Spanish-American War and “The Four ‘D’s”

Spanish-American War and “The Four ‘D’s” A. ORIGINS 1868-78. CUBA LIBRE! Movement begins. Spanish imperial government is corrupt and authoritarian. Small clique of Spanish landowners exploit the labor of native Cuban workers and treat them terribly. They are backed up by the Spanish military. U.S. government defends Cubans and protests Spain’s policies. Spain promises reform. None forthcoming. U.S. doesn’t do anything militarily – army is too busy policing the South during Reconstruction or fighting Indians in the West. U.S. offers to mediate – Spain rejects the offer 1895. Cuban rebels take up a new strategy. To get rid of the Spanish, cut their source of revenue. BURN the sugar cane fields. “Work is a crime against the Revolution! Blessed be the Torch!” – Maximo Gomez Revolutionaries want INDEPENDENCE not AUTONOMY They have support in the east, but not in the west of Cuba. They do have support in the US and they do all they can to cultivate more support. Knowing the US government wants order restored in the region, the revolutionaries insist that only the expulsion of the Spanish from the island will bring order, and therefore the US should back the revolution and the expulsion of the Spanish from Cuba. Latest American TARIFF (1894) helps the rebels’ cause, since it too undermines the Spanish sugar industry in Cuba – Spanish 1 planters have less of a market in the U.S. because the high tariff (40%) makes sugar produced in the U.S. cheaper by comparison. Some Spanish planters realize it may be time to cut their losses and go home. February 1896 SPAIN RESPONDS to the burning of the sugar fields. The government sends in General Valereano Weyler to crack down. Known as “Butcher” Weyler, he institutes CONCENTRATION policy. Weyler puts people in camps to keep them away from sabotaging the fields and to keep them away from the influence of the revolutionaries. Leave the camp, and you get shot. Pent up in overcrowded cities, BETWEEN 100,000 and 400,000 civilians die of hunger or disease. WHY IS THIS A STUPID POLICY? 1. Alienates professional middle class Cubans who would have been satisfied with home rule (autonomy) rather than independence. Middle class now sides with the rebels/revolutionaries. “Average” middle-class people have become radicalized. 2. Deprives Spanish planters of their labor and diverts military protection from the field to the cities – so you’ve alienated the middle class AND the wealthy planters. 3. Spurs outrage in the United States. Louder demands among US public for Cuban independence. This is the exact opposite of what Spain wanted since giving independence to Cuba will reveal how weak Spain really is. Through the concentration policy, Spain has actually helped out the pro-independence faction gain support in the US. By the end of 1897 even the Spanish loyalists in Cuba want Weyler out. B. WHAT IS THE U.S. POSITION? The President’s Position: 2 William McKinley strongly opposed U. S. intervention in Cuba. As a Civil War vet, he had “SEEN THE BODIES STACKED UP LIKE CORDS OF LUMBER,” and so he had no illusions about war being “invigorating” or “cleansing.” He also knows: the US army is in shambles; US generals are relics; no logistical infrastructure to launch an invasion from Florida to Cuba; the US could conceivably lose to the Spanish, even though the Spanish themselves are in a weak position. McKinley wants ORDER restored. McKinley is pro-Cuban, but he also will not recognize the rebels as belligerents since this could lead the US into war with Spain. He does not want Cuban independence, he wants Spain to implement reforms that will improve conditions for the Cubans. If they are unable to do so, they should relinquish sovereignty over the island. McKinley wants to MEDIATE the dispute between the Cubans and the Spanish, but this does not mean he supports US intervention in Cuba. He condemns Spanish for breaking earlier promises of reform. NOVEMBER 1897 New Spanish government removes Weyler and agrees: 1. to end re-concentration policy 2. to release US prisoners stuck in Cuba 3. to allow US to supply humanitarian aid to the Cubans (McKinley gives $5000 of his own money) Spanish minister: “All motive for irritation has disappeared.” 3 McKinley relieved that war might be avoided The Position of the Press: Penny press seizes on the sensational aspects of the Cuban story. Hearst and Pulitzer vie for most outrageous atrocity stories. Some atrocities are…exaggerated. For example, one Hearst paper reports a single Cuban general died in battle twelve times, committed suicide, and was poisoned. Hearst sends artist FREDERIC REMINGTON to “draw” the war. Remington reports back → “All is peaceful. No war to draw.” Hearst tells him → “You supply the pictures. I’ll supply the war.” BUT THE PRESS HARDLY DRAGS THE U.S. INTO WAR. Its influence has been exaggerated. No one in the heartland reads the Hearst papers, but people there are still angry at the Spanish treatment of Cubans and pressure McKinley to “do something.” Americans were very idealistic, had supported popular revolutions in Hungary (1849) and Greece (1820s). Not surprising that they would support one so close to home. CUBAN CAUSE APPEALS TO U.S. SENSE OF “MISSION” (Duty) Those disgusted with politics and usual and the increasingly commercial nature of the US – in which people focus only on the bottom line and making money – see support of the Cuban “cause” as an opportunity for a new MORAL RENEWAL. Time to take up our DUTY as MEN just as the Civil War generation had done. The Position of “Big Business” WAS U.S. INTERVENTION IN CUBA “A BIG BUSINESS CONSPIRACY”? 4 In a word, NO. Most corporate leaders who have the President’s ear adamantly opposed the war. They fear instability that war would produce will jeopardize the economic recovery from 1893 depression. Ironically, big business opposition, based on realism, fuels the idealism of the CUBA LIBRE! Movement. If business opposes war, it must be a good and righteous cause. So many idealistic, anti-business Americans join in the chorus for war. They are encouraged and incited by interventionists (known as “JINGOES”) The Position of the “Jingoes” Most well-known of the jingoes is Theodore Roosevelt. He says McKinley, who opposes war, “has the backbone of a chocolate éclair.” To add insult to injury, Roosevelt is not in the opposition party, he is in McKinley’s cabinet! He is criticizing his boss. Roosevelt and other jingoes use gendered language – are you a man or not? Are you “yellow”? They believe war can be “invigorating” and “cleansing.” War will restore the nation’s masculinity. It will also be precipitate a moral renewal – the U.S. goes to war for a righteous cause, not for material gain. This message would persist throughout the 20th century. C. WAR CLOUDS GATHER – January to April 1898 January 1898 – riots in Havana; Spanish loyalists fight Cuban rebels. 5 These loyalists know that if Spain gives Cuba autonomy, the revolutionaries will deprive the loyalists of their jobs and status. McKinley doesn’t want war, but must do something to show the US will not tolerate further disorder on the island. Sends the USS Maine on a “good will” mission Spanish foreign minister: “That ship might, through some mischance, bring about a conflict” February 8 DeLome letter (sent from Spanish diplomat in Cuba to the Spanish government) that ridicules McKinley is leaked and printed in a Hearst paper. This is a direct challenge to the nation as well as to McKinley’s manhood. DeLome suggests all the reforms Spain had promised months before were just a ruse and that McKinley is weak and easily tricked. The Spanish government is furious at DeLome’s letter has become public since it wants to avoid war with the US, and the publication of the letter makes war more likely. February 15 USS MAINE EXPLODES. CALL FOR WAR IN AMERICAN PAPERS → “Remember the Maine, to hell with Spain!” McKinley doesn’t want war; he knows the Spanish don’t want war. Why would they have attacked the Maine? He decides to stall for time and, instead of taking immediate action, he appoints a committee to investigate the explosion. March 17 6 Vermont Senator Renfield Proctor, who had shared the President’s skepticism about war, delivers a speech in the Senate on conditions in Cuba that shocks and horrifies. Proctor was no jingo, he was “sane” and “reasonable” – so the speech carries even more weight. If Proctor thinks the US should go to war, maybe it should? March 28 The Committee concludes the Maine was destroyed by a mine, presumably a Spanish mine. This is unexpected since McKinley thought he had stacked the committee with men who were predisposed to believe that Spain had NOT been to blame. But was it a Spanish mine? McKinley is skeptical. It’s not in Spain’s interests to provoke a war it might well lose. Did the Cuban rebels blow up the ship to “frame” the Spanish and provoke the US to enter the war on their side? Probably not. Many of the rebel leaders believed they could rid Cuba of the Spanish without asking for American military assistance. If the Americans intervene, they may not leave. The rebels don’t want the Americans simply to replace the Spanish. They want Cubans to govern Cuba. In fact, as we now know, nobody blew up the Maine. It exploded from within. Gun powder and coal dust in close proximity to the boilers made for an explosive situation. And the Maine exploded. Nonetheless, the important point to remember is that the Maine’s explosion pushed McKinley closer to intervention. He found it difficult to resist public opinion. 7 STEP BACK and ASSESS the situation from each point of view…. CUBAN rebels think they’re on the brink of winning. They won’t back down, negotiate a cease fire, or compromise. They increase their demands on Spain. SPANISH realize they can’t put down the rebellion, but can probably maintain the status quo. The Spanish queen regent realizes she doesn’t have to yield and won’t yield for fear that her government and the monarchy itself will fall. Public opinion in Spain won’t accept surrender of Spanish Cuba to the Cuban rebels. Yet the Spanish don’t want to stay. They need an honorable way out. At this point the government begins to think a war with the US might be the best option – it’s much better to lose a war to the US, an up and coming powerful nation, than have a rag tag band of Cuban rebels kick them out. UNITED STATES McKinley is under great pressure, even from some Republicans who had previously opposed intervention. Midterm elections are coming up in November and McKinley’s hesitancy is making him and the party look weak. They want the President to act and stop waffling. MORE GENDERED TALK: are you a man or not? McKinley sits up nights contemplating his next move. He will ask Congress for authority to use the armed forces. But he doesn’t want war. Repeat his terms to the Spanish convinced they don’t want war either. Last minute talks about an armistice brokered by the Pope fall through. April 19 Congress declares war WAR FOR CUBA BEGINS IN THE PHILIPPINES 8 Admiral Dewey had been told to be ready to leave Hong Kong to attack the Spanish in the Philippines should war be declared. 1 MAY – Dewey’s fleet steams into Manilla Bay to attack the Spanish Dewey targets the Spanish fleet and declares, “Fire when ready, Gridley!” Spanish fleet wiped out in a matter of hours. The Americans even had time to take a break for brunch. Eight US sailors wounded from flying wood splinters of exploding Spanish ships; otherwise no American casualties. U.S. wins an astonishingly quick victory… and has its first hero of the war, celebrated in song: OH DEWEY WAS THE MORNING UPON THE FIRST OF MAY AND DEWEY WAS THE ADMIRAL DOWN IN MAILLA BAY AND DEWEY WERE THE REGENT’S EYES THOSE ORBS OF ROYAL BLUE AND DO WE FEEL DISCOURAGED? I DO NOT THINK WE DO! Babies named after him; GUM- Dewey’s Chewies; laxative; had his wife not been a Catholic, he might have been nominated for president. ACROSS THE WORLD FROM THE PHILIPPINES, THE FIGHT BEGINS IN CUBA… 9 But, as McKinley had feared, the mobilization of troops and supplies proves a logistical nightmare. How to move 17,000 men from Florida to Cuba? Not enough transport boats. People left waiting in unbearable Florida heat. Teddy Roosevelt’s horse pushed off as his ship approaches the Cuban beach and instead of heading toward land promptly swims off to sea. Luckily, he brought a spare. Supplies for the rank and file troops have trouble reaching Florida due to poor railroad infrastructure in the South. Soldiers’ uniforms are stuck in a railroad depot for weeks -- Wool uniforms. (Not particularly comfortable in Cuba during the summer.) “Embalmed” canned beef intended to feed the US soldiers was, as one soldier put it, “DISGUSTING IN TASTE EXCEPT TO THE MAGGOTS WHO GOT TO IT BEFORE THE SOLDIERS DID.” Troops endure horrific sanitary conditions; 5400 US soldiers DEAD -only 345 of them in battle. The rest die from disease. Army leadership was poor – ex-Civil War generals, some Confederate. One, reliving past glories, charges up San Juan Hill yelling, “WE’VE GOT THE DAMN YANKEES ON THE RUN!” No shortage of “martial spirit,” though… Incredible response → War Department estimates it will need to recruit 200,000 men; 500,000 volunteer. At Cornell University, you even got college credit if you fought in the war. Everyone volunteered – blacks, Indians, Wild West performers, Harvard types out to prove their manhood, Southerners out to prove their loyalty to the U.S. government 10 This “martial spirit” was demonstrated during the famous charge up Kettle Hill. TR charges into a hail of bullets, sword drawn, shouting, “Come on, boys! Are you afraid to stand up while I am on horseback?” Spanish troops, many of them barefoot teenagers who don’t want to be there anyway can’t figure out these Americans. The Americans charge into rifle fire coming at them from higher ground, and having reached the top of the hill, Spanish POWs recall: “THEY TRIED TO CATCH US WITH THEIR HANDS!” One distinction of Roosevelt’s “Rough Riders” was the relaxation of segregation. Blacks and whites fight on equal terms and often together. Roosevelt himself praises the courage of his black soldiers: “HAD IT NOT BEEN FOR THAT NEGRO CAVALRY, THE ROUGH RIDERS WOULD HAVE BEEN EXTERMINATED.” Within five months, the Spanish surrender. “A SPLENDID LITTLE WAR!” declared the U.S. Secretary of State. US TAKES CONTROL OF CUBA, PUERTO RICO, GUAM, PHILIPPINES IV. Aftermath of the War – What now? What to do with new territories? The Teller Amendment, passed by Congress as part of the declaration of war, forbids U.S. from keeping CUBA as a colony. Nonetheless… U.S. GOVERNMENT DECIDES IT MUST PURSUE AN IMPERIAL POLICY AND TAKE CONTROL OF THESE TERRITORIES… BUT IT 11 DOES SO VERY RELUCTANTLY. Rather than simply “take over” the Philippines, the U.S. buys the islands for $20 million from Spain. This amounts to a “fig leaf” to cover U.S. expansionism since Spain really has no claim to the Philippines after having lost the war. So, the question remains: WHY keep these territories and pursue and empire? The MOTIVATIONS were complex, but we can simplify things by conceiving of them as falling into four basic categories: 1. DUTY Spiritual UPLIFT and MISSION. It is the “duty” of the U.S. to spread its values and principles to the entire world, and in so doing, the Americans will “enlighten” people and also contribute to a more peaceful, prosperous, and humane world. More specifically, this entails bringing American “know-how” to those less fortunate. This the Americans did – especially in Cuba where American officials…. OPEN SCHOOLS, IMPROVE HEALTH FACILITIES, PAVE ROADS, INTRODUCE BANKING, MODERNIZE FARMING, INTRODUCE EFFICIENT GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC SERVICES. But often the American officials ignored the wishes and the input of the people they were helping, fueling resentment from peoples who had initially welcomed American aid. To an extent, the resentment is compounded when the Cubans realize that the Americans are making valuable contributions and helping them achieve advances they might not have been able to achieve as quickly on their own. The Cubans, therefore, have to acknowledge they are dependent on the Americans, but the very fact that they are dependent makes them angry because they had fought the war for independence. 12 On the other side, the Americans who are helping the Cubans feel that the Cubans should be more grateful. They resent the Cubans’ resentment without ever considering why the Cubans might be resentful of American intervention. Mutual resentment builds largely because both sides fail to take into account the point of view of the other side and, perhaps more importantly, because the Americans begin with the condescending notion that they are “doing their duty” and therefore should always be appreciated (regardless of what they actually end up doing). 2. DESTINY Had it stopped at DUTY, perhaps things would have been ok. But racism was tied closely to notions of DESTINY. Americans had no interest in input from the native people, many of whom saw how the Americans could help them, but wanted a voice in their own country. When the Americans ran into resistance, they justified their attacks on the natives as “God’s will” and appealed to social Darwinism (the superior “race” was always right, or, on the side of “progress”) to justify atrocities. Anyone who opposed the US impeded “progress” and was dismissed as “backward.” Once convinced that they were fulfilling their “destiny,” Americans slipped into the moral trap of believing that the ends justified the means. The goal (or “end”) was so desirable and beneficial, that one could use any means (even violent or tyrannical means) to achieve it. This was false. The ends never justify the means. Rather, the means shape the end. Revolutionaries of all stripes often fall into this trap – so obsessed with achieving some kind of “utopia,” they resort to inexcusable behavior that, they claim, is justified given that it is allegedly bringing a society closer to the revolutionaries’ utopian vision. Claiming that something is a nation’s or a culture’s “destiny” is also fundamentally anti-democratic since it takes away the element of popular choice and replaces it with some irresistible force (either God’s will, or 13 some inflexible ideology). First two “D”s are IDEALISTIC motivations Second two “D”s are REALISTIC motivations 3. DEFENSE US feels it must retain a presence in the Philippines since, if it does not, other nations (Great Britain, Germany, France, etc.) will move into the power vacuum and keep the Americans from having coaling stations where they can refuel their ships carrying goods from California all the way to China. The Americans assume that the Filipinos cannot govern themselves and cannot defend themselves against the intervention of other stronger nations, therefore the U.S. must remain to help them. The U.S. must also build up its military (especially its navy) so as to defend American ships on the high seas that are bringing American products to new foreign markets. This is referred to as “projection of power” – economic gains cannot be made until the U.S. first insures it is strong enough to protect the sea routes to the new foreign markets. This is an argument discussed in Washington, but the average person does not think in such sophisticated ways. A small group of elites think in strategic terms and read Alfred Thayer Mahan’s theories about projecting naval power, but the “defense” argument doesn’t sell well with the people. They prefer the “uplifting” and idealistic arguments about “civilizing” backward peoples and see these as the reasons for why American influence should expand. 4. DOLLARS Some claim “Big Business” wants captive/sheltered markets and raw materials and therefore encourages the US government to pursue an aggressive foreign policy to serve the financial interests of American business. This is a seductive argument, but there are some holes in it. 14 Some businesses actually oppose the pursuit of “empire.” The Sugar Trust, for example, doesn’t want access to more sugar – Colonies would glut the market; this might be good for consumers, but not for the Sugar Trust. Maintaining empire costs money; this means HIGH TAXES. Business doesn’t like high taxes. Beyond this, the Philippines hardly seemed a good market for US steel, woolens, and cotton. Likewise, the China market was more a myth than an immediate reality. Chinese either don’t want or can’t afford the products US wants to sell them. Europe remains the primary market for US exported goods, and competing with European powers for colonial markets could result in retaliation – Europeans cut off their markets to US goods. Basically, it made more economic sense to build better relations with our major trading partners (Europeans, Canadians) than to search for new markets (especially if those in the new markets didn’t want or couldn’t afford our goods in the first place). It especially didn’t make sense if, in trying to find and open new markets (in China, for example) we antagonized the European powers who might then be less interested in trading with us. CODA THE PHILIPPINE INSURRECTION 1899 Filipinos want their independence and expect the US to make good on its promise to grant them independence. One Filipino faction, led by Emilio Aguinaldo, thought it had a deal with the US Admiral Dewey that would grant them independence once Filipino soldiers helped the Americans capture the capital, Manilla. But the Americans go back on their promise and indicate that they plan to stay in the Philippines and make the islands a US territory rather than 15 grant them independence. As a result, Aguinaldo launches a guerilla war against American “occupiers”; 7000 Americans die in battle – more than had died during the Spanish-American War. Putting down the insurrection costs the US $400 million (by comparison, the US had paid Spain $20 million for the islands). US retaliates by pursuing a re-concentration policy. 200,000 Filipino civilians die. Looks suspiciously like the Spanish policy the US had condemned in Cuba. Ultimately, the US triumphs since Aguinaldo had never won the support of a majority of Filipinos, many of whom joined with the US in fighting against him. He was upper class and most Filipinos believed his rule would be no less oppressive than that of the Spanish or the Americans. The disaster in the Philippines spurs debate at home. Soldiers supposedly sent out to show their manliness were being turned into savages in the jungle – atrocities committed against Filipinos provide ample evidence of this. Racism surfaces. Imperialists claim native Filipinos are “incapable of self-government” and must be supervised. Many anti-imperialists want nothing to do with the “low” races and argue that the U.S. should pull out altogether. In this sense, some antiimperialists were more racist than the imperialists who still held out hope that the “low” races could, with U.S. guidance, be “civilized.” Other anti-imperialists believed that while the U.S. should be an example to the world, it should not directly interfere in other nations’ affairs. After the suppression of the Filipino insurrection, the US doesn’t retreat into isolation, but imperial adventures in Asia are put on hold. Instead, Americans who had hoped to “reform” the Cubans or Filipinos turn their attention inward – to “reform” the American political system. In this sense, then, there is considerable overlap between those who had supported American expansion abroad and those who would become 16 known as “Progressive” reformers at home. 17