SpanAm War.

plan_D · May 6, 2005

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/spain/sp1898.htm

Resulting treaty of the SpanAm War.

Article I.
Spain relinquishes all claim of sovereignty over and title to Cuba.And as the island is, upon its evacuation by Spain, to be occupied by the United States, the United States will, so long as such occupation shall last, assume and discharge the obligations that may under international law result from the fact of its occupation, for the protection of life and property.

Article II.
Spain cedes to the United States the island of Porto Rico and other islands now under Spanish sovereignty in the West Indies, and the island of Guam in the Marianas or Ladrones.

Article III.
Spain cedes to the United States the archipelago known as the Philippine Islands, and comprehending the islands lying within the following line:

A line running from west to east along or near the twentieth parallel of north latitude, and through the middle of the navigable channel of Bachi, from the one hundred and eighteenth (118th) to the one hundred and twenty-seventh (127th) degree meridian of longitude east of Greenwich, thence along the one hundred and twenty seventh (127th) degree meridian of longitude east of Greenwich to the parallel of four degrees and forty five minutes (4 [degree symbol] 45']) north latitude, thence along the parallel of four degrees and forty five minutes (4 [degree symbol] 45') north latitude to its intersection with the meridian of longitude one hundred and nineteen degrees and thirty five minutes (119 [degree symbol] 35') east of Greenwich, thence along the meridian of longitude one hundred and nineteen degrees and thirty five minutes (119 [degree symbol] 35') east of Greenwich to the parallel of latitude seven degrees and forty minutes (7 [degree symbol] 40') north, thence along the parallel of latitude of seven degrees and forty minutes (7 [degree symbol] 40') north to its intersection with the one hundred and sixteenth (116th) degree meridian of longitude east of Greenwich, thence by a direct line to the intersection of the tenth (10th) degree parallel of north latitude with the one hundred and eighteenth (118th) degree meridian of longitude east of Greenwich, and thence along the one hundred and eighteenth (118th) degree meridian of longitude east of Greenwich to the point of beginning.The United States will pay to Spain the sum of twenty million dollars ($20,000,000) within three months after the exchange of the ratifications of the present treaty.

Under the guise of "in the name of democracy" America acquires yet more land.

http://www.spanamwar.com/

Starting with a Cuban uprising against their Spanish owners and ending with the treaty above. After losing USS Maine to, still, unknown reasons (despite the reports then of it being lost to a mine) America sees fit to declare war and 'free' Cuba.

To all Americans, this may look like an attack on America but it's not. I don't mind reading about these wars and certainly do not judge America for them. In the 19th Century this kind of thing happened. I am merely showing certain people that Britain's imperialistic attitude cannot be attacked by an American without looking at how their own country got so big.

evangilder · May 6, 2005

Oddly enough, pd, I recently saw a documentary on the Spanish American War. What happened with the Maine was either sabotage, by an American, or an accident of some sort that was later the trigger. One of my relatives lost a leg in that war and little is know of his service. It was not talked about much.

plan_D · May 6, 2005

At the time it was said to be a mine but we don't really know. It could have been a mine, it could have been an accident or it could have been sabotage.

Despite the fact that picture is showing one of your relatives without a leg, it's a really good picture! You know Winston Churchill was in Cuba at the time of the SpanAm war?

evangilder · May 6, 2005

It was a shame to lose a leg for him, but it could have been worse. I am told he made the best of it. I like the picture, as it is a good picture of my great great uncle Norm.

plan_D · May 6, 2005

It is certainly a remarkable picture. You're lucky to have it and know of your families history beyond World War 1 (which I don't).

Ever noticed that they hardly ever looked at the camera in those days?

evangilder · May 6, 2005

I have been very fortunate with family photographs. I have pictures of several of my family members in Civil War uniforms as well. They had to sit still for quite a while with the photos, so I guess that is why everyone looks so stern.

FLYBOYJ · May 6, 2005

evangilder said:
Oddly enough, pd, I recently saw a documentary on the Spanish American War. What happened with the Maine was either sabotage, by an American, or an accident of some sort that was later the trigger. One of my relatives lost a leg in that war and little is know of his service. It was not talked about much.

Evan, that's really interesting! My great-grandfather owned a cigar factory on Puerto Rico, outside a town called Ponce. He move to Puerto Rico with his family a few years before the war started. Apparently after the US took over Puerto Rico, he lost everything and committed suicide. A few years later, the whole family was "nationalized" and made US citizens

evangilder · May 6, 2005

Hmm. Interesting. You say they moved to Puerto Rico. Where did they move from? (Spain?)

FLYBOYJ · May 6, 2005

Yes Spain

Anonymous · May 14, 2005

There is no question that the USA did not want European powers to have holdings in the Americas. How the Philippines got involved I really don't understand, other than that it was clear that Spain could not hold them. Either they fell to America or to another power.

European history was one war after another for hundreds of years on end. Can you blame the USA for not wanting European colonies in the Americas?

And I would point out that Cuba were freed and the Philippines were freed, both without having to fight wars of Independence. And Peurto Rico has been offered both Independence and statehood but wishes neither.

=S=

Lunatic

BombTaxi · May 14, 2005

RG_Lunatic said:
There is no question that the USA did not want European powers to have holdings in the Americas. How the Philippines got involved I really don't understand, other than that it was clear that Spain could not hold them. Either they fell to America or to another power.

And just because Spain couldnt hold them, the USA had to seize them? If this was a war of liberation, why not give them independence and leave them alone? Oh yes...they made a very good Pacific naval base, didnt they? :-K How the Phillipines got involved was that they were grabbed because they offered a strategic advantage.

RG_Lunatic said:
European history was one war after another for hundreds of years on end. Can you blame the USA for not wanting European colonies in the Americas?

If this isnt a blatant argument in support of cultural imperialism, I dont know what is. What you are saying is that because the USA didnt like the Europe was run, they had a right to kick Europeans out of the 'American' part of the world. That, to be quite frank, is rubbish. A lot of people right now dont agree with the way the USA is run - but I bet you'd be angry if they invaded you and wasted your country because they didnt like your government.

RG_Lunatic said:
And I would point out that Cuba were freed and the Philippines were freed, both without having to fight wars of Independence. And Peurto Rico has been offered both Independence and statehood but wishes neither.

=S=

Lunatic

If Cuba was 'freed', why did the US start stamping down on it when it, later on in history, chose itself a Communist government? Free countries can do what they want - the result of Cuba's liberation has been that the US has held an economic and political shotgun to its head for a century.
The Phillipines were not freed either - they became a US naval base. And just to reflect your imperialist logic, RG... is it any surprise Puerto Rico didnt want statehood? [/quote]

Anonymous · May 14, 2005

BombTaxi said:
RG_Lunatic said:

There is no question that the USA did not want European powers to have holdings in the Americas. How the Philippines got involved I really don't understand, other than that it was clear that Spain could not hold them. Either they fell to America or to another power.

Click to expand...

And just because Spain couldnt hold them, the USA had to seize them? If this was a war of liberation, why not give them independence and leave them alone? Oh yes...they made a very good Pacific naval base, didnt they? :-K How the Phillipines got involved was that they were grabbed because they offered a strategic advantage.

Cuba was given independance. As for the Phillapines, they could not protect themselves. Giving them indepenance and leaving would have just left them ripe for the picking for some other nation. Otherwise, as was done upon granting indpendance to Cuba (and later the Phillapines), rights to a naval base could have been secured while also granting indpendance.

RG_Lunatic said:
European history was one war after another for hundreds of years on end. Can you blame the USA for not wanting European colonies in the Americas?

BombTaxi said:
If this isnt a blatant argument in support of cultural imperialism, I dont know what is. What you are saying is that because the USA didnt like the Europe was run, they had a right to kick Europeans out of the 'American' part of the world. That, to be quite frank, is rubbish. A lot of people right now dont agree with the way the USA is run - but I bet you'd be angry if they invaded you and wasted your country because they didnt like your government.

I was making no argument about what I'd like, or even what was ethically right or wrong, but rather a statement about the sentiment at the time.

BombTaxi said:
RG_Lunatic said:

And I would point out that Cuba were freed and the Philippines were freed, both without having to fight wars of Independence. And Peurto Rico has been offered both Independence and statehood but wishes neither.

Click to expand...

If Cuba was 'freed', why did the US start stamping down on it when it, later on in history, chose itself a Communist government? Free countries can do what they want - the result of Cuba's liberation has been that the US has held an economic and political shotgun to its head for a century.
The Phillipines were not freed either - they became a US naval base. And just to reflect your imperialist logic, RG... is it any surprise Puerto Rico didnt want statehood?

Well, that has to do with world politics and the Soviet influence in the 1950's and 60's. This is a totally different circumstance. What the USA found unacceptable was a Soviet satelite so close to its shores, just like it didn't find European satalites acceptable in the 19th century.

The Phillipines are not an independant nation? You better tell them that!

Ahd Peurto Rico does not want statehood because they do not want to pay US taxes. They do not want indpendance because they like the financial support and protection provided by the USA. For them, they prefer to be a territory - by their own choice. You clearly do not understand anything about Puerto Rican political history.

=S=

Lunatic

plan_D · May 15, 2005

This thread and the many others on this forum are to prove to Americans like you, that attack Britain's history because it was imperialistic, that America was basically the same, with one difference. America hid it's expansionist attitude under the guise of 'in the name of democracy'.

Britain was a product of it's time and openly admitted it was expanding it's empire. America hids behind democracy to enlarge it's empire.

Medvedya · May 15, 2005

RG_Lunatic said:
The Phillipines are not an independant nation? You better tell them that!

They were as of July 4, 1946, but have a look here - some stuff here I didn't really know about before. I found it most interesting!

http://www.historyguy.com/PhilipineAmericanwar.html

Anonymous · May 15, 2005

plan_D said:
This thread and the many others on this forum are to prove to Americans like you, that attack Britain's history because it was imperialistic, that America was basically the same, with one difference. America hid it's expansionist attitude under the guise of 'in the name of democracy'.

Britain was a product of it's time and openly admitted it was expanding it's empire. America hids behind democracy to enlarge it's empire.

Plan,

I've never meant to attack British Imperialism/Colonialism in the pre-20th century period. My comments that got you started on this whole thing had to do with Britain and France's insistance on trying to continue these practices after WWI and even after WWII.

I thought you understood this.

=S=

Lunatic

plan_D · May 15, 2005

Americans thought that Britain was trying to continue that after World War 2 but there is no such proof that we were. It annoys me that a major attack from Americans against Britain is that we were/are imperialist.

You have to admit that America was the same on a lesser scale.

Medvedya · May 15, 2005

Besides, I always have the impression that after the Second World War, we had to shed the colonies as fast as possible owing to the fact we'd made ourselves flat broke by trying to keep the Nazis at bay.

Anonymous · May 15, 2005

Medvedya said:
RG_Lunatic said:

The Phillipines are not an independant nation? You better tell them that!

Click to expand...

They were as of July 4, 1946, but have a look here - some stuff here I didn't really know about before. I found it most interesting!

http://www.historyguy.com/PhilipineAmericanwar.html

Yes, the early US handling of the Phillipines was a stain on US integrity. Terms should have been negotiated with the Filipino leaders to hand Soveirngty over within 5 years, with base rights for the US Navy and certain gaurantee's ensuring democratic rule in the Filipino government.

However, it was always US intention that the Phillapines should become indepandant - the issue was the timing and form of that indpendance. European nations like Britian and France never intended to grant indpendance to their colonies such as India and Indo-china.

Teddy Roosevelt was one of the least enlightened Presidents the USA has ever had.

=S=

Lunatic

plan_D · May 15, 2005

Even with that the U.S secured a holding in the Phillipines by having U.S Navy base rights.

France and Britain never claimed we were taking those places in the name of democracy though. France and Britain were expanding their trading empire. In fact, Britain created a stronger infrastructure in the vast majority of it's colonies.

Anonymous · May 15, 2005

plan_D said:
Americans thought that Britain was trying to continue that after World War 2 but there is no such proof that we were. It annoys me that a major attack from Americans against Britain is that we were/are imperialist.

You have to admit that America was the same on a lesser scale.

Read about Churchill after the war, and how he tried to claim that the Atlantic Charter was only meant to apply to the Axis powers. Britain clearly wanted to hold onto India but it clearly could not. It also wanted to hold onto its Middle Eastern and African colonies which it tried to do. Britain had hopped for US support in holding onto these colonies, or at least acceptance of the policy.

There is pleanty of proof of these things Plan.

SpanAm War.

Lieutenant Colonel

"Shooter"

Attachments

Lieutenant Colonel

"Shooter"

Lieutenant Colonel

"Shooter"

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

"Shooter"

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Anonymous

Guest

Tech Sergeant

Anonymous

Guest

Lieutenant Colonel

Master Sergeant

Anonymous

Guest

Lieutenant Colonel

Master Sergeant

Anonymous

Guest

Lieutenant Colonel

Anonymous

Guest

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads