Name: Jessica Abplanalp
Professor: Dr. Datta
Course: POL S 321
Date: July 16, 2018
Introduction
The Spanish-American War marked a defining moment in history for a young American nation. The war represented a colossal milestone for the United States as it thrust the country into the global scene and established it as a force to be reckoned with. Initially, Spain and the rest of the world had ostensibly believed that justification for the war came from the inherent desire of the Cuban people to obtain independence from Spain and that the United States joined the war to advance the moral cause of the Cuban people. However, for America, the war was intended to kick off a long-term objective of the country to expand its global influence. To many American pro-imperialism leaders, the Spanish-American War represented a perfect opportunity for the country to annex territory from a formidable empire thus boosting its status as a Superpower nation. For several centuries, Spain had exerted its influence and stamped its dominance across South and Central America. Aside from America recognizing the need for Spain to grant Cubans their independence, the U.S. also had a vested interest to protect the investments of American citizens in Cuba and the ongoing conflicts in the country were bad for business from the American perspective. The urgency which America took in declaring war against Spain made some people question the true motive of the U.S. in the outcome of the war. Based on the historical account of this war, this paper will argue that America’s quest to sustain an empire that serves national interests and at the same time remains true to its founding ideals is an intricate endeavor that is duplicitous and the U.S. should tread carefully to avoid tarnishing its reputation by being portrayed as an imperial folly instead of a global icon of democracy.
Discussion
Prior to the start of the Spanish-American War, rebel fighters in Cuba had engaged Spain in war but had been unsuccessful in forcing Spain to concede and relinquish its hold on Cuba. The Spanish authorities treated the Cubans harshly and the re-concentration camps they set up in the urban regions were infamous for their notoriously inhumane conditions that saw many Cubans die from starvation and infectious diseases as there were poor sanitation and inadequate food supply and medical care (Smith 51). The situation at the time was dire and devastating for many Cubans and a majority of the American population was sympathetic to their predicament and wanted them to gain freedom from their oppressors. Americans likened the Cuban situation with Spain to the Revolution that launched their independence from Great Britain. Facing immense pressure, the then U.S. president William McKinley gave orders for an American battleship to set sail for Cuba to observe from a distance the ongoing situations in the country with an anticipation to evacuate American citizens should the unrest call for it. However, just a few days after the battleship had anchored along the Cuban coast; an explosion occurred on the ship and claimed the lives of more than 250 sailors.
After news of the explosion reached the U.S., an uproar erupted in the country following claims that the explosion was a result of a direct attack from the Spanish navy. There were also rumors that the explosion may have been triggered by an unfortunate accident. Once again, President McKinley found himself under massive pressure to firmly respond to the incident. McKinley made a formal request to Spain to grant Cuba independence failure to which the United States will be forced to declare war against it (Quince 79). The Spanish refused to surrender Cuba and the U.S. had no option but to go to war with Spain. Unsurprisingly, American businessmen and shippers were some of the most outspoken supporters of the Spanish-American War because they wanted to protect their interests.
America achieved victory over Spain because it went into the war with a mentality that it was fighting for the reigns of an empire. Therefore, Americans were more prepared and motivated to win the war compared to the Spaniards who thought the war was just about Cuba. Unbeknownst to Spain, the United States wanted to gain control of territories across the Pacific Ocean and as far as Asia with the vision that such an expansion would serve well the prospects of American Imperialism (McCullough 94). The idea was that access to new territories would offer American Industrialists new markets for their products and in turn, the nation would benefit tremendously from the exports and imports. For that reason, the American navy was also ordered to attack Spanish ships anchored along the Philippines coast because Spain also had control of the nation.
As America was on the verge of winning the Spanish-American War, arrangements were made by diplomats from the two countries to reach a peaceful agreement. In the negotiations, Spain agreed that it would grant Cuba independence and recognize the territories of Guam and Puerto Rico to be under U.S. control. However, buoyed by Spain’s impending defeat, America was emboldened to also demand annexation of the Philippines. Although a defeated Spain was reluctant to surrender the Philippines, the country could not afford to continue the war due to the high casualties it had suffered therefore it relinquished control in return for a compensation amounting to twenty million dollars (Smith 63). After the signing of this treaty, there was little doubt about America’s intention to expand its global reach. Back in America, news of the treaty was well received despite reports indicating that Filipino citizens and rebels did not want Americans to interfere in their country. The manner in which the imperialist move was celebrated signaled that America was diverting from the founding ideals that shaped the country in a bid to safeguard its national interests.
Before going to war with Spain, the U.S. Congress had passed the Teller Amendment stating that America would not attempt to annex Cuba. However, after the war was won, the Platt Amendment was passed and with it, America dictated the terms under which it was to hand over the power of autonomy to the Cuban people. With the Platt Amendment in place, America gave itself the authority to infringe on the domestic affairs of Cuba if it felt that there was a significant threat to political stability. The U.S. through the same amendment also authorized the construction of a military base in Cuba’s Guantanamo Bay and further maintained that Cuba could not sign treaties with other countries without the consent of the U.S. if those treaties are deemed to pose a substantial risk to Cuba’s independence (Kaufman 103). Many Cubans felt that on paper they were a sovereign nation but in reality, they were puppets of the U.S. government. Cubans were upset by how the American government was suppressing their independence by controlling their economic partnerships and foreign policy with other countries. This unjustified action by the U.S. government showed that America could not maintain a balance between serving its national interests and upholding the founding ideals sacred to the country.
America’s support for Cuba’s independence was widely viewed as being hypocritical to its founding ideals as stipulated in the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution. In the Philippines, the actions of America were considered to contradict its claim of valuing the liberty of people of all types of race. Due to its selfish interests, America turned a blind eye on its principle doctrine of the right of independence of people because it did not want to pass up the opportunity to gain control of the strategic Philippine territory. The United States seized the Philippine territory under the pretext that the natives did not have the capacity to self-govern themselves (Welch 72). In order to quell widespread anti-American sentiment in the region, the U.S. government tried to win over the citizens by constructing roads, schools, and hospitals. However, those efforts proved futile and the Filipino rebels kept fighting U.S. forces spiritedly. The U.S. even tried winning over rebel leaders by offering them lucrative appointments. In their attempt to quash the Filipino resistance, American soldiers destroyed crops, razed villages to the ground, and killed many of the local residents. The destruction America caused in the Philippines overshadowed all the good it had achieved so far with abolishing slavery and it showed that it was impossible for the country to serve two masters at the same time.
After the Spanish-American War, there were some Americans who did not support the push for American imperialism. The main reason for the dissent was based on the belief that the dream to build an empire would contradict the principles of independence and democracy that the country strongly advocates for. There were concerns that the U.S. government had no right to impose itself on other people amid strong opposition against its presence in those countries (Lasch 323). People from other countries also have liberty and cannot be treated as spoils up for grabs after a war. The events that followed after the Spanish-American War showed that America was not entirely devoted to seeing the locals gain independence rather it was just a case of territorial control changing hands between two masters.
The state of affairs and relations that the U.S. has with other nations in the contemporary society shows that tension still exists over the conflict of interest seen in America’s quest for global dominance and commitment to want to stay true to its founding ideals. It seems like America has not learned any lessons from its history. America needs to change its approach on how it intervenes in other countries to achieve its goal of spreading democracy. It should lean more towards moral persuasion and avoid using force to achieve its objective. Many Americans agree that U.S. intervention in countries like Vietnam and Somalia were disastrous. America’s imperialist past has ruined the country’s reputation such that whenever the nation tries to intervene anywhere for the good of the local people, it is interpreted to be a selfish agenda aimed at advancing America’s national interests. America has always defended its actions in other countries with the justification that sometimes it is necessary to intervene even when people don’t seem to see the benefit of the noble intervention. There are several conspiracies that emerged claiming to explain the real reason why America invaded Iraq and most of them point to a desire to maintain national interests. In recent years, America has been criticized for the role it played in the uprisings in Libya and Egypt where it was accused of contributing to the instability in the country. A few months ago, President Trump’s decision to relocate America’s embassy to Jerusalem was criticized for undermining ongoing peace negotiations between Israel and Palestine. Trump’s decision was seen to be more focused on protecting the interests America has with Israel than on bringing peace to the region.
Conclusion
A critical look at the history behind the Spanish-American War and other key events in America’s history reveals that it is hard for the nation to maintain a global presence without sacrificing on its founding ideals. There is no doubt that America as a country has good intentions and wants to promote peace and democracy throughout the world. However, America’s good intentions get distorted when it tries to kill two birds with one stone because in attempting to do that, it ends up betraying its founding ideals. The U.S. government should understand that it cannot solve all of the world’s problems on its own. For America to make the world a better place it needs the support of other nations. More importantly, it needs to recognize that establishing democracy into as a long-term principle requires the full participation of the natives of a country.
Work Cited
Kaufman, Joyce. A concise history of US foreign policy. Rowman & Littlefield, 2017. Print.
Lasch, Christopher. "The Anti-imperialists, the Philippines, and the Inequality of Man." The Journal of Southern History (1958): 24(3), 319-331.
McCullough, Matthew. The cross of war : Christian nationalism and U.S. expansion in the Spanish-American War. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 2014. Print.
Quince, Charles. Resistance to the Spanish-American and Philippine wars : anti-imperialism and the role of the press, 1895-1902. Jefferson: McFarland & Company Publishers, 2017. Print.
Smith, Joseph. The Spanish-American War 1895-1902: Conflict in the Caribbean and the Pacific. New York: Routledge, 2014. Print.
Welch, Richard. Response to Imperialism: The United States and the Philippine-American War, 1899-1902. UNC Press Books, 2016. Print.