Was the Spanish-American War Truly as John Hay Said, a “Splendid Little War”

Was the Spanish-American state of contendfare truly as John Hay utter, a splendid dwarfish war? why or why non? The Spanish-American war was for the American presidency the kickoff step on the road to be advance a global, police might, for the Spanish it was the dissolution of Cuba and their empire, from said conclusion is it fair to name such(prenominal) a war a success, an aforementi matchlessd splendid little war? 1 This essay hopes to examine the limitations of Hays statement, the war was to irreversibly imprint relations among the fall in States and the rest of the globe for the coming atomic number 6, and it was the trigger that hold outly taught the U.S. the cost of World olympianism. It is impossible to label such a conflict as totally triumphant and simplistic, it was fraught with diplomatical complications, both domestic and colonial, as is written herewith. The situation in Cuba onward American hinderance had always been precarious Cuban rebels had continu ally unconnected Spanish rule by come to the fore the 19th Century, such was the animosity amongst the Cubans and Spanish that it culminated in the erection of some of the first Spanish slow-wittedness camps (reconcentrado).Dubbed Butcher Weyler by the American press, Spanish general Valeriano Weyler sought to hold the uprisings, thus causing numerous deaths and epidemics among the Cuban inhabitants. 2 This onslaught erupted both the Cuban population and the American press into a fierce frenzy American readers experienced a battle of gigantic proportions between two rival peeledspapers, (New York Journal and New York World), in which the sufferings of Cuba merely chanced to furnish some of the near convenient ammunition. 3 With so oftentimes public attention, the Cuban crisis became a spectacular exhibition of jubilation there was much go for for interjection in the affair. Said exaltation was further prompted by the so farts of February 15th 1898, when the battleship USS Maine exploded in Havana Harbor killing 266 American sailors. Demands for war with Spain were imminent and colossal, the yellow journalism and its fabrication of news intoxicated the unscathed Country with war fever, slogans of Reappendage the Maine To Hell with Spain became very commonplace. 4 Theodore Roosevelt, supporter secretary of the navy, had always been of a militaristic nature, having commented that This country needs a war, and proclaiming prexy William McKinley as white-livered with no more than gumption than a chocolate eclair, had proclaimed the disaster an act of dirty perfidy on the part of the Spaniards. 5 The longing for war by the public and trustworthy members of government following the atmosphere of hostility prompted, reluctantly, McKinley to declare war on Cuba. Having blockaded Cuba on April 22nd, Spain thence subsequently declared war on April 24th.The Spanish-American war was initially a splendid little war as described by Hay it was an unbrok en series of American victories indoors whole 10 weeks of combat. 6 The major campaign of the war occurred at San Juan Hill, where a unit of newly formed Rough Riders under the command of Lieutenant-Col unrivaledl Roosevelt along with two regiments of African American soldiers stormed a position atop tympani Hill. So successful was the battle that Roosevelt would rather have led that bear down than served three terms in the U. S. Senate, that he had been revelling in victory and bloodbath.The combi country of defeat at San Juan Hill and around the port of capital of Chile in which 474 Spanish were killedwhile only one American was killed and one wounded initiated the surrender of Santiago on July 17th, and the capitulation of Spain on July twenty-sixth 1898. 7 The Treaty of Paris of 1898, signed on December 10, 1898, ended hostilities between the Spanish and the U. S. The Treaty of Paris deemed that Cuba would become an autonomous country, and the U. S. acquired Puerto Rico and Guam with the judgement that Spain be paid twenty million dollars for the Philippines.The scandalist treaty was the subject of much debate in the US Senate during the winter of 1898-1899, which was finally resolved on February 6th, 1899 by a one-vote margin of 57 to 27 with only two Republicans opposed George Frisbie Hoar of Massachusetts and Eugene Pryor Hale of Maine. How was it that the U. S. a traditionally isolationist body politic, become involved in such conflict. Nationalist historians argue said involvement to have been directed in accordance with constitutional delicacy and the democratic principle of projecting liberty and national spirit in essence the American Dream.George Brown Tindall argues that the U. S. involvement in the war was initiated out of a sense of outrage at another countrys imperialism It is true to say that until 1899 Spain had acquired substantial influence over the sugar industry, soil held equated more than the fifty millions that the U. S. held in Cuba. Tindall also argues the impact that public scene and ferocity had on the declaration of war too much caprice and popular pressure. Indeed said impact was so great that Tindall argues the ultimate blame for war, if blame must be levied, belongs to the American population. 8 Indeed manywere heavily influenced by the view that western imperialism was confirm by the (alleged) superiority of Anglo-Saxon and Nordic races, that it was warranted for the U. S. to spread her idealism and the American Dream to other civilisations. 9 There was however more imperialistic interests that influenced the coming of war, Re fantasyist historians proclaim the level of U. S. involvement corroborates with desire to defend its own interests that policy-making expansion was in aid of guarantying economical control.Indeed McKinley favoured said intervention and the establishment of a government made up of the wealthy Cuban planter class, as he believed it could be controlled economically an d embodied into the American Sphere. 10 In the short-term the prizes of victory over Spain were appealing, not to the lowest degree semi policy-makingly, for many economic advantages came with the acquisition of territory in Cuba and the Philippines. These incentives consequently substantiate Hays statement of the American-Spanish conflict as a said splendid little war, an easy and cost-effective method acting of amassing a greater economy and furthering the American dream.The overriding advantage for the U. S. was that it was a little war, it was also cheap, its cost was relatively slight, the feature that it took ten weeks and the lives of only 5,462 U. S. soldiers (379 in actual combat) painted a popular picture of ease in what was the first U. S. campaign. 11 Politically the advantages came from the influence the U. S. gained through becoming a new major piece indicant. With the precedent of waging and ultimately winning a international war, the U. S. had the potential o f authority over future tense entanglements. Flushed with the easy victory over Spain, inflamed by the vision of a colonial empire, many were caught by the propaganda for a naval power. 12 Roosevelt stressed we must strive in good faith to sportsman a great part in the world, and by doing the worlds work by bringing order out of pandemoniumfrom which the valor of our soldiers and sailors has driven the Spanish flag. 13 Moreover the U. S. obligation to sell up the White Mans burden further exacerbated get together States political intentions in the global theatre, indeed imperialists such as Senator Albert J.Beveridge and enthalpy Cabot Lodge, stressed Americas moral obligation to extend the benefits of Anglo-Saxon civilization to a backward people. 14 Indeed individuals such as McKinley commented on how to educate the Filipinos and uplift and civilize and saviorianize them as our fellowmen for whom Christ also died. 15 Missionaries became increasingly involved in colonial affa irs they act the chance to convert the little brown brother to Christianity for the sake of their souls. 16 economically the advantages of the war for the U.S. were of paramount importance, and were of major influence in the initial reason out for a declaration of war. Cuba in the 19th century was the sacred f chastiseen of American diplomacyCuba in American history has often been like with sugarwhich has the power of stirring more political devils in uppercase than any other elixir. Sugar was a major merchandise of America and therefore Cuba became a major concern for economists in a time of unrest and conflict, a potential acquisition for the the Sugar averthe most hated trust in America. 17 king-size assembly line also profited from the notion of expanding global markets, with the new access to chinaware and its flock of consumers, businesses such as the American Tobacco Company foresaw the new opportunity, grant the Philippines (as) the key to the Far East. 18 Indeed U. S. involvement in Cuba was take aback Frank M. Steinhart of the National City Bank of New York (NCB) became leading economic leader, and was therefore able to ascertain all of Cubas resources under the NCB with their 24 Cuban branches. One governmental individual commented no how Cuba is no more independent than Long Island. 19 Colonial empire really did suit the U. S. A. How then could such a splendid little war be so farcical, why were said consequences of war so detrimental to opinion concerning fall in States diplomacy? In essence there were three major complications, whose effects brought about severe limitations to Hays statement. In short imperialism and the desire for expansion of economy and territory contradicted with U. S. tradition of isolationism, and that the idea of a nation with democratic values holding colonial control was unpalatable by many people.The acquisition of territory far overseas put a great amount of strain upon U. S. administrative and defensiv e concerns, not least because of their practical distance, and also due to constitutional contradictions. It gave the potential for Continental warfare between the Great Powers, and the reality of guerrilla warfare in unfamiliar civilisations. The empire also brought about a further knowledgeable conflict, with both governmental and influential individuals, which sparked off following the condemnation of U. S. imperial stature. The U. S. ad only recently acquired an empire of colonies, she was naive and inexperienced with the policing and fortress of lands outside of direct U. S. jurisdiction. The activities of rebellious peoples soon exacerbated such concerns, initiating a accomplishment of guerrilla warfare, requiring a sharp adaptation of U. S. occupational forces to facilitate a war of counter-insurgency. February 1899 marked the beginning of open hostility and aggression towards the U. S. occupational forces by the Filipino insurgents. The U. S. now had to follow the preced ent set by the British, that an empire was a mixed-bag of complications and benefits.Proclaiming the slogan No hay derecho a trafficker un pueblo como se vende un saco de patatas (There is no right to sell a nation like a sack of potatoes), Filipinos launched vicious attacks on the forces of Aguinaldo and Mabini to oppose the new colonial masters. 20 The U. S. soon discovered they were running a peace treaty every bit as brutal as anything that Butcher Weyler had through in Cuba. Regular army soldiers, many of them veterans of the U. S. Indian wars, undertook marked severities (as one termed it) against these new Indians. One U. S. rmy officer wrote We must have no hesitate about exterminating this other race standing in the way of progress, if it is unavoidable. Many questioned the point of attempting to hold such alien territory, when there were on-going domestic problems, one newspaper editor commented that it was a sinful lavishness to waste our civilizing influence upon t he unappreciative Filipinos when it is so badly needed right here in Arkansas. During July 1902, the U. S. declared the Philippine Insurrection over, 200,000 to 220,000 Filipinos had died, and of whom only 15,000 were actual combatants, which suggest that U.S. forces consciously made war on the enemys stallion society that the concept of total war occurred fifty geezerhood anterior than 1939. 21 Critics of expansionism were another annoyance for the U. S. government. Those in office found the idea of colony incredibly taxing, that the contradictory acquisitions would perpetuate existing domestic problems. Other member foresaw that the ruling of said overseas dependencies would contradict, even violate, the premises of republican government and the values of classical liberalism. Although he failed to fervor his stance on U.S. imperialism in the chairpersonial election of 1900, William Jennings Bryan became a high profile contester of expansionism as a result, the election did not provide a clear mandate for or against overseas empire. Opponents of the U. S. Empire even more fervent than Bryan established the Anti-Imperialist group discussion in Boston to oppose the Philippine Insurrection and colonialism. Erving Winslow, Edward Atkinson, Moorfield Storey, William James, Andrew Carnegie, and former President Grover Cleveland added their voices to the anti-imperialist chorus.However due to their narrow upper-class and governmental social base, the antis were ineffective to generate much support for their arguments, indeed Vladimir Ilich Ulyanov Lenin described them as the last of the Mohicans of bourgeois democracy. 22 Despite the apparent failure to alternate U. S. foreign policy, the Anti-Imperialism League became a major concern of the government, not least because its rear was made of some actual political personalities thus creating the rifts of viewpoint shown, but it also caused embarrassment in the face of public and international examination i nto the affair and the consequences of it thereafter.Indeed such was the strain of the opposition that the government even suppressed the delivery of three anti-imperialism pamphlets to Manila written by, vice president of the Anti-Imperialism League, Edward Atkinson. Economists too were somewhat discouraged by the U. S. involvement in foreign relations, indeed the firm Gompers recognized the problematic nature of overseas economic development. These economists feared the possible conflict of competition regarding the expansion of existing U. S. monopolies and conglomerates, foreseeing their impact on foreign society in the pursuit and carving up of land, resources, and profit. overseas competition was also of major concern, believing the menace of cheap oriental person labor as detrimental to the U. S. proletariat. 23 The fabled China market and political engrossment of overseas markets meant the establishment of an open door in China and to the protection of the territorial integ rity of China. This therefore threatened war, a political tool to be reluctantly used if other powers obstructed U. S. entryway into China market, only war could sustain the policy. The rising sun of lacquer and Tsarist Russia therefore threatened future U. S. non-entanglement.In conclusion it is imprecise to deem the 1898 war and Philippine Insurrection as splendid little wars in reality each was fraught with so many hostile problems and consequences. To many individuals the concept of colonial expansion was exciting, not least as it perpetuated U. S. power and influence but many sought to gain economically, spiritually and personally from said imperialism. The cost of empire was of higher significance however, as its political costs were severely detrimental to the McKinley administration, its effects on natural practicalities of defense and economy damaging, and the diplomatic portrayal of the U.S. A embarrassing. Eighty years previously John Quincy Adams had predicted the o utcome of U. S. involvement in global conflict, no matter how righteous the initial causeher policy would insensibly change from liberty to forceShe might become dictatress of the World. Hay was wrong, 1898 was never a splendid little war, never a war on behalf of people other than its own. 24 Bibliography B. Bailyn, The Great Republic recital of the American People Vol. II Toronto, DC Heath Canada, 1998 J. L. Bates, The United States 1898-1928 Progressivism and a Society in Transition New York, McGraw-Hill Book Co. , 1976 H.Brogan, The Penguin annals of the United States London, Penguin, 2001 H. underbrush Faulkner, A bill of American life Vol. XI The take for cordial Justice 1898-1914 New York, The Macmillan Co. , 1961 S. Foner, The Spanish Cuban American struggle and the Birth of American Imperialism 1895-1902. Vol. I New York, 1972 L. B. Francisco, and J. Shepard Fast, junto for Empire Big Business, Corruption and the politics of Imperialism in America, 1876-1907 Que zon City, Philippines, Foundation for Nationalist Studies, 1985 E. Cobbs Hoffman, and J. Gjerde, major Problems in American tale. Vol. II Since 1865 Boston, Houghton Mifflin Co. 2002 M. A. Jones, The Limits of Liberty American history 1607-1980 Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1983 T. Mahan, Lessons of war with Spain London, Sampson Low, Marston & Co. Ltd. , 1899 J. B. Moore, cardinal Phases of American Development New York, Balt, 1912 C. S. Olcott, Life of McKinley Vol. II Boston, Houghton Mifflin Co. , 1916 J. R. Stromberg, The Spanish-American War The throttle into Overseas Empire U. S. A, The Future of Freedom Foundation, 1999 G. Brown Tindall and D. E. Shi, America A write up History ordinal edition New York, W. W. Norton & Co. , 2004 1 E. Cobbs Hoffman, and J.Gjerde, Major Problems in American History. Vol. II Since 1865, p. 98. 2 G. Brown Tindall and D. E. Shi, America A Narrative History Sixth edition, p. 759 3 Ibid 4 G. Brown Tindall and D. E. Shi, America A Narr ative History Sixth edition, p. 760 5 Ibid 6 M. A. Jones, The Limits of Liberty American history 1607-1980, p. 402 7 G. Brown Tindall and D. E. Shi, America A Narrative History Sixth edition, p. 764 8 Ibid, pp. 759 and 762 9 L. B. Francisco, and J. Shepard Fast, Conspiracy for Empire Big Business, Corruption and the Politics of Imperialism in America, 1876-1907, p. 135 10 Ibid, p. 141 11 G.Brown Tindall and D. E. Shi, America A Narrative History Sixth edition p. 764 12 J. B. Moore, Four Phases of American Development, pp. 147-148 13 E. Cobbs Hoffman, and J. Gjerde, Major Problems in American History. Vol. II Since 1865, p. 100 14 M. A. Jones, The Limits of Liberty American history 1607-1980, p. 403 15 C. S. Olcott, Life of McKinley Vol. II Boston, Houghton Mifflin co. 1916 16 G. Brown Tindall and D. E. Shi, America A Narrative History Sixth edition, p. 765 17 L. B. Francisco, and J. Shepard Fast, Conspiracy for Empire Big Business, Corruption and the Politics of Imperialism in America, 1876-1907, p. 33 18 H. Underwood Faulkner, A History of American life Vol. XI The Quest for Social Justice 1898-1914, p. 310 19 H. Underwood Faulkner, A History of American life Vol. XI The Quest for Social Justice 1898-1914, p. 313 20 J. R. Stromberg, The Spanish-American War The Leap into Overseas Empire, p. 2 21 Ibid 22 J. R. Stromberg, The Spanish-American War The Leap into Overseas Empire, p. 2 23 H. Underwood Faulkner, A History of American life Vol. XI The Quest for Social Justice 1898-1914, p. 310 24 E. Cobbs Hoffman, and J. Gjerde, Major Problems in American History. Vol. II Since 1865, p. 97