average, per square mile, had disappeared.[10] The importance of this recognition was not lost on the historian Frederick Jackson Turner. In his 1893 address before the American Historical Society, “The Significance of the Frontier in American History,” he argued that the frontier had made the United States unique. The availability of cheap land and the prospect of moving westward, he claimed, had allowed the US to avoid the social problems plaguing Europe. The address was a passionate plea for the necessity of the frontier at a time when it ceased to exist outside the American imagination.[11] Just a few years earlier, Rear Admiral Alfred Thayer Mahan had published his most famous and influential work, “The Influence of Sea Power upon History,” which credits the rise of major global powers like Britain to the successful development of powerful navies. Mahan’s ideas on projecting strength through a strong navy had a powerful influence on Americans already morning the loss of the frontier. Mahan’s friend, Theodore Roosevelt, later Secretary of the navy under McKinley and an aggressive supporter of a war with Spain over Cuba, was also strongly influenced by Mahan’s conclusions.

Spain's Colonial Retrenchment

The combined traumas of the Spanish War of Independence, the consequent loss of most of Spain’s American Empire in the early 19th century, and two disastrous Carlist wars effected a new interpretation of Spain’s remaining empire. Liberal Spanish elites like Cánovas del Castillo and Emilio Castelar attempted to redefine the idea of empire to more neatly dovetail with the emerging concept of Spanish nationalism. As Cánovas makes clear in his address to the Ateneo in 1882, Discurso Sobre la Nación[12], the Spanish nation was a cultural and linguistic concept that tied Spain’s colonies to the metropole notwithstanding the oceans that separated them. Cánovas argued Spain was markedly different from rival empires like Britain and France. Unlike these empires, the dissemination of civilization was Spain’s unique contribution to the New World.[13] This popular reimagining of the Spanish empire had the effect of imbuing special significance to Cuba as an integral part of the Spanish nation. The new importance invested in maintaining the empire would have disastrous consequences for Spain’s sense of national identity in the aftermath of the war.

Souled4,

Thanks for your comments. I’ve considered your suggestion; however, since the Rough Riders (an ad hoc group of the New England landed elite, Cowboys, and Native Americans) was created by Roosevelt to fight the war and, therefore, had nothing to do with the origins of the war, I’ve decided against it. I think it would be best to either include an explanation of Roosevelt’s Rough Riders under the Cuban Campaign heading or to create a longer explanation under its own heading. What do you think? --JCWBB (talk) 22:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that is a better idea. Perhaps some kind of gathering of foreces subsection? This line though "In the spring of 1898, the total strength of the U.S. Army was just 28,183 men. The size of the army was rapidly expanded to about 250,000 men, with the majority undisciplined troops lifted from the National Guard and the remainder untrained volunteers." should be the last in Path to War section. That's just my opinion though. Feel free to change it back. :) Keep up the good work. Souled4 (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Explanation of edit for sub-section Cuban struggle for independence

I’ve updated, clarified and expanded the sub-section on the Cuban struggle for independence. Most of my edit has to do with expanding and placing in proper context the substance that was already there. I did, however, remove the short discussion of the yellow press and US propaganda surrounding the Spanish response to Martí’s invasion. The generally negative opinion of Catholic Spain that this propaganda exploited has a long history in the United States; and, for this reason, I thought it best that these issues be discussed in their own subsection. I’ve ended my edit with a sentence that will make a nice segue into a summary of these subjects. I hope to get to it soon.

Here’s my edit:

The first serious bid for Cuban independence erupted in 1868. The Ten Years War, as it was called, was eventually put down by the Spanish colonial authorities in 1878. Unfortunately for the Spanish, neither the brutal fighting nor the application of reforms in the Pact of Zanjón (Feb. 1878) were able to quell the desire for independence in some revolutionaries. One such revolutionary, José Martí, continued to advocate for Cuban financial and political autonomy even in exile.

In early 1895, after years of organizing, Martí launched a three-pronged invasion of the island. The plan called for one group from Santo Domingo led by Máximo Gómez, one group from Costa Rica led by Antonio Maceo, and another from the United States (preemptively thwarted by US officials in Florida) to land in different places on the island and provoke an indigenous revolution. While the grito de Baíre (as their call for revolution continues to be called) was successful, the expected revolution was not the grand show of force Martí had anticipated. With a quick victory effectively lost, the revolutionaries settled in to fight a protracted guerilla campaign.

The Spanish response was swift and decisive. Cánovas del Castillo, the architect of Spain’s Restoration constitution and the prime minister at the time, announced that “the Spanish nation is disposed to sacrifice to the last peseta of its treasure and to the last drop of blood of the last Spaniard before consenting that anyone snatch from it even one piece of its sacred territory.” He ordered General Arsenio Martínez de Campos, a distinguished veteran of the war against the previous insurrection in Cuba, to quell the revolt. Campos’s reluctance to accept his new assignment and his method of containing the revolt to the province of Oriente earned him ridicule in the Spanish press. The mounting political pressure thus forced Cánovas to replace General Campos with General Valeriano Weyler y Nicolau, a soldier who had proven himself able to quash rebellions in both the colonies and in the Spanish metropole. Weyler’s strategy was to deprive the insurgency of weaponry, supplies and assistance by ordering the residents of some Cuban districts to relocate themselves near the military headquarters in what were termed re-concentration camps. While the application of this strategy was brutally effective at slowing the spread of rebellion, it had the unwelcome effect of stirring indignation in the United States.

--JCWBB (talk) 01:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Explanation of Additional sub-section US Response

After rewriting the Cuban struggle for Independence sub-section, I found the jump from the revolt to the USS Maine incident too awkward. I’ve designed this sub-section to more clearly and more effectively link the revolt with US domestic politics and policy. As I work my way down I plan to sharpen some of the language in both the Main Incident and Declaring War sub-sections.

Here’s my addition:

US Response

The eruption of Cuban revolt, Weyler’s brutal tactics, and the popular fury these events whipped up proved to be a boon to the newspaper industry in the US. Both Joseph Pulitzer of the New York Journal and William Randolph Hearst of the New York World recognized the potential for great headlines and stories that would sell copy. Both covered Spain’s actions in general and Weyler’s tactics specifically in a way that confirmed the extant popular disparaging attitude toward Spain in the US. In the minds, schoolbooks and scholarship of the mostly Protestant US public, the Catholic Spanish Empire was a backward, immoral union built on the backs of enslaved natives and funded with stolen gold. While the yellow press, as the type of tabloid journalism Hearst and Pulitzer employed came to be known, helped turn these sentiments toward outright war with Spain, the American public’s natural inclination to support Cuban revolt hardly needed the additional sensational commentary.

It was not merely the righteous indignation stirred up by feuding newspapers and predicated on a popular prejudice toward Spain that moved the US closer to war. The US had important economic interests that were being harmed by the prolonged conflict. Shipping firms that relied heavily on trade with Cuba suffered huge losses as the conflict continued unresolved. These firms pressed congress and McKinley to seek an end to the revolt. Other US business concerns, specifically those who had invested in Cuban sugar concerns, looked to the Spanish to restore order to the situation. Stability, not necessarily war, was the ultimate goal of both interests. How stability would be achieved would depend largely on the ability of Spain and the US to work out their issues diplomatically.

President McKinley, well aware of the political complexity surrounding the conflict, was predisposed to end the revolt peacefully. Threatening to consider recognizing Cuba’s belligerent status, and thus allowing the legal rearming of Cuban insurgents by US firms, he sent Stewart L. Woodford to Madrid to negotiate an end to the conflict. With Práxedes Sagasta, an open advocate of Cuban autonomy, now Prime Minister of Spain (the more hard-line Cánovas del Castillo having been assassinated before Woodford arrived) negotiations went fairly smoothly. Cuban autonomy was set to begin on January 1, 1898.

--JCWBB (talk) 16:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

History section and subsections

I've reordered the subsections in the History section. These subsections were added in this edit with an edit summary saying, "updated the Historical background section to include information on both the history of US expansionism and Spanish colonial retrenchment"

I've also edited the introductory paragraph of the US Expansion subsection, which previously read as follows (refs converted to inline links here):

While the Monroe Doctrine[13] of 1823 gave faint legitimacy to U.S. intervention in Cuba, it was President Theodore Roosevelt’s Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine (a policy he developed years after the campaign in Cuba) that made the Monroe Doctrine an effective vehicle for U.S. expansion and international intervention. The origins of the war in Cuba are much more firmly rooted in the Western Frontier than in the United States' Latin America policy.

I've changed it to read:

In 1843, the Monroe Doctrine had said that further efforts by European governments to colonize land or interfere with states in the Americas would be viewed by the United States of America as acts of aggression requiring US intervention.[14][15]

This introduced a subsection on one aspect of the on the history of the Spanish-American war, not a political tract on the evils of American expansionism. The Spanish-American war began and ended in 1898, lasting less than a year. The Roosevelt Corollary was a substantial amendment to the Monroe Doctrine by U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt in 1904 — over five years after the end of the conflict. The Roosevelt Corrallary is irrelevant to the history of the Spanish-American War.

I've also removed the 1936 Gertrude Stein quote which read:

“In America there is more space where nobody is than where anybody is—that is what makes America what it is.” -Gertrude Stein

I think the section needs more supporting cites and still has a substantial POV thrust, and I may revisit it for further edits. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear Wtmitchell,

Thanks for your comments and your edits. I’ve received far too little feedback to date. So, it is with some pleasure that I welcome yours. I would, however, like to make my ideas on the context and organization of the article a little clearer.

When I constructed the revision, I debated how to best introduce the concept of US Expansionism. I believe it’s important to ground historical events in their proper context. Since popular attitudes toward expansion in turn-of-the-century America exerted enormous influence over policy makers, it would be absurd to avoid mentioning the concept in an explanation of the 1898 war with Spain. And, while I can understand the natural sensitivity to the subject of US expansion (a mere euphemism for US empire building), I don’t see how this could be construed as inveighing the “evils of American expansionism.” I believe I worked very hard to explain US expansionism in the most concise and neutral way possible. Stating that expansion was quite popular in turn-of-the-century US discourse is demonstrably true. Associating expansion with “evil,” as you seem to do, is a value judgment based on your own understanding of expansion (or empire) that is in no way implied in the text. If you believe there are any negative qualifiers in the explanation that could be purged, I’d welcome your edits.

As for the Monroe Doctrine, you are quite right. In fact, I’ll do you one better. Neither the Monroe Doctrine nor Roosevelt’s corollary to the Monroe Doctrine exerted much influence on US attitudes toward Cuba in 1898. This was precisely the idea that I was attempting to convey. I debated whether or not to mention the Monroe Doctrine at all. I came to the conclusion, however, that, because the Monroe Doctrine has become such large part of how Americans continue to popularly understand US expansion, I could not ignore it entirely. This is why I chose to explain that Roosevelt’s Corollary (which I accurately noted was “a policy he developed years after the campaign in Cuba”) is what made the Monroe Doctrine “an effective vehicle for U.S. expansion and international intervention.” This does not mean, as you say, that the corollary is “irrelevant to the history of the Spanish-American War.” Rather, they are intimately related. The process of causation, however, runs from war to corollary, not corollary to war. I think we could work together to make this relationship more clear in the article.

Don’t get me wrong; I understand your edit. And, I understand why you would want to remove (or at least put in a footnote) mention of Roosevelt’s corollary. I took on rewriting this article primarily because it had degenerated into a list of autonomous statements that gave the article an awkward flow. I fear that your edit, in the way it currently stands, constitutes a return to that sad tradition. I humbly propose that we either collaborate on how to make the transition from the Monroe Doctrine to western expansion a little smoother or simply remove mention of it all together. I’ll respectfully wait for your response before I make any changes to these ends.

As for your fear that this article has a “substantial POV thrust,” I must emphatically agree. All history has a point of view. To paraphrase the late historian E. H. Carr,

historical facts are not like fish on the fishmonger’s chopping block; rather, they are like fish in the sea. And the type of fish one catches depends heavily on the type of bait they use and the location they choose to fish in.

To say this another way—and I don’t intend to be condescending, but this is something that’s commonly misunderstood about history—there are an infinite number of historical facts. The process of selecting facts as well as the order you place them in are both parts of the interpretive process. If you think any of the statements I’ve made are false, by all means you should correct them. But simply noting that there is a point of view is not something that should alone warrant alarm.

As I wrote above, I’ll patiently wait for your response before I make any edits.

--JCWBB (talk) 19:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I apparently missed seeing this when you first posted it (I'm guessing that it was masked by a subsequent edit, and that I didn't look back beyond that one—I have been busy on other things). Anyhow, as you reposted on my talk page, I've responded there. I prattled on a bit there, and please do read my response. Here, I'll just welcome you to Wikipedia and encourage you to not let me put you off editing. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Explanation of Edit to sub-section USS Maine

I’ve rewritten this subsection to improve flow, correct syntax, and remove some redundancy. Because the main article is quite exhaustive, I’ve removed a lot of the detail that I thought was unnecessary. I also included some long footnotes that, I believe, strengthen the article, especially a short discussion of Louis A. Pérez’s fantastic historiographical examination of the Maine.

I did leave a final paragraph that covers the later (twentieth-century) investigations of the explosion. I debated whether or not this was necessary. And I’m still not quite convinced that it is. I’m primarily worried about a lack of citation. I’ve merely used the notes already present to reinforce my slight edits in this area. I may remove it later; but, if anyone has an opinion on this, I’d like to hear it.

Here’s my edit:

Twelve days after the Cuban autonomous government took power a small riot, ignited by Spanish officers offended by the persistent newspaper criticism of General Weyler’s policies, erupted in Havana. Against the advice of the Consul-General in Havana, Fitzhugh Lee, a nephew of the Confederate General Robert E. Lee, McKinley sent the USS Maine to Havana to insure the safety of US citizens and interests. It set anchor in Havana harbor on January 25, 1898. Spain responded by having an armored cruiser, the Vizcaya, anchor off shore of New York City.

That the US would need to send the Maine to Havana had been anticipated for months. In October of 1897 President McKinley had made arrangements for the USS Maine to be deployed to Key West, Florida via South Carolina. Nor was sending the Maine to Cuba an isolated naval maneuver. In fact, deploying the Maine to Havana was only one part of a larger, global deployment of US naval power. As the Maine left Florida a large part of the North Atlantic fleet was moved to Key West and the Gulf of Mexico. Additionally, others were moved just off shore of Lisbon. And still others were moved to Hong Kong.

At 9:40pm on February 15 the USS Maine sank in the harbor after suffering a massive explosion. While McKinley preached patience, the news of the explosion and the death of 266 sailors stirred popular US opinion and large segments of Congress into demanding a swift belligerent response. To demonstrate his own willingness to avenge the loss—-as well as to buy more time for the Navy to complete their inquiry into the cause of the explosion-—McKinley requested Congress appropriate 50 million dollars for defense, to which Congress unanimously obliged. The Navy’s investigation, made public on March 28, concluded that the ship’s magazines were ignited when an external explosion was set off under the ship’s hull. This revelation poured fuel on popular US indignation and strengthened the hand of those officials already gearing up for war.

The conclusions of the Navy’s investigation, however, were not the only ones offered. Spain’s investigation of the circumstances surrounding the explosion had come to the opposite conclusion: that the explosion originated within the ship. Nor was this the last word on the demise of the Maine. A second Navy investigation was launched in 1910 and completed in 1911 came to much the same conclusion as the first. A private investigation, led by Admiral Hyman G. Rickover in 1976 and resulting in a 170-page book, How the Battleship Maine Was Destroyed, came to the alternate conclusion that the explosion originated within the ship. And, another private investigation, this one commissioned by the National Geographic in 1999, confirmed the original navy investigation’s conclusion that a mine had caused the initial explosion. While the cause of the explosion remains elusive, what is clear is that the sinking of the Maine moved the United States that much closer to war with Spain.

--JCWBB (talk) 00:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the content here at all, really, or bounced it up against the USS Maine (ACR-1) article (the two should agree, and details should not be covered here which are not covered there), but I've got a suggestion made in haste about the mechanics. WP:CITE says (among other things) "If an article already has citations, adopt the method in use or seek consensus before changing it." With this in mind, I'll suggest that refs of the form <ref>Trask, p. 24</ref> would be better redone here in the form <ref>{{Harvnb|Trask|1996|p=[http://books.google.com/books?id=2f0Gf0DQfmUC&pg=PA24 24]}}.</ref>

The final two sentences of para 2 caught my eye, and the ref to, "Offner, p. 56" caused me to take a quick look here—which turns out to be the wrong place. I presume that you meant to cite Offner's Presidential Studies Quarterly paper. If the presumption is correct, the ref ought to be disambiguated and the cite of that Offner paper really should be moved from the Further reading section to the References section.

Your writing style is better than mine, but I'm uneasy with unsupported conclusions such as your final sentence. That looks like it should have a ref to the footnote you ref'd at the end of the preceding paragraph, which cites a supporting source. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)