The Spanish-American War is of relevance to us living in these times in a myriad of ways. The parallels that can be drawn between the current Iraq War and the Spanish-American War are striking in several ways. Both were embraced by the populace at large as being a humanitarian war, to liberate those who were oppressed and were too weak to liberate themselves. Both countries are sources of significant economic value to the American economy, Iraq with its large oil reserves and Cuba provided significant strategic worth in its location in the Caribbean and as a potential stopping point on the way through the proposed Nicaraguan but eventually became the Panama Canal.(1) The Spanish-American War also provides the beginning of and model for American interventionist policies that took place in the Twentieth century such as Vietnam and the Persian Gulf War which were both entered into in the name of protecting American interests and defending the oppressed populations of those regions. Congressman Townsend Scudder stated the rational behind such a policy in 1901 in reference to 1898: “It devolved upon us as the guardian of human liberty and free political institutions in the Western Hemisphere to correct the intolerable evils and setup in their place the institutions of enlightened government.”(2) In the twentieth century American policy still followed that ideal but enlarged Western Hemisphere to encompass the entire globe.

Historians are not united in their interpretations of the motives behind the Spanish-American War just as we today are not all of one mind as to the reasons for American occupation of Iraq and to a lesser degree Afghanistan. Until the 1970’s much of the north American historians viewed the Spanish-American War as the debut of American power into the international scene and during the Cold War years, during the struggle between American Capitalism and Soviet Communism they emphasized the magnanimity of the United States in its intervention to liberate an oppressed people from a corrupt regime. But from the 1970’s onward, in the aftermath of Vietnam and the disfavor in which American intervention abroad was now held historians began to concentrate upon the “imperialist” aspect of the Spanish-American and now Filipino-Cuban War.(3) There is no doubt that there were American policymakers or at least many influential ones who held “imperialist” or “expansionist” reasons for wanting to involve the United States in a conflict with Spain. But as Louis Perez jr. states: “it is unnecessary to deny the contribution of the United States in the Cuban struggle for independence…Nor should the authenticity of the zeal of the American people in behalf of Cuban Libre in 1898 be questioned, irrespective of the fact that this sentiment may have been manipulated by policymakers in pursuit of larger objectives.”(4) This holds true for us today, Iraq is free of an oppressive dictator because of American intervention regardless of whether or not politicians and influential businesspeople had ulterior motives behind the humanitarian rhetoric that was spoken and few if anyone doubts the sincerity of the goodwill of the American populace towards the Iraqi people as they embark upon their journey as a democratic state.

But we must also guard against the failures of the past and not try and tie Iraq to us with forced gratitude. There can be no statements such as the New York Times made on July 19, 1898 after the fall of Santiago de Cuba which represented the sentiment behind the passage of the Platt amendment: “The sacrifices of treasure and life that we have made clearly entitle us to fix the conditions under which the observance of these principles(self government) shall be secure, and to retain whatever power is requisite to enforce these conditions.”(5) The example of Cuban resentment towards such attitudes as that and the eventual revolt against the government that had close ties to the United States and replacement with a government hostile to the U.S. should be ever present in our minds as we think of our interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and anywhere else that we might intercede.



1. Louis A. Perez Jr., The War of 1898:The United States And Cuba in History and Historiography (University North Carolina Press: 1998), 49-50

2.Perez, 120

3.Perez, 131

4.Perez, 132

5.Perez, 124

We know now that, aside from the humanitarian desires of the public to free the Cubans from an oppressive Spain and the flood of national well-being and unity that came about from the war with Spain, there is also the aspect of trade in the Far East and the need to secure “stepping stones” from which American ships can stop and refuel as well as places for American military establishments to protect American interests and nationals. This aspect has been of paramount importance to the business and political circles in the country. The economic situation at home had forced the businessmen and politicians to look overseas to expand the economy and keep the economy from stagnating.

The defeat of China in the Sino-Japanese war in 1894-95 caused many Americans to believe that China could be persuaded of “the folly of [its] exclusive and conservative policy” (1), thereby allowing American industries to expand into the Far Eastern markets. The current technology in ship propulsion, steam, which requires coal to heat the boilers to create the steam for propulsion limits the range of ships before refueling is needed, thus, the need for “island stepping stones to the major market areas.”(2) It was determined that the Philippines and Guam were vital to the economic goals of the country as a part of the chain connecting the U.S. to Chinese markets. Upon declaration of war Commodore Dewey, commander of the Asiatic squadron, was ordered to “Proceed at once to the Philippine Islands. Commence operations at once, particularly against the Spanish fleet.”(3) This was in accordance with a memorandum written earlier by Assistant Secretary of the Navy Theodore Roosevelt which stated that “in the event of war with Spain, the Asiatic squadron should blockade, and if possible take Manila.”. The intent was to turn the Philippines into a “commercial entrepot to the China market and a center of American military power.”(4) But these acquisitions were not to be the beginnings of an American Imperial expansion but “simply a limited though important accoutrement to commercial expansion” (5) .

Those in power also saw the gains to be had in Cuba as well. They saw that Cuba posed a threat to the stability of the region and that if it was to gain its independence without aid from the U.S., which would incur gratitude from the Cubans, that it could “pass under the influence of a hostile country capable of menacing U.S. interests in the region.”(6) The interference of the U.S. in the independence of Cuba allowed moral grounds for the U.S. to create a “stable and adequate government in Cuba.”(7) By dictating the terms of Cuban independence and the inclusion of the Platt Amendment in the military appropriations bill of 1901 the U.S. could dictate aspects of the Cuban government which could be “deemed most likely to jeopardize U.S. interests.” (8) So, while the public fought for reasons of humanitarian duty to the oppressed masses of Cubans as well as to revenge the destruction of the Main, those in office and the businessmen used the wave of popular opinion to secure for the United States the necessary territories needed to penetrate into the China market and to protect its interests there. By interfering with Cuban independence and incurring a “debt of gratitude”(9) the U.S. also secured the moral right to ensure that Cuban independence did not prove hazardous to American interests in the region.


1. McCormick, Thomas, Insular Imperialism and the Open Door: The China Market and the
Spanish-American War , Pacific Historical Review, 32 (1963) p.156
2. Ibid, 156
3. LUCE, S. B., Rear-Admiral, U. S. N, The Spanish-American War , North American Review,
194:4 (1911:Oct.) p.613
4. McCormick, Thomas, Insular Imperialism and the Open Door: The China Market and the
Spanish-American War , Pacific Historical Review, 32 (1963) p.158
5. McCormick, Thomas, Insular Imperialism and the Open Door: The China Market and the
Spanish-American War , Pacific Historical Review, 32 (1963) p.167
6. Perez, Louis A. Jr. , Incurring a Debt of Gratitude: 1898 and the Moral Sources of United States Hegemony in Cuba. The American Historical Review, 104 (1999) p. 364
7. Ibid, 370
8. Ibid, 371
9. Ibid

Spanish American War: National Honor, Unity and Cuban Independence

War was declared on April 23, 1898 by Spain in response to a resolution passed in the House and the Senate on April 19, 1898 declaring “that the people of the island of Cuba are, and of right ought to be free and independent” and “it is the duty of the United States to demand and the government of the United States does hereby demand that the government of Spain at once relinquish its authority and government on the island of Cuba.” (1)

This had been expected and, in some measure, looked forward to for some time. The papers had been full of news about the sufferings of the Cuban people in their struggle against Spain. But when the USS Maine blew up and killed 266 officers and men while at anchor in the Havana Harbor (2), then people felt there was an insult and harm done to America herself. As one article in the Birmingham Age Herald states, “The question at issue is, did Spain or any Spaniard blow up the Maine? If so there should be but one way to settle it . . . Shall its ships be destroyed in time of peace by citizens of a foreign country who are not over friendly to the United States and nothing be done to resent the insult?” (3)

This issue of national honor is a recurring and central theme among the newspapers and politicians. During speeches made at the House during the passing, unanimously, of an appropriations bill giving $50,000,000 to President McKinley to, in the words of Mr. Sayres of Texas, “maintain our dignity”, Mr. Allen of Mississippi stated “I desire to say for the people I represent, and for the southern section of the country, for the entire country, that there was never a time when all were so ready to give an administration all the money it might need to preserve the honor, the dignity, and the general welfare of the country, to say nothing of fair play and justice.” (4)

But equal, if not greater, emphasis is placed upon the growth of national unity that is being seen across the country in the face of a possible foreign war. The Birmingham Age Herald states “It is true there still exists an imaginary line between the north and the south. In fact it exists more in imagination than in reality. A conflict between this nation and a foreign power would do more to weld and cement the fraternal feeling between the north and south than anything that has transpired since the famous meeting at Appomattox.” (5) Or as Wade Hampton, an ex-confederate general stated in a letter to the Charlotte Daily Observer, “this was now our country; we have no other,” (6). In the north, people like Senator Proctor are saying that “it was worth all the cost of preparation for war to demonstrate what a sterling loyal spirit was cherished thought the south.” (7)

Many people are looking towards the conflict with Spain as a unifying force. There is not much fear of losing to Spain in the conflict. The Age Herald states, “A war between the United States and Spain hardly deserves to be called a war. It is so one-sided that it is disgraceful for us to display apprehension about its effects, financial or otherwise!” (8) The war is viewed as a righteous war. The provocation of Spain to war over the United States recognition of Cuban independence would, “If it resulted in the freedom of Cuba it is believed the United States would have the good will of the civilized world for bringing it about.” (9)

So, this war has been sold to the public as one of preserving national honor, promoting national unity, and securing Cuban independence. The Teller Amendment was added to the resolution seat to Spain precisely to squelch any thoughts that the United States was seeking to annex Cuba through this conflict. It states “that the United States hereby disclaims any disposition or intention to exercise sovereignty, jurisdiction or control over said island, except for the pacification thereof, and asserts its determination when that is accomplished to leave the government and control of the island to its people.” (10)

1. “This Means War House and Senate Adopt a Cuban Resolution:” The Biloxi Herald 14, no. 30 (April 23, 1898): 2
2. “Not Spain’s Money but American Manhood.” Birmingham Age Herald 24, no. 30 (March 1, 1898) : 4
3. “Not Spain’s Money but American Manhood.” Birmingham Age Herald 24, no. 30 (March 1, 1898) : 4
4. “ “E Pluribus Unum” in Fact” The State, March 09, 1898: 1
5. “Not Spain’s Money but American Manhood.” Birmingham Age Herald 24, no. 30 (March 1, 1898) : 4
6. “Wade Hampton Explains: Tells What Meant in His Recent Interview as to War with Spain.” Charlotte Daily Observer, March 09, 1898: 2
7. “It Was Worth the Cost” Butte Weekly Miner 19, no. 11 (March 17, 1898): 4
8. “Voice of Wall Street” Birmingham Age Herald 24, no. 30 (March 1, 1898): 4
9. “How War May Come” Butte Weekly Miner 19, no. 11 (March 17, 1898): 4
10. “Action of the Senate Declares for Recognition of Present Cuban Government: Also disclaims any intention on the Part of This Country to Proclaim Sovereignty Over Cuba” The Indiana State Journal 76, no. 16 (April 20, 1898): 1