new stuff

The evolving FDA -- The intended motivation of FDA’s establishment and its ramifications

When the subject of government’s appropriate role in food and drug industry was broached in the writing class, everyone thought the topic is very significant and worth discussing. On the one hand, the presence of government enforcement is necessary in the milieu of market failure. As an international student from China, a country replete with scandals about inferior products and toxic food, the public safety issues always haunt in my minds. After years of pondering and comparisons, Once I have come to the conclusion that market alone cannot solve all the problems, and an independent and authoritative institution like FDA in the United States seems very effective and essential when confronting with market failure and disorder. On the other hand, as a fiscal conservative, I am very aware of the danger of government expansion and bureaucratic redundancy, and the potential damage to free market generated by government intervention. My goal in this paper is to parse the historical intended function of FDA, and what are the ramifications due to the modern institutional expansion.

To achieve my goal, I have organized my paper into three sections. The first section tries to explore the historical context of the FDA establishment. Why was it established, and how was it functioned? The second section of this paper will emphasize the consequence of modern FDA expansion, and the unexpected ramifications sprung from the centralization of FDA and other regulatory agencies. The third section is reflection. I will discuss the new findings, and how will it change my mind.



HISTORICAL EVOLUTION

In February 1906, a sensational political novel The Jungle, written by journalist Upton Sinclair, reveals some horrifying inside stories about the revolting meat production process. For example, Sinclair describes vividly that “they would die, and then rats, bread, and meat would go into the hoppers together”. (Sinclair, 308) The new middle class in cities was shocked by his investigation, so did the incumbent president Theodore Roosevelt. The exportation of food industry declined significantly due to the publication, and a sense of distrust spread throughout the whole country.

“After The Jungle revealed that meat was often processed from diseased animals and tainted water, Congress worked with lightning speed to pass laws regulating the food industry”. (Dobie, 84) The Food and Drug Act was passed by the congress in response to the public furor, and the inspection responsibility was given to the USDA Bureau of Chemistry, which is the prototype of the FDA.

The 1938 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act signed by the president Franklin Roosevelt substantively expanded and clarified the power of the FDA, and FDA's “right to conduct factory inspections, and control of product advertising, among other items” was corroborated. The legislation actually was an immediate response to public anger due to the Elixir sulfanilamide tragedy in 1938. A chemist made sulfanilamide available to patients who were unable to take capsules, and the lethal combination of the sulfanilamide caused hundreds of casualties.

In 1968, the Electronic Product Radiation Control provisions were added to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and the Drug Efficacy Study Implementation (DESI) was formed in that year. This expansion was a considerable structure reform which gives the FDA more power to tackle the public health and safety issues. The series of recombination and consolidation of FDA was ascribed to various scandals including the Thalidomide disaster in Europe and series publications written by environmental activists like Rachel Carson.

In the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990, the FDA was given the authority to require nutrition labeling of foods regulated by the Agency; and to require that all nutrient content claims and health claims meet FDA regulations.

In conclusion, the speed of expansion of FDA is gradual rather than precipitous. And every expansions of FDA were strongly connected to the special historical context and events.



CRITICISM & IMPLICATIONS

Initially, the regulatory role which the FDA played is very limited. Unlike nowadays, the emphasis of the legislation rested on the regulation of mislabeling rather than pre-market approval. And the primary concern of FDA is about safety rather than efficacy of drugs. During the past 100 years, the FDA is much respected given the alleged fact that millions of people are protected by the FDA from contaminated food and potential dangerous drugs which are detrimental to human body. However, nowadays, the FDA has evolved from a small government branch into a giant gorilla which possesses near 10, 000 employees with an annual budget of 2.5 billion. As a sub-agency of United States Department of Health and Human Services, the scale of the FDA is very striking.

The criticism of FDA grows gradually in tandem with the steps of FDA’s expansion. The most noted criticism comes from world renowned libertarian economist Milton Friedman, in the book Free to Choose: a Personal Statement, Friedman argues that the FDA should be abolished because it stifles innovation and competition, and the potential damage caused by FDA oppression is much greater than superficial benefits. He states that “considerable evidence has been accumulated that existing firms and existing drugs are protected from competition. New entry is discouraged, Research that is done will be concentrated on the least controversial, which means least innovative, of the new possibilities”. (Friedman, 209)

In an interview conducted by Hoover institute, Stanford University, Friedman refutes my early conclusion that a central agency like FDA is necessary when confronting with “market failure”, in Friedman’s opinion, the food safety can be guaranteed by free market, independent judiciary system and free speech. Because free market requires food safety as a prerequisite in order to compete with other rivalries given the fact that consumers don’t like contaminated food by nature. Moreover, an independent judiciary system makes class action suit available for consumer who suffers from poisoned food, and the high cost of class action suit settlement makes food factories less inclined to produce inferior products. Last but not least, free speech is the cornerstone of food safety because negative media exposure will definitely deter the bad behaviors.

Last but not least, the largest negative side-effect of centralization and consolidation of federal agencies like FDA is corruption. The latest episode of a popular drama in the United States, The Good Wife, sheds some light on the details of political corruption and professional lobbying. United States Department of Agriculture has the sway upon congress in the design of food guide, as a result, various interest groups, likes dairy and vegetable associations, have to hire lobbyists in order to influence the final decision of food guide adoption. This process makes the federal government become the hotbed of corruptions. A research paper published in 2002 on American Journal of Political Science found that FDA constantly approves some drugs faster than others, and the positive correlation between “the wealth of the richest organization representing the disease treated by the drug” and the speed of approval by the FDA is quite revealing.



REFLECTION

After this research, my opinion toward government regulatory agencies like FDA has changed significantly. The early conclusion that the presence of government enforcement is necessary in the milieu of market failure is unfounded. Every government existence and involvement in every domain in our life should be scrutinized, and the public should not take the government presence for granted, even it is democratic. The famous Austrian economist, Friedrich Hayek, has argued in his book The Road to Serfdom that “By giving the government unlimited powers, the most arbitrary rule can be made legal; and in this way a democracy may set up the most complete despotism imaginable”. (Hayek, 119)

The Economist once argues that there is a clear tendency that government is taking care of its citizens in every social domain and arbitrating what is the appropriate behavior. The magazine calls this tendency “soft paternalism”. Undoubtedly, this kind of new tendency is dangerous: “A new breed of paternalists is seeking to promote virtue and wisdom by default. Be wary”. The nutrition labeling ordered by the FDA is a perfect example of “soft paternalism”, because the government wants to influence what should we eat by concocting the right and appropriate labels silently.

One of the founding fathers of the United States, Benjamin Franklin, once incisively argues that “those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety”. Everyone should bear this sentence in mind.


Works Cited

"FDA History - Part I." U S Food and Drug Administration Home Page. U S Food and Drug Administration, 18 Aug. 2009. Web. 26 Nov. 2011. <http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/WhatWeDo/History/Origin/ucm054819.htm>.

Friedman, Milton. "Uncommon Knowledge: TAKE IT TO THE LIMITS: Milton Friedman on Libertarianism." Hoover Institution. Stanford University, 20 Dec. 2010. Web. 26 Nov. 2011. <http://www.hoover.org/multimedia/uncommon-knowledge/26936>.

Friedman, Milton, and Rose D. Friedman. Free to Choose: a Personal Statement. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1990. Print.

Roberts-Dobie, Susan. "IowaPast Perfect: Out of "The Jungle"" NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW 292.3-4 (2008): 84. JSTOR. Web. 25 Nov. 2011.

Sinclair, Upton. The Jungle. Cambridge, MA: R. Bentley, 1971. Print.

"Soft Paternalism: The State Is Looking after You | The Economist." The Economist - World News, Politics, Economics, Business & Finance. The Economist Group, 6 Apr. 2006. Web. 26 Nov. 2011. <http://www.economist.com/node/6772346>.

Carpenter, Daniel P. "Groups, the Media, Agency Waiting Costs, and FDA Drug Approval."American Journal of Political Science 46 (2002): 490-505. JSTOR. Web. 25 Nov. 2011.

Jackson, Richard, and Benjamin Franklin. An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania [sic]. New York: Arno, 1972. Print.

Hayek, Friedrich A. Von., and Bruce Caldwell. The Road to Serfdom: Texts and Documents. London [u.a.: Univ. of Chicago [u.a., 2010. Print.

Why Is There a Euro Crisis? - Philipp Bagus - Mises Daily

Why Is There a Euro Crisis? - Philipp Bagus - Mises Daily


On Thursday, October 28, 2011, prices of European stocks soared. Big banks like Société Générale (+22.54%), BNP Paribas (+19.92%), Commerzbank (+16.49%) or Deutsche Bank (+15.35%) experienced fantastic one-day gains. What happened?

Today's banks are not free-market institutions. They live in a symbiosis with governments that they are financing. The banks' survival depends on privileges and government interventions. Such an intervention explains the unusual stock gains. On Wednesday night, an EU summit had limited the losses that European banks will take for financing the irresponsible Greek government to 50 percent. Moreover, the summit showed that the European political elite is willing to keep the game going and continue to bail out the government of Greece and other peripheral countries. Everyone who receives money from the Greek government benefits from the bailout: Greek public employees, pensioners, unemployed, subsidized sectors, Greek banks — but also French and German banks.

Europeans politicians want the euro to survive. For it to do so, they think that they have to rescue irresponsible governments with public money. Banks are the main creditors of such governments. Thus, bank stocks soared.

The spending mess goes in a circle. Banks have financed irresponsible governments such as that of Greece. Now the Greek government partially defaults. As a consequence, European governments rescue banks by bailing them out directly or by giving loans to the Greek government. Banks can then continue to finance governments (the loans to the Greek government and others). But who, in the end, is really paying for this whole mess? That is the end of our story. Let us begin with the origin that coincides with beneficiaries of the last EU summit: the banking system.
The Origin of the Calamity: Credit Expansion

When fractional-reserve banks expand credit, malinvestments result. Entrepreneurs induced by artificially low interest rates engage in new investment projects that the lower interest rates suddenly make look profitable. Many of these investments are not financed by real savings but just by money created out of thin air by the banking system. The new investments absorb important resources from other sectors that are not affected so much by the inflow of the new money. There results a real distortion in the productive structure of the economy. In the last cycle, malinvestments in the booming housing markets contrasted with important bottlenecks such as in the commodity sector.
The Real Distortions Trigger a Financial Crisis

In 2008, the crisis of the real economy triggered a banking or financial crisis. Artificially low interest rates had facilitated excessive debt accumulation to finance bubble activities. When the malinvestments became apparent, the market value of these investments dropped sharply. Part of these assets (malinvestments) was property of the banking system or financed by it.

As malinvestments got liquidated, companies went bust and people lost their bubble jobs. Individuals started to default on their mortgage and other credit payments. Bankrupt companies stopped paying their loans to banks. Asset prices such as stock prices collapsed. As a consequence, the value of bank assets evaporated, reducing their equity. Bank liquidity was affected negatively too as borrowers defaulted on their bank loans.

As a consequence of the reduced bank solvency, a problem originating from the distortions in the real economy, financial institutions almost stopped lending to each other in the autumn of 2008. Interbank liquidity dried up. Add to this the fact that fractional-reserve banks are inherently illiquid, and it is not surprising that a financial meltdown was only stopped by massive interventions by central banks and governments worldwide. The real crisis had caused a financial crisis.
Conditions for Economic Recovery

Economic recovery requires that the structure of production adapt to consumer wishes. Malinvestments must be liquidated to free up resources for new, more urgently demanded projects. This process requires several adjustments.

First, relative prices must adjust. For instances, housing prices had to fall, which made other projects look relatively more profitable. If relative housing prices do not fall, ever more houses will be built, adding to existing distortions.

Second, savings must be available to finance investments in the hitherto neglected sectors, such as the commodity sector. Additional savings hasten the process as the new processes need savings.

Lastly, factor markets must be flexible to allow the factors of production to shift from the bubble sectors to the more urgently demanded projects. Workers must stop building additional houses and instead engage in more-urgent projects, such as the production of oil.

Bankruptcies are an institution that can speed up the process of relative price adjustments, transferring savings and factors of production. They favor a rapid sale of malinvestments, setting free savings and factors of production. Bankruptcies are thus essential for a fast recovery.
A Fast Liquidation Is Inhibited at High Costs

All three aforementioned adjustments (relative prices changes, increase in private savings, and factor-market flexibility) were inhibited. Many bankruptcies that should have happened were not allowed to occur. Both in the real economy and the financial sector, governments intervened. They support struggling companies via subsidized loans, programs such as cash for clunkers, or via public works.

Governments also supported and rescued banks by buying problematic assets or injecting capital into them. As bankruptcies are not allowed to happen, the liquidation of malinvestments was slowed down.

Governments also inhibited factor markets from being flexible and subsidized unemployment by paying unemployment benefits. Bubble prices were not allowed to adjust quickly but were to some extent propped up by government interventions. Government sucked up private savings by taxes and squandered them maintaining an obsolete structure of production. Banks financed the government spending by buying government bonds. By putting money into the public sector, banks had fewer funds available to lend to the private sector.

Factors of production were not shifted quickly into new projects because the old ones were not liquidated. They remained stuck in what essentially were malinvestments, especially in an overblown financial sector. Factor mobility was slowed down by unemployment benefits, union privileges, and other labor market regulations.
Real and Financial Crisis Trigger a Sovereign-Debt Crisis

All these efforts to prevent a fast restructuring implied an enormous increase in public spending. Government spending had already increased in the years previous to the crisis thanks to the artificial boom. The credit-induced boom had caused bubble profits in several sectors, such as housing or the stock market. Tax revenues had soared and had been readily spent by governments' introducing new spending programs. These revenues now just disappeared. Government revenue from income taxes and social security also dropped.

With government expenditures that prolong the crisis soaring and revenues plummeting, public debts and deficits skyrocketed.[1] The crisis of the real and financial economy led to a sovereign-debt crisis. Malinvestment had not been restructured, and losses had not disappeared, because government intervention inhibited their liquidation. The ownership of malinvestments and the losses resulting from them were to a great part socialized.
Sovereign-Debt Crisis Triggers Currency Crisis

The next step in the logic of monetary interventionism is a currency crisis. The value of fiat currencies is ultimately supported by their governments and central banks. The balance sheets of central banks deteriorated considerably during the crisis and with them the banks' capacity to defend the value of the currencies they issue. During the crisis, central banks accumulated bad assets: loans to zombie banks, overvalued asset-backed securities, bonds of troubled governments, etc.

In order to support the banking system during the crisis and to limit the number of bankruptcies, central banks had to keep interest rates at historically low levels. They thereby facilitated the accumulation of government debts. Consequently, the pressure on central banks to print the governments' way out of their debt crisis is building up. Indeed, we have already seen quantitative easing I and quantitative easing II enacted by the Fed. The European Central Bank also started buying government bonds and accepting collateral of low quality (such as Greek government bonds) as did the Bank of England.

Central banks are producing more base money and reducing the quality of their assets.

Governments, in turn, are in bad shape to recapitalize them. They need further money production to stay afloat. Due to their overindebtedness, there are several ways out for governments negatively affecting the value of the currencies they issue.

Governments may default on debts directly by ceasing to pay their bonds. Alternatively, they can do so indirectly through high inflation (another form of default). Here we face a possible feedback loop to the banking crisis. If governments default on their debts, banks holding these debts are affected negatively. Then another government's bailout may be necessary to save the banks. This rescue would likely be financed by even more debts calling for more money production and dilution. All this reduces the confidence in fiat currencies.
Conclusion

After crises of the real economy, the financial sector and government debts, the logic of interventionism leads us to a currency crisis. The currency crisis is just unfolding before our eyes. The crisis has been partially concealed as the euro and the dollar are depreciating almost at the same pace. The currency crisis manifests itself, however, in the exchange rate to the Swiss franc or the price of gold.

When currencies collapse, price inflation usually picks up. More units of the currency must be offered to acquire goods and services. What had started with credit expansion and distortions in the real economy, then, may well end up with high price inflation rates and currency reform.

Instead of allowing the market to react to credit expansion, governments increased their debts and sacrificed the value of the currencies we are using. The remedy to the distortions caused by credit expansion would have been the fast liquidation of malinvestments, banks, and governments. As the innocent users of the currencies are paying for the bailouts, it is difficult not to be a liquidationist.It is now easy to answer our initial question: Who is paying for the mutual bailouts of governments and banks in the eurozone? All holders of euros, via a loss of purchasing power.

Josephus and The Jewish War

It is impossible to see through a historical figure exhaustively; consequently, all the four characteristics mentioned in the question above are proper descriptions of Josephus if viewing him through different prisms.

He can be counted as a patriot, since his opposition to rebellion against the Roman Empire in order to keep the Jewish community in Jerusalem from Roman invasion can be interpreted as a sign of patriotism. He can be viewed as a traitor for the same reason, especially under a populist circumstance that most Jewish people support the rebellion. He can be regarded as an opportunist, since he defends the Roman authority in The Jewish War, “you should flatter, not provoke, the authorities”, and eventually he became a Roman citizen after the Jewish War. He can be perceived as a pragmatist, because the argument he makes in The Jewish War is very pragmatic. For example, he enumerates many empires that are conquered by the Romans, such as Gaul, Germans and Spain, in order to illustrate the murky scenario of rebellion against Roman Empire, “Almost every nation under sun bows down before the might of Rome”. Moreover, he points out that Jews have no allies other than their own God, and God is not on their side.

The perspective to see through Josephus certainly will matter our reading for the Jewish Wars, because it is widely accepted that every historical narrative is biased, if Josephus adopts any one of the four ideologies (that is patriotism, treachery, opportunism and pragmatism), the validity and reliability should be questioned because his own biased values will have an impact on his writings such as The Jewish War.

Further reading: 

The Credibility of Josephus

Did hundreds of Jews really commit suicide at Masada? Historian Shaye Cohen compares Josephus' account with recent archaeological evidence.

From "Masada: Literary Tradition, Archaeological Remains, and the Credibility of Josephus" by Shaye Cohen Journal of Jewish Studies: Essays in honour of Yigael Yadin Vol. XXXIII, pp. 385-405 Spring-Autumn 1982

Read more: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/portrait/masada.html#ixzz1dP7544tI

Pact of Umar

NEWS: Iran officials pressure pastor to convert
History: Medieval Sourcebook: Pact of Umar, 7th Century?

The Status of Non-Muslims Under Muslim Rule

After the rapid expansion of the Muslim dominion in the 7th century, Muslims leaders were required to work out a way of dealing with Non-Muslims, who remained in the majority in many areas for centuries. The solution was to develop the notion of the "dhimma", or "protected person". The Dhimmi were required to pay an extra tax, but usually they were unmolested. This compares well with the treatment meted out to non-Christians in Christian Europe. The Pact of Umar is supposed to have been the peace accord offered by the Caliph Umar to the Christians of Syria, a "pact" which formed the patter of later interaction.

We heard from 'Abd al-Rahman ibn Ghanam [died 78/697] as follows: When Umar ibn al-Khattab, may God be pleased with him, accorded a peace to the Christians of Syria, we wrote to him as follows:

In the name of God, the Merciful and Compassionate. This is a letter to the servant of God Umar [ibn al-Khattab], Commander of the Faithful, from the Christians of such-and-such a city. When you came against us, we asked you for safe-conduct (aman) for ourselves, our descendants, our property, and the people of our community, and we undertook the following obligations toward you:

We shall not build, in our cities or in their neighborhood, new monasteries, Churches, convents, or monks' cells, nor shall we repair, by day or by night, such of them as fall in ruins or are situated in the quarters of the Muslims.

We shall keep our gates wide open for passersby and travelers. We shall give board and lodging to all Muslims who pass our way for three days.

We shall not give shelter in our churches or in our dwellings to any spy, nor bide him from the Muslims.

We shall not teach the Qur'an to our children.

We shall not manifest our religion publicly nor convert anyone to it. We shall not prevent any of our kin from entering Islam if they wish it.

We shall show respect toward the Muslims, and we shall rise from our seats when they wish to sit.

We shall not seek to resemble the Muslims by imitating any of their garments, the qalansuwa, the turban, footwear, or the parting of the hair. We shall not speak as they do, nor shall we adopt their kunyas.

We shall not mount on saddles, nor shall we gird swords nor bear any kind of arms nor carry them on our- persons.

We shall not engrave Arabic inscriptions on our seals.

We shall not sell fermented drinks.

We shall clip the fronts of our heads.

We shall always dress in the same way wherever we may be, and we shall bind the zunar round our waists

We shall not display our crosses or our books in the roads or markets of the Muslims. We shall use only clappers in our churches very softly. We shall not raise our voices when following our dead. We shall not show lights on any of the roads of the Muslims or in their markets. We shall not bury our dead near the Muslims.

We shall not take slaves who have beenallotted to Muslims.

We shall not build houses overtopping the houses of the Muslims.

(When I brought the letter to Umar, may God be pleased with him, he added, "We shall not strike a Muslim.")

We accept these conditions for ourselves and for the people of our community, and in return we receive safe-conduct.

If we in any way violate these undertakings for which we ourselves stand surety, we forfeit our covenant [dhimma], and we become liable to the penalties for contumacy and sedition.

Umar ibn al-Khittab replied: Sign what they ask, but add two clauses and impose them in addition to those which they have undertaken. They are: "They shall not buy anyone made prisoner by the Muslims," and "Whoever strikes a Muslim with deliberate intent shall forfeit the protection of this pact."

from Al-Turtushi, Siraj al-Muluk, pp. 229-230.

[This was a from hand out at an Islamic History Class at the University of Edinburgh in 1979. Source of translation not given.]

This text is part of the Internet Medieval Source Book. The Sourcebook is a collection of public domain and copy-permitted texts related to medieval and Byzantine history.

Unless otherwise indicated the specific electronic form of the document is copyright. Permission is granted for electronic copying, distribution in print form for educational purposes and personal use. If you do reduplicate the document, indicate the source. No permission is granted for commercial use.


(c)Paul Halsall Jan 1996

halsall@murray.fordham.edu

WRT assignment--gun-control law

The article called “Controlling Legal Gun Ownership Does Not Reduce Crime” is a convincing argument which pertains to the sensitive gun-control issue in modern American society. Some members of the left side of American political spectrum consistently and repeatedly argue that federal government should reinterpret the second amendment of the constitution, because they believe that the pervasive crime in some regions of the United States should be ascribed to the second amendment of the US constitution, which guarantees people’s right to keep and bear arms. The article is eloquently written by John R. Lott Jr., a professor from the University Chicago Law School, as a response to the gun-control assumption made by the left. The crux of this essay is trying to convey the key proposition that legal gun ownership regulation by the federal government will not reduce the crime rate, and just the opposite, controlling legal gun ownership by the government regulation eventually will give rise to rampant crime rate in the United States. Lott extensively and successfully uses empirical evidence to illustrate his proposition.

As far as I am concerned, the purpose of this article is trying to debunk the stubborn and entrenched faulty assumption, which has not been demonstrated scientifically and logically, that gun-controlling law implemented by government mandate will reduce crime. The second amendment of the constitution of the United State clearly states that “a well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”. The founding father of the United States, John Adams, once incisively pointed out that facts are stubborn things. “Whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence”. Many notions and ideologies are believed by the public and academia simply because they have been asserted repeatedly, such as the assumption that gun-control law is a prerequisite of low crime rate. It is very dangerous that repetition has been accepted as a substitute for empirical evidence, which is true in a lot of current public political debates in the United States. In my opinion, Lott simply wants to reveal the gun-control fallacy that has had harmful effects on the well-being of millions of people in the United States. “The very size and strength of our results should at least give pause to those who oppose concealed handguns.”

Lott develops a sophisticated analytical structure to crystallize his major points. First, in the beginning, He simply describes a specific event. In the first paragraph, Lott mentioned the Democratic Party gun-control convention in 1996. During this convention, James and Sarah Brady tried to convince the audience by their suffering story that gun-control law is necessary to reduce the crime rate in the United States. The purpose that Lott mentions this story in the first paragraph is very clear: evoke the curiosity and sympathy of the potential audience of this article. It is very natural to deduce that gun-control law works when confronting high crime rate, and the author wants to exploit this natural reasoning of common people and foreshadow his empirical reasoning based on solid statistics in the following refuting paragraphs.

The author uses a plenty of comparisons and contrasts between intuitive reasoning and factual scenario in the article to convey his ideas. For example, In the third section “women are empowered”, the author mentioned that former president Bill Clinton played up his proposed expansion of the 1994 Brady law based on the presumption that the implementation of the Brady Law will shrink the high crime rate in some US cities, but the various empirical evidence suggests that the Law’s implementation is associated with more aggravated assaults and rapes. In essence, Lott concluded that “guns are the great equalizer between the weak and the vicious”, and “Mrs. Brady’s exaggerated estimates of the number of felons denied access the guns in her speech are a pool measure of the Law’s impact on crime rates”.

Moreover, Lott clearly uses a lot of numbers—statistical evidence to construct an argument based on scientific reasoning. The purpose of the numbers is to boil down the abstract conception and plain facts into scientific and cogent statistic evidence. The strong empirical evidence is the best instrument to undermine the fallacies which are indoctrinated by simple repetition. For example, according to Lott, the analysis of the FBI’s crime statistics for all 3,054 American counties from 1977 to 1992 indicates that by adopting shall-issue laws, states reduced murders by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%. If those states that did not permit concealed handguns in 1992 had permitted them back then, citizens might have been spared approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and 12,000 robberies. Numbers can be very pervasive when dealing with crime issues.

Lott makes a pretty strong argument about the sensitive gun-control issue. I can’t agree with him more. The constitution of the United States guarantees that bearing weapons is an unalienable right which is endowed by the creator for American people to avoid the danger of dictatorship. And the government does not have the authority to limit law-abiding citizen’s access to weapons in order to defend themselves from dictatorships or other high crimes. The issue is very sensitive in American political arena, and from now and then, this issue is often exploited by some politicians as their own political capital. Lott successfully makes a solid argument which defends the legitimacy about bearing guns based on solid empirical evidences.

Extra Credit Assignment #1

Extra Credit Assignment #1

measurement of media freedom

Idea: Freedom of the press is one of the cornerstones for the survival of modern democracies. Empirical evidence and observation suggests that democracy grows in tandem with the ever-expanding freedom of the press.

Concept: freedom of the press

Organization:

In my opinion, freedom of the press has three basic indicators. A country with freedom of press should satisfy all the following requirements:

1. No existing de facto law, regulation or censorship agency should make media succumb to prior restraint

2. Basic laws or constitution protect free speech (political) and they are actually enforced

3. Media should not be largely (50% or higher) state-owned

First, prior restraint is a classic indicator of freedom of the press. The supreme court of the United States established this legal precedent in Near v. Minnesota, which recognized the freedom of the press by roundly rejecting prior restraints on publication, a principle that was applied to free speech generally in subsequent cases. I hold the opinion that this prior restraint test is very significant and effective in restricting government control over media. Under prior restraint rule, government does not have any excuses to establish censorship institutions such as propaganda department to pre-screen media content.

Second, rule of law is a basic safeguard which is designed for political liberty protection. And a confirmation in the constitution or basic laws that guarantees political free speech is the prerequisite of the freedom of the press, which can effectually limit government power abuses in subsequent punishment, if any.

Third, media ownership is also an crucial indicator of freedom of the press. Hayek's proposition in The Road to Serfdom is very incisive when explaining the side-effect of state monopoly, which also applies to state-owned media. State's direct involvement and bias in the media industry will crush the natural competitiveness in free market and eventually it will impinge on the freedom of the press.

I hold a minimalist view of freedom of the press which classify media freedom only in regard to its observable institutional procedure and ownership rather than some specific violation cases and outcomes. A minimalist view is more objective and reliable. I also hold a dichotomous view toward the freedom of the media. If a country does not satisfy all three indicators, then it will be classified as not free. If a country meets all three indicators, then it will be classified as free. There is no middle zone in my method. As a result, the measurement level in my standard is nominal measure.

About validity, reliability and replicability:

First of all, three indicators rely on each other and every one is indispensable. Without prior restraint this specific practise requirement, the definition of free speech will be too ambiguous. Without the guarantee of free speech, prior restraint restriction will be meaningless because state can implement subsequent punishment anyway. Without free media market, in state monopoly media do not have incentive to practise their freedom so that the preceding two requirements will be futile. So as far as I am concerned, my measurement is valid.

All my three indicators are based on subjective observation rather than objective speculation. Related fact and statistics can be found in pertinent laws, regulations and media reports, and my measurement is not specific-case-violation oriented. So my measurement is reliable and replicable.

Existing concepts and measures:

In Press Freedom Index issued by Reporters Without Borders, there are 6 indicators that reflect media freedom:

1. PHYSICAL VIOLENCE

2. NUMBER OF JOURNALISTS MURDERED, DETAINED, PHYSICALLY ATTACKED OR THREATENED, AND ROLE OF AUTHORITIES

3. INDIRECT THREATS, HARASSMENT AND ACCESS TO INFORMATION

4. CENSORSHIP AND SELF-CENSORSHIP

5. CONTROL OF MEDIA, JUDICIAL, BUSINESS AND ADMINISTRATIVE PRESSURE,

6. INTERNET AND NEW MEDIA

The Press Freedom Index is more based on subjective individual perceptions, and there are often wide contrasts in a country's ranking from year to year. So the reliability of this Press Freedom Index is questionable. In my opinion, my measurement has succinctly included these indicators and more based on objective observation.

a very good paper

Autocratic Stability and Democratization 
The Impact of Political Economy and Governance

Q&A about Darwinism's falsifiability

me:


hello, I have a question not related to comparative politics but related to my curiosity 

Today's slides referred to the conception of 'falsifiability', and it says creationism is a non-falsifiable statement. I totally agree with that, but I thought that darwinism's version of genesis is also unobservable so that it is non-falsifiable. According to Popper's definition of science, do you think Darwinism is a scientific theory? 

Martign:

Hi George,

That is a very good question. I am no expert but I do know that there is quite some criticism out there saying that evolutionary theory can explain everything and therefore nothing. This criticism thus considers evolutionary theory non-falsifiable.

I have two responses to that line of criticism (and again, I am no expert). First of, I think evolutionary theory is based on a number of simple premises. It posits a clear causal mechanism of how species develop (i.e., survival of the fittest). This is different from creationism which does not provide such a causal mechanism above and beyond simply stating that species have developed the way they did because God made them that way. I also think that, because of its causal arguments, evolutionary theory makes testable predictions about development of species (e.g., if you put a number of giraffes in an environment where all food is located even higher than usual giraffes necks will tend to grow even further over generations). The problem, I think, is that evolutionary theory is often used in an ex post manner. Scientists observe a particular phenomenon and fit evolutionary theory to that phenomenon in order to 'predict' it. This is not a proper scientific approach. However, the problem here, I think, is not the theory per se but how it is being put to work.
Do you think this makes sense? What are your thoughts?

me:

thanks for your time : )

Yes, your explanation is very clear. I googled and found Popper's answer to my question:

In 1976, philosopher Karl Popper said that "Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research programme". However, Popper later recanted and offered a more nuanced view of its status:

However, Darwin's own most important contribution to the theory of evolution, his theory of natural selection, is difficult to test. There are some tests, even some experimental tests; and in some cases, such as the famous phenomenon known as 'industrial melanism', we can observe natural selection happening under our very eyes, as it were. Nevertheless, really severe tests of the theory of natural selection are hard to come by, much more so than tests of otherwise comparable theories in physics or chemistry.

I am not an expert too, and I think that Popper's statement makes sense. In the giraffe case, I think the observable part is the changing shape of the giraffe, but the changing intelligence of the giraffe is unobservable. There is no evidence could show that the giraffe becomes more smarter in this process. So how to explain the intelligence leap of human being in comparison with apes?

Kant's forth antinomy makes sense to me as well. The theory of evolution may be somewhat problematic, as it seems that any other scientific theories would not lead to the conclusion that a necessary being does not exit.

Martign:

Hi George,

I agree with Popper's statement that good tests of Darwinism are hard to come by. But they are still possible depending on the creativity of the researcher.

About the intelligence leap of humans: I don't think intelligence is unobservable...researchers have been trying to measure and study it scientifically it for some time now (for better or worse) in humans but also in other species (see for instance the work by Frans de Waal on chimps). This is not an answer to why this leap occurred of course (I don't have a good answer to that).

See you in class tomorrow.

What is science?

Here are some excerpts about the nature of science:

The old scientific ideal of episteme--of absolutely certain, demonstrable knowledge-has proved to be an idol. The demand for scientific objectivity makes it inevitable that every scientific statement must remain tentative for ever. It may indeed be corroborated, but every corroboration is relative to other statements which, again, are tenative. Only in our subjective experiences of conviction, in our subjective faith, can we be 'absolutely certain'.

The wrong view of science betrays itself in the craving to be right; for it is not his possession of knowledge, of irrefutable truth, that makes the man of science, but his persistent and recklessly critical quest for truth.

Sir Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery 

So I left him, saying to myself as I went away: Well, although I do not suppose that either of us knows anything really beautiful and good, I am better off than he is--For the knows nothing, and thinks that he knows . I neither know nor think that I know. In this latter particular, then, I seem to have sightly the advantage of him.


Socrates, in Plato's Apology 


Test everything. Keep what is good.


Saint Paul, First Letter to the Thessalonians 

excerpt from professor Douglass North

Douglass North's statement on Chinese economy (2005) :

This system in turn led to the TVEs and sequential development built on their cultural background. But China still does not have well-specified property rights, town-village enterprises hardly resembled the standard firm of economics, and it remains to this day a communist dictatorship.”

Happy christian wedding

I attended a happy christian wedding last Friday at Suffolk christian church, and here are some pics

monopoly is the by-product of coercion, not Laissez-faire

In The "inevitability" planning, Hayek contends that:

"This conclusion is strongly supported by the historical order in which the decline of competition and the growth of monopoly manifested themselves in different countries. If they were the result of technological developments or a necessary product of the evolution of "capitalism," we should expect them to appear first in the countries with the most advanced economic system. In fact, they appeared first during the last third of the nineteenth century in what were then comparatively young industrial countries, the United States and Germany. In the latter country especially, which came to be regarded as the model country typifying the necessary evolution of capitalism, the growth of cartels and syndicates has since 1878 been systematically fostered by deliberate policy. Not only the instrument of protection but direct inducements and ultimately compulsion were used by the governments to further the creation of monopolies for the regulation of prices and sales. It was here that, with the help of the state, the first great experiment in "scientific planning" and "conscious organization of industry" led to the creation of giant monopolies, which were represented as inevitable growths fifty years before the same was done in Great Britain. It is largely due to the influence of German socialist theoreticians, particularly Sombart, generalizing from the experience of their country, that the inevitable development of the competitive system into "monopoly capitalism" became widely accepted. That in the United States a highly protectionist policy made a somewhat similar development possible seemed to confirm this generalization.The development of Germany, however, more than that of the United States, came to be regarded as representative of a universal tendency; and it became a commonplace to speak--to quote a widely read political essay of recent date--of "Germany where all the social and political forces of modern civilization have reached their most advanced form."

Obviously his argument is undoubtedly conclusive, the evolution of china's state-backed monopoly enterprises can also verify Hayek's proposition.

Lexington: Bargaining and blackmail | The Economist

Lexington: Bargaining and blackmail | The Economist

Hayek's incisive remark on American "liberals"

in The Road to Serfdom--Foreword To The 1956 American Paperback Edition, Hayek refers to the distorted conception of "liberal"

"The fact that this book was originally written with only the British public in mind does not appear to have seriously affected its intelligibility for the American reader. But there is one point of phraseology which I ought to explain here to forestall any misunderstanding. I use throughout the term “liberal” in the original, nineteenth-century sense in which it is still current in Britain. In current American usage it often means very nearly the opposite of this. It has been part of the camouflage of leftist movements in this country, helped by the muddleheadedness of many who really believe in liberty, that “liberal” has come to mean the advocacy of almost every kind of government control.I am still puzzled why those in the United States who truly believe in liberty should not only have allowed the left to appropriate this almost indispensible term but should even have assisted by beginning to use it themselves as a term of opprobrium. This seems to be particularly regrettable because of the consequent tendency of many true liberals to describe themselves as conservative."

在看THE SECRET WORLD OF CHINESE COMMUNIST RULERS, 一段提到中组部觉得很好玩：

The department is accurately, if blandly, described as the human resources arm of the Party, but this does not do justice to its extraordinary brief and the way it is empowered to penetrate every state body, and even some nominally private ones, throughout the country. The best way to get a sense of the department's job is to conjure up an imaginary parallel body in Washington. A similar department in the US would oversee the appointment of the entire US cabinet, state governors and their deputies, the mayors of major cities, the heads of all federal regulatory agencies, the chief executives of GE, Exxon-Mobile, Wal-Mart and about fifty of the remaining largest US companies, the justices on the Supreme court, the editors of the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post, the bosses of the TV networks and cable stations, the presidents of Yale and Harvard and other big universities, and the head of think-tanks like the Brookings Institution and the Heritage Foundation. Not only that, the vetting process would take place behind closed doors, and the appointments announced without any accompanying explanation...

生态太好

作为一名准基督徒，我就不能再用进化论看待他们了: )

兑现

是准基督徒了。

recent reading

最近被要求学习的书是The Rise and Decline of Nations, 外加Peter Schiff的畅销书How an Economy Grows and Why It Crashes, 等看完了汇报感想

放假了

这几天一个劲劝我爸妈卖房产，趁泡泡破了之前

向崩紧的房地产资金链条投降？

这边认识的同学大部分暑假回家，托Bob回来时帮我托几本LSAT的书。

BTW, HIS 375终于拿了个A

对了还有，承诺的就要实现，虽然她似乎再也与我无关。so暑假继续去教会。

引一段维基百科

Soviet war in Afghanistan

The United States, the United Kingdom, and Saudi Arabia became major financial contributors, the United States donating "$600 million in aid per year, with a matching amount coming from the Persian Gulf states."[87] The People's Republic of China also sold Type 59 tanks, Type 68 assault rifles, Type 56 assault rifles, Type 69 RPGs, and much more to mujahideen in co-operation with the CIA, as did Egypt with assault rifles. Of particular significance was the donation of US-made FIM-92 Stinger anti-aircraft missile systems, which caused a notable increase in aircraft losses of the Soviet Air Force.[88] The main impact that it made, however, was the change it led to in Soviet tactics – helicopters increasingly stayed over friendly forces and limited daytime flights, jetcraft were forced to fly much higher, and other contingency measures were put in place.[89]

再引一段污有之乡：

当前的国际恐怖组织，除美国之外，大都集中在中东的伊斯兰世界。这个地区为什么盛产恐怖主义？这与这个地区丰富的石油资源和重要的战略位置分不开。为了争夺这一地区的战略资源，前苏联入侵阿富汗，美国支持以色列，频繁在这个地区发动战争，让无数的穆斯林教徒人失去了家园，无数的穆斯林失去了亲人。这些失去家园和亲人的穆斯林，就成了恐怖主义肥沃的土壤。因而，美苏的霸权是恐怖主义泛滥的根源。现在，苏联解体了，美国又在这里发动了多场战争，美国就成了当前恐怖主义的唯一根源。

短短一段话错误怎么这么多...

interesting extra credit #3

§EXTRA CREDIT #3

You begin with a certain number of points. This number of points is equal to the score that you received on the second midterm (if you missed the second midterm, then the number is equal to your score on the first midterm; if you missed both, the number of your points is equal to 10).The points are worth extra credit such that each point is worth 0.1% extra credit towards your POL 101 course grade.

Your task is to contribute some, or none, of your points to the public pool. Also, you cannot contribute more points than you have.

If the sum of all contributions is equal to or greater than 2500 points: then your extra credit is equal to whatever points you saved (i.e., did not contribute).

If the sum of all contributions is less than 2500: no one gets extra credit.

In addition: if you get A or A- on the final exam, I will subtract 5 points from the target (which is initially 2500). That is, getting A/A- on the final exam makes it easier for everyone to get extra credit.

If you get F on the final exam, I will add 5 points to the target (which, again, is initially 2500). That is, getting F on the final exam makes it more difficult for everyone to get extra credit.

For example, 30 students get A/A- on the final exam and 20 students get F. Thus, the extra credit target that must be reached changes to 2500 - 30*5 + 20*5 = 2450.

On the other hand, if 20 students get A/A- on the final exam and 30 students get F, the extra credit target that must be reached changes to 2500 - 20*5 + 30*5 = 2550.

For your information: There are 200 students in the class. The total number of points that the students have is between 5000 and 5500.

Please, think carefully about your choice and enter the number, which corresponds to your contribution. You will not be able to change your contribution once it is submitted. If you fail to answer the question, your contribution is assumed to be zero. The deadline to submit your answer is the last day of classes.

Good luck,

Oleg Smirnov

Essay 5---HIS 375

Jack was born in 1864, just one year before the end of the American civil war. He was a white man form Long Island, New York. Motivated by the thriving post-civil war mass railway construction and the foundation of the Cornell University College of Engineering in 1870, he made his resolution to devote himself to the booming railway construction industry. In 1883, he received anticipated admission from Cornell University, so he chose the new Electronic Engineering major as his concentration. He studied diligently, as expected; he finally graduated and became an engineer of The Union Pacific Railroad. Several years after his graduation, in 1890, as a devout Protestant, he married with Sherry, who was also a pious Protestant woman from Connecticut. When it comes to political stance, because of the natural northern identity and the Republican Party’s financial backing for railway construction industry, he was a staunch Republican Party supporter and expansionist. In 1898, Jack became a chief engineer.

In 1898-1899, he was a strong supporter for war against Spanish and limited annexation, but he didn’t buy the full annexation blueprint of Philippines. There were three reasons why he supported the Spanish-American war and the following territory annexation: the agitation of New York’s yellow news, future railway construction perspectives and the Protestant religious belief.

Actually, long before 1898, Jack did not favor the Spanish’s act in Cuba. The root of this sentiment of dislike came from the new sensationalism creed due to the fierce circulation competition between two media magnates: William R. Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer. As a New Yorker, he read newspapers a lot. Frequently, Jack found that the newspapers, especially the New York Journal founded by Hearst, were replete with the reports of malignant and vicious behaviors that the Spanish troops conducted in Cuba. For example, as a Protestant, he was shocked by a painting which showed that some American women were violently searched by the Spanish male troops. And the New York Journal always depicted Cuba as an innocent young girl when depicting Spain as an atrocious monster. These grotesque caricatures and sensational stories chagrined Jack a lot.

In reality, many of these eye-catching stories and caricatures were fraud and exaggerated. In 1890s, a lot of journalists and media tycoons such as Hearst and Pulitzer found that media sensationalism and yellow news were well-behaved strategies to expand newspaper circulation. Serious social conflicts and racial discontent in 1890s popped up the perfect hotbed of populist environment. Soaring criminal rate in northern American cities (especially in New York) accompanied by influx of aliens and Negros gave nascent modern penny newspaper industry endless catchy sources. Catering to this populist environment, reporters always made up fraud stories and exaggerated the real situations in order to add newspaper circulation and crush competitors. For media industry magnates such as Pulitzer and Hearst, the Spanish-American War was a critical opportunity to expand their business. Almost all the newspapers during 1890s were continuously fermenting antagonism between American public and the Spanish troops in Cuba.

The result of this kind of agitation was prevailing anti-Spanish resentment of American people all across the United States. Jack, like many other New Yorkers who could not discern the validity of ubiquitous sensational news, shared the common resentment sentiment toward Spanish and frenetically became a warmonger.

The second reason why Jack supported the war and following annexation was related to his own railway construction business and his civilization egotism. If victory finally belonged to America, Jack thought, and then larger American market would come along. Jack was a buyer of the popular Glut Theory in 1890s.”The theory held that owing to technological advances, productivity in the industrial countries was increasing far faster than their populations could ever be expected to increase. Thus production had permanently outrun the demands of the home market, and economic health could be restored only by selling the surplus goods in the non-industrial areas of the world”. (Healy, 17) The following annexation after Spanish-American War, he thought, could give America an advantageous access to the Chinese and Japanese market. Jack had been eager to participate in China’s mass railway construction plan. When he was studying at Cornell University, he already knew Wilson’s ambitious railway building plan at China. But he finally understood the infeasibility of Wilson’s plan due to China’s vague and backward political system. It turned out that he was right, “It was a simple matter to form the new company about the existing, and genuinely Chinese, Kaiping Railway Company, Bypassing Wilson’s organization”. (Healy, 77) As a superior race with developed political system and mature modern civilization, Jack believed that it was American’s obligation to build railway in China, so that Chinese people could become more civilized and trustworthy.

As one member of post-civil war generation, Jack did not go through the bloody civil war. So he did not possess first-hand experience on the horrible war’s bloodiness and relentlessness. In Jack’s era, the economy of the United States was burgeoning due to the unification of domestic market and mass infrastructure construction all across the American territory. Jack contended that war was important for economic prosperity. In his mind, success of The American Revolutionary War ceased the economic barricades and provided an important integrated domestic market. Success of The American Civil war was a prerequisite for northern prosperity and industrial booming. In short, Jack believed that war was a kind of momentum for economy development. As a New Yorker, he was also alarming for the growing seriousness of city social conflicts and the circulation of extreme political ideologies. “The best class of American youth was therefore tending to become idle dawdlers and socialites”. (Healy, 107)He also disliked the pervasive bourgeois materialism in 1890s. He was aware that the United States was facing a series of abnormal social metamorphosis, and he thought war was a good remedy for these social problems. “How to protect traditional values and in a period of metamorphosis, how to offset class struggles with a unifying nationalism, how to reintegrate the upper class into the main currents of public life, how to combat sordid and pervasive materialism.” (Healy, 109) These questions always baffled Jack now and then, but now he regarded the war as a panacea.

Another important reason why Jack supported the war against Spanish and the following annexations was his Protestant belief. He and his wife Sherry had a strong feeling that Christianity was a seal of western civilization and progressiveness. He thought this civilization and progressiveness should be universal. As a pious Protestant, he disfavored Roman Catholic, just like many other religious Americans did. Through the newspapers Jack knew the overwhelming domination of Roman Catholic in Cuba and Philippines, and he thought this kind of domination was unacceptable. ”conquest was even more moral, of course, if its object was to conquer souls of God, and to much of the Protestant religious press in America, it appeared that the Spanish War would ultimately serve just that purpose”. (Healy, 134)

In conclusion, Jack was a typical American in 1890s, and his opinion was identical to the mainstream social tone in 1890s. He regarded war as a way of civilization and modernization. The seizure of overseas territories, although a little incongruous with American belief and tradition, was a milestone of American civilization and progressiveness. Jack was sanguine that his railway business would benefit from the annexations as well due to the expanded global market. He also held the opinion that the success of the Spanish War was an important political accomplishment for the Republicans, which could strengthen the party power and crush the democrats.

The Spanish American War--summary

Yellow Journalism and the Rise of American Anger: 1895-1897

Summary

The atrocities General Weyler committed in Cuba were massively hyped and sensationalized in the US newspapers, then engaged in a practice known as "yellow journalism". The two kingpins of the press at the time were William R. Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer, who were embroiled in a vicious circulation war, in which Hearst even "stole" Pulitzer's most popular writers by convincing them to defect through promises of money and positions. Hearst's major publication was the New York Journal and Pulitzer's publication was the New York World. In order to grow their circulations, both men were willing to go so far as to make up stories.

In response to the rumors of Weyler's abuses emerging from Cuba around 1896, Hearst sent artists to Cuba to paint and draw the atrocities, in hopes that the pictures would sell more papers. Foremost among Hearst's artists was Frederic Remington. After arriving in Cuba, Remington reported back to Hearst that the rumors were overblown. To this, Hearst famously replied, "You furnish the pictures and I'll furnish the war." Although Hearst's statement was egomaniacal and boastful, it was not all that far from the truth. Remington's pictures in Hearst's magazines did a great deal to arouse mass concern for Cuba in the US.

Though American yellow journalism exaggerated Weyler's activities, those exaggeration were nonetheless based in some measure of fact. Realizing that Weyler had gotten out of hand in Cuba, Spain recalled him in 1897, hoping to quiet the yellow presses. Back in Spain, some citizens and legislators started discussing Cuban independence from Spain. The Spaniards in Cuba, who were afraid their property and their lives might be in danger if Cuba got independence, immediately started rioting.

Hearst upped his circulation by producing a new kind of paper, one with mass- market appeal. His papers used lots of pictures and illustrations, large headlines, and the like. Reducing the cost of a paper to as little as a single cent a copy, Hearst made his newspapers accessible to nearly everyone. Because he controlled so much of the market for newspapers, a market that was rapidly growing because of his newspapers, Hearst could practically dictate what the country would think the next day.

The whole point of yellow journalism was to produce exciting, sensational stories, even if the truth had to be stretched or a story had to be made up. These stories would boost sales, something very important in this period, when newspapers and magazines were battling for circulation numbers. In regard to the situation in Cuba in the mid-1890s, yellow journalism sought to exploit the atrocities in Cuba to sell more magazines and newspapers. The papers depicted Spanish behavior as exaggeratedly bad, and political cartoons depicted "Spain" as a nearly subhuman and brutal monster, while "Cuba" was usually depicted as a pretty white girl being pushed around by the Spanish monster. Once US opinions were inflamed over Cuba, Hearst in particular tried to do everything he could to whip the public into such a frenzy that a war would start. Once the country was at war, Hearst had little doubt his papers would have no end of interesting and sensational articles to publish.

In keeping with the philosophy of yellow journalism, Remington, actually did paint a one or two patently false pictures. For instance, he drew some pictures of an American woman being brutally searched by Spanish male security forces. This apparently never happened, as only female officials searched American females coming into the country. In addition, Remington's famous painting of the Rough Riders charging up San Juan Hill was based not on the actual charge, but on a reenactment performed by the Rough Riders. That a military force would "redo" part of a battle for the sake of the media shows just serious a matter American leaders took the yellow press to be. Yellow journalism did not, ultimately, start the war on its own; it was the sinking of the USS Maine that provided the trigger, not some fabricated story created by Hearst of Pulitzer. Nonetheless, Hearst always referred to the Spanish- American War as "the Journal's war." In support of Hearst's boastful term, many historians argue that the Spanish-American War was probably the first true "media war".

The Spanish-American War was not the height of Hearst's power. Afterwards, he continued to grow his media empire for several decades, and even successfully ran for a seat in Congress. Only in the 1930s did his business start to collapse. A controversial figure in American history, Hearst was the rough basis for the wealthy journalist-baron in Orson Welles' Citizen Kane.



2 of 9

The Maine Explosion: 1898

Summary

Concerned with the situation in Cuba, in January 1897 the US sent a warship, the USS Maine, to Cuba under captain Charles D. Sigsbee. The Maine's mission was purportedly friendly, its job to investigate the situation and provide an escape for American should things get out of hand. Shortly after the Maine set out, Hearst's newspaper intercepted a letter from Spain's minister in Washington, Dupuy du Lome. The letter spoke rudely of President McKinley. Of course, Hearst did not refrain from publishing the scandalous Lome letter. The letter appeared in the February 9, 1898 of the New York Journal. The letter outraged Americans and embarrassed Spain. Dupuy du Lome was forced to resign over the matter, and tensions between the US and Spain increased.

Six days after Hearst published the Lome letter, the USS Maine sailed into Havana harbor. The surprised Spanish, who had only been given a few hours notice that the Maine was coming, were quite upset. Although the Maine claimed to be on a friendly mission, it was a powerful warship. The Spanish authorities felt that the US was trying to intimidate them and was interfering with Spanish sovereignty by trying to affect Spanish policy toward the Cuban insurrectos.

On February 15, 1898, in an event that still remains a mystery, the Maine suddenly exploded as it sailed around Havana harbor. This was a tragedy for the United States, as 260 out of 350 American sailors and officers died in the explosion. Hearst's newspaper immediately published a story with the headline, "The Warship Maine Was Split In Two By An Enemy's Secret Infernal Machine!'' The destruction of the Maine created an uproar in America, which, influenced by Hearst, immediately held Spain responsible. In fact, the details of the explosion were still not clear. Investigations by both the US and Spain began, and not surprisingly, they disagreed. While the Spanish investigation team claimed that the explosion was only an accident caused by some internal problem on the ship, the American investigation said the explosion must have been caused by a Spanish mine in the harbor. The yellow press exploited this story, whipping the US into an anti-Spanish frenzy. Newspaper circulation soared as the public demanded war with Spain. War would come, and when it did, the cry of "Remember the Maine" would be heard frequently.

Why did the US send the Maine to Cuba? Officially the claim was that it was simply a normal patrol, more of a friendly fact-finding mission than anything else. The real mission of the Maine was probably geared towards protecting US interests. Should a crisis approximating the 1897 riots by insurrectos break out, the US wanted a warship in the vicinity ready to evacuate American citizens in Cuba. And of course, the US had long been interested in increasing American influence in Cuba. Perhaps the Maine was a first step in this direction.

The true nature of the USS Maine explosion has long been one of the great mysteries of American history. At the time, Americans already had a negative view of Spain and almost instantaneously concluded that the explosion was caused by Spanish treachery. For a while after the Spanish-American War, most people accepted the answer that the American investigative commission gave: that a Spanish torpedo or mine blew up the Maine. The Spanish investigative commission, which was never allowed very close to the Maine's wreck anyway, disagreed. According to the Spanish side of the story, some internal problem with the ship caused the explosion. Perhaps a boiler or a combustion engine exploded, they said. It turns out that they Spanish interpretation may well have been correct. In the 1970s, Admiral Hyman Rickover of the US Navy took another look at the Maine. According to Rickover's investigation, it appeared most likely that an internal mechanical problem had caused a stockpile of ammunition and gunpowder stored nearby to explode. Rickover's conclusion was almost identical to the Spanish claims. A third possibility, that the US intentionally exploded the Maine in order to give the nation a reason for going to war, seems to be an unlikely conspiracy theory with little supporting evidence. Nonetheless, some in Cuba hold this theory today. And despite Rickover's study in the 1970s, the case is still not settled. A later investigation by the Smithsonian turned up numerous plots against the Maine, suggesting a mine or some type of sabotage. Computer modeling studies financed by National Geographic have demonstrated that, based on the wreckage, the explosion could have been caused by either a mine or an internal mechanical accident. Most likely, the causes behind the explosion of the USS Maine will never be known with complete certainty. But whatever the reason for the explosion, the event played directly into the hands of pro-war hawks, jingoists, and yellow journalists like Hearst.

Was the Maine explosion an unfortunate accident that pushed the US into a war that might otherwise have been avoided? Possibly, but given US actions prior to the explosion (such as the Maine's voyage to Cuba or Theodore Roosevelt's orders to Commodore George Dewey to attack the Spanish fleet at Manila in the case of a war with Spain), it seems that the United States had been gearing up for war prior to the explosion. The Maine explosion just provided the impetus.



3 of 9

US Goes to War: 1898

Summary

After the explosion of the USS Maine, the US public was whipped up into an anti-Spanish hysteria. Despite Spain's desire to avoid war and President William McKinley's distaste for war, the yellow press continued feeding the public's appetite for anti-Spanish news. Hawks like then-Assistant Secretary of the Navy Theodore Roosevelt loudly criticized the reluctant McKinley for being weak and afraid.

Although he disagreed with the public's demands for war, McKinley finally submitted to the various pressure exerted on him. The Maine had exploded in Mid-February, and on April 11, 1898, McKinley finally sent a message to Congress giving his support for a declaration of war on Spain. Congress, which now had the President's word that he would not block a war with Spain as Cleveland had threatened to do, was ecstatic. On April 24, 1898 Spain declared war on the US. The next day, on April 25, the US declared war on Spain. The US public was exuberant, and the people celebrated as the country cheerfully went to war.

In order to prove the righteousness of the US cause, Congress decided to send a message to the European powers, many of whom believed the American war against Spain to be an imperialistic land-grab, an effort to assume control of Cuba from Spain. Congress passed the Teller Amendment in May 1898, in which the US promised not to annex Cuba, but to liberate it as an independent state. Thus, the US claimed to be fighting the war not for selfish gain, but to liberate an oppressed people and promote justice in the world.

Even directly before the war, some people on both sides were trying to avoid conflict. Spain wanted to avoid war at all costs, and the Spanish diplomats to Washington promised to end the concentration camps and make peace with the insurrectos. The US would not have it, demanding only one thing: complete Spanish withdrawal from Cuba and a recognition of Cuban independence. Spain refused. American public opinion now rested decidedly against the Spanish, and because of the way the yellow press had covered the explosion of the USS Maine, most of the country distrusted everything the Spanish said.

Oddly enough, President McKinley also opposed the War. McKinley, who was closely tied to Wall Street and business networks, knew that most businessmen were against going to war. Mark Hanna, wealthy businessman and a leading advisor of McKinley, told McKinley to try and avoid war. Businessmen did not want a war with Spain because they feared that the destabilizing effects of a war might hurt the US economy. So why didn't McKinley use his powers as Commander-and-Chief to prevent the war from being carried out, as President Cleveland had threatened to do a few years earlier? The question was one McKinley wrestled with. A staunch believer in the democratic process, it was McKinley's personal philosophy that the people should get what they wanted, even if he knew that what they wanted would end up being bad for them.

McKinley had other concerns behind his decision to go to war. He was constantly being criticized by Theodore Roosevelt and other warmongers for a "lack of backbone". (Of course, in the hysterical frenzy of 1898, not supporting war was actually a very brave stand.) McKinley also was afraid that not going to war would give the Democrats and his arch-nemesis, William Jennings Bryan, a campaign issue to use against the Republicans in 1900. McKinley knew that if he refused to send in the troops after Congress declared war, the Democrats would use this fact to destroy him in the 1900 election. Finally, a highly devout Christian, McKinley claimed to have been commanded in a dream to send the country to war. Conveniently, the religious experience coincided perfectly with the various pressures forced on McKinley at the time. And even at the same time as he committed the US to war because of a belief in democracy and a religious experience, he still couldn't help but hope that, "perhaps it will pay."

In passing the Teller Amendment, the US was trying to prove itself different from the European imperialist powers by not annexing territory as everyone expected it to, but actually opposing imperialist oppression in the world. Of course, pushing Spain out of Cuba would serve American interests even if the US did not formally own Cuba. US business would still have a dominant trade with an independent Cuba and pushing the Spanish out would create more a more stable and safe shipping zone in the Caribbean. As events would show, US behavior in the war did not exactly accord to the spirit of the Teller Amendment, though Cuba was allowed its independence.

4 of 9

Dewey and the Philippines: 1898

Summary

During the McKinley administration, John D. Long served as Secretary of the Navy. Long was a cautious and prudent official, far unlike his brash underling, Assistant Secretary of the Navy (and future US President) Theodore Roosevelt.

Roosevelt, sometimes called Teddy Roosevelt or TR, born sickly and nearsighted, had worked hard to improve himself into a physically powerful man through constant exercise. An active hunter, rancher, and nature-lover, Roosevelt loved competition and challenges. Not surprisingly, he was a fierce opponent of the long tradition of American isolationism, the ideology that suggested that the US should mind its own business and stay out of world affairs. Roosevelt thought the US should take a bigger role in shaping world affairs. In the case of the Spanish-American war, he was one of the most extreme "hawks" (pro-war), constantly pushing for war and always criticizing McKinley for seeming to be a "dove" who was afraid to go to war. McKinley, haunted by memories of the Civil War just three decades earlier, did not take the prospect of going to war as lightly as Roosevelt.

Along with being a lover of nature and competition, Roosevelt, despite the rugged image he projected, also was extremely well read. Based partially on his understanding of the leading military theorists of the time, and partially on his desire to see a wider conflict against Spain, Roosevelt wanted more than just a war in Cuba. For that reason, one weekend while his boss John D. Long was away, Roosevelt used his authority as Assistant Secretary of the Navy to cable Commodore George Dewey, the officer in control of the US Asiatic Squadron then docked at Hong Kong harbor, with orders that if the US and Spain went to go to war, Dewey was to immediately attack the Spanish fleet at Manila, the capital of the Philippines. Roosevelt gave these orders without Long's knowledge (and probably against Long's will) on February 25, 1898. Dewey figured something was fishy about these strange orders, and so double-checked the orders with McKinley. Strangely, McKinley, who had previously been agonizing over whether to go with war with Spain over Cuba, approved the surprise attack against the Spanish in the Philippines.

On May 1, 1898, Dewey's squadron, consisting of six brand new warships, sailed into Manila harbor. The 10-ship Spanish fleet was completely taken by surprise. Several of the Spanish ships were so old and rotting that they could barely float. Dewey's forces quickly defeated the Spanish fleet, without a single US sailor dying. On the Spanish side, around 400 sailors died. The Maine, which most Americans than believed had been destroyed by a Spanish mine, was avenged.

At the turn of the nineteenth century, some military experts in Europe believed the US was in for a difficult war with Spain. Their reasoning seemed sound: the US had no experience fighting in a tropical environment while Spain had a good deal of such experience. Also, Spain was an old nation that had fought many international wars while the US had spent most of the 19th century isolated from world affairs. Furthermore, in this island war, the relative powers of the two countries' Navies would be critical. Spain's Navy had been famous, if unlucky, all the way back to the days of the great Spanish Armada. In terms of the number of ships and the fighting experience of their captains, Spain looked to have an impressive Navy the US would have great difficulty matching.

However, Spain's Navy was really not as powerful as the other European nations believed. While the Spanish did have large numbers of ships, these vessels were old, rotting, and falling apart. The Spanish ships were no match for the newer ships of the US Navy, especially the American Navy's steel warships. In fact, the European experts were wrong: it was the Spanish Navy that was no match for the US fleet.

In general, the US and the European countries were focusing more and more on naval power in the 19th century, thanks to a groundbreaking book by US Captain Alfred Thayer Mahan called The Influence of Sea Power Upon History. In this book, widely read on both sides of the Atlantic, Mahan convincingly argued that the most powerful nations of the previous eras had always been the ones with the most powerful navies, from the Athenians on. Britain, which had controlled the seaways for much of the 19th century, was a prime example. Now, after reading Mahan's books, European and American leaders sought to build strong navies to protect their countries' interests and trade around the world. The US and other countries, especially Germany, started building world-class navies during this time thanks largely to Mahan's influence.

Why was Roosevelt so eager to have Dewey attack the Spanish fleet in the Philippines, a move that certainly would not help in the liberation of Cuba? Furthermore, why would the cautious McKinley ever approve such a move? The reason involves Mahan's theories yet again. In order to protect trade and influence throughout the world, Mahan advocated a series of island coaling stations throughout the world. (Since US ships ran on coal at the time, they needed places to stop and refuel) Roosevelt and McKinley hoped taking the Philippines from the Spanish would provide the US with a coaling station to help the US Navy patrol in the Far East, keeping Asian markets open to US traders and merchants. Here, with the move against the Spanish Philippines, the initial goal of liberating Cuba expressed in the Teller Amendment seemed to be giving way to a desire for imperialist expansion.

5 of 9

American Imperialism: 1898

Summary

Even though the Battle of Manila had little direct relation to freeing Cuba from Spanish rule, Americans were excited by Dewey's sudden victory over the larger (but older) Spanish Navy at Manila. However, Dewey had no troops, and without troops, the invasion of Manila could not begin. The US Asiatic Squadron had to wait for months in the sweltering heat of Manila Harbor, waiting for American troops to arrive for a ground assault. While they waited, other European fleets sailed near Manila, especially the German and British fleets. Although not involved in the war, both countries sent ships claiming that they wanted them there to evacuate Germans and Britons in the event of serious fighting. However, the German fleet also sought to harass Dewey and intimidate the US. The British, on the other hand, wanted to offset German intimidation in order to foster better relations between Britain and America. At this time, Britain was aware of America's rapid increases in power due to industrial growth, and was hoping to pave the way for future alliances.

Finally, after Dewey's ships had waited for months, US ground troops arrived in the Philippines. The US troops allied with the Filipino guerillas to fight against the Spanish. The guerillas were led by Emilio Aguinaldo, a Filipino nationalist who the Spanish had exiled, and who Dewey brought back to help unify the people against their Spanish overlords. The Filipinos saw the US as liberators, and gladly fought alongside them. On August 13, 1898, US troops, aided by Aguinaldo's guerillas, captured Manila.

War in the Philippines proved to many Americans the importance of another set of Pacific islands, the Hawaiian Islands. Hawaii, considered the "crossroads of the Pacific" might be used as a coaling station to help supply the US Navy in future operations in the Pacific. To be honest, Hawaii could have easily worked as a coaling station without formal annexation, since American businessmen essentially controlled the island anyway. Nonetheless, keeping with the spirit of the times, the US annexed Hawaii on July 7, 1898. Hawaiians were given full US citizenship. Because the US had such a massive business interest in Hawaii, and so many American businessmen lived there, this came as little surprise.

The US switch to imperialist behavior that occurred in 1898 has been a topic of great historical attention. After all, the US has generally claimed to stand in opposition to the practice of taking colonies, to be an advocate of freedom, democracy, and self-government for all. Some historians believe that this imperialist period was a "Great Aberration", a mistake that the US would never repeat, and one that goes against everything the US stands for. Others think that America really continued to have a kind of "informal colonial" influence throughout the twentieth century. By "informal colonialism", they mean that the US has promoted democracy as a means to opening foreign markets for Anerican manufactures and sources of raw materials. In this way, through a subtle dominance based on economics rather than direct politics, the US was able to create the same economic relationship that European powers had with their colonies. Under this view, the colony grabbing of 1898 (Guam, Hawaii, Philippines, Puerto Rico) was only the most obvious episode of American imperialism; it was the short period before the US discovered more subtle methods of economic domination, known as "neo-imperialism".

So how could Americans suddenly shift from anti-imperialism to jingoism? One explanation says that what really made the difference was a sudden shift in opinion among a "Foreign Policy Elite" consisting largely of businessmen, intellectuals, politicians, bureaucrats, and newspapermen. Partially, this shift might have occurred because of economic motivation, especially the search for new markets and the need to protect those markets with coaling stations, as advocated by Mahan. Alternatively, imperialism could have been a continuation of "Manifest Destiny", the ideology that fueled westward expansion. With the West mostly won, people now looked elsewhere to expand. The "Foreign Policy Elite" also may have justified imperial expansion using the theory of Social Darwinism, which suggested that only the strongest nations would survive, and that fierce competition was natural and necessary. Protestant ideals and a desire to educate and "Christianize" various groups was also an interest (even though the Filipinos had already been Catholic for centuries). Finally, the Foreign Policy Elite might have looked to Europe and followed the example set by European imperialists, in particular Great Britain. Most likely is that some mixture of these various factors all worked together to change the mind of the Foreign Policy Elite regarding the acquisition of an American empire.

The conquests of 1898 did not entirely mimic the European colonial model. In some senses, American actions 1898 represented a "New Imperialism", a new and unique empire, separate from the European colonial tradition and distinctly American. American imperialism was not a rejection of the anti-colonialism of the early republic, but a conscious choice based on economic motivations that held true before and after 1898. Americans were not merely aping the trappings of the European colonial experience. Instead of seeking empire for God, glory or gold, some would argue that American imperialism sought markets for industrial overproduction. Furthermore, access to foreign markets rather than actual political control of markets was the goal. In earlier mercantilist philosophies, nations sought colonies as outlets for their finished goods and as sources of raw materials for their extractive economies. American imperialists, though, wanted colonies that would serve to keep foreign markets accessible and open, not colonies that would be the markets themselves. The Philippines were important not only for a population of 7 million, but because the island provided room for a naval base from which the US could protect its business interests in Japan and China.



6 of 9

Ground War in Cuba: 1898

Summary



After the declaration of war in April, the Spanish fleet was quickly sent to Cuba under Admiral Pascual Cervera. The ten boats in Cervera's command were in truly horrible condition. Of the 10 rotting ships, only 7 actually made it to Cuba. The other 3 had to be abandoned along the way. Despite the rather pathetic nature of the Spanish fleet, Americans on the Eastern seaboard became very frightened of a potential Spanish invasion of the US. Eventually, Cervera's decrepit fleet limped into Santiago harbor in Cuba, where they were blockaded by the US Navy.

With the Spanish fleet contained, the US planned a landing of the US Army, which would then attack the Spanish from the rear. The landing was made under the command of General William R. Shafter, a veteran of the Civil War. Shafter was so fat and ill with gout that his men had to carry him around on a door; he matched that dubious physical condition with an uninspiring talent at logistics and strategy. The US had absolutely no experience fighting in the tropics, and the unprepared US Army showed up in Cuba with vast supplies of wool clothing.

Better equipped for the job in Cuba were the famous "Rough Riders", a ragtag group of volunteers fighting for the US. Most of them were cowboys, but all kinds of colorful characters, from the wealthy thrill-seekers to former criminals, found their way into the unit, which was commanded by Colonel Leonard Wood. The Rough Rider officer best remembered, however, was no doubt Lieutenant Colonel Theodore Roosevelt. Roosevelt, ever a fan of strenuous activity and competition, had resigned his post as Assistant Secretary of the Navy to fight in the war. Roosevelt had absolutely no military experience, and the military had even had to bend some rules to let him in with his terrible nearsightedness. Keeping enough glasses on hand for Roosevelt, so he could still see if the ones he was wearing broke, was a difficult task.

US forces landed at Santiago without having to fight the Spanish, as the Spanish proved even more confused than the Americans. On July 1, 1898, the first major land battles of the war were fought at El Caney and at San Juan Hill. The Battle of San Juan Hill was famous because the "Rough Riders", walking since many of their horses did not arrive in Cuba, charged up the hill. The battle was soon immortalized in a Frederic Remington painting (mentioned earlier in the Commentary on Yellow Journalism. The US won both battles, though the "Rough Riders" suffered heavy losses. Roosevelt, for his part, enjoyed himself immensely, and even shot a Spanish soldier. These battles proved decisive.

Now that the war was almost over, the US quickly moved to occupy Spanish-owned Puerto Rico. On August 12, 1898, the Spanish signed an armistice ending the fighting.

Despite the "Rough Riders" famous legacy, both they and the US Army were so disorganized and bumbling that only about half of them made it from Tampa Bay, Florida to the landing at Santiago. And although the "Rough Riders" were organized as a cavalry unit, very few of their horses actually made it to Cuba. As a result, most of the "Rough Riders" actually walked during the war. That the war went so well for the US was virtually a miracle given the disorganization and poor planning that plagued the American military effort.



Along with the heroic exploits of the "Rough Riders", two black regiments played a crucial role in winning San Juan Hill. The charge up the hill itself was made on foot, since so few horses had made it to Cuba.

After the battles of El Caney and San Juan Hill, Admiral Cervera, commanding the Spanish fleet, was ready to surrender. With his old ships rotting and the land army facing defeats, Cervera knew he could not win. Nevertheless, Spanish leaders ordered him to continue fighting to preserve Spanish honor. By July 3, continuing the trend of US naval dominance, his fleet had been utterly destroyed. In the naval battles, 500 Spanish sailors lost their lives while only 1 American died.

When it seemed like the war would be over soon, the US moved quickly to send forces into Spanish-controlled Puerto Rico, and took the island with minimal conflict. The American forces, under General Nelson A. Miles, were welcomed by the Puerto Ricans as liberators. But liberation was far from what the US had in store for Puerto Rico. Since it was not bound by the Teller Amendment in Puerto Rico, the US could keep the island as a colony.

The armistice came just in time for the US. Although the US was defeating the Spanish army, disease was coming close to defeating the US Army. Malaria, typhoid, dysentery, and yellow fever were plaguing American troops who were fighting in the tropics for the first time. In all, while the Spanish only killed about 400 American soldiers, around 5,000 US soldiers died from disease.

Walter Reed, a pathologist and biologist working for the US Army, began groundbreaking work into the causes of yellow fever that began as a result of the Spanish-American War. Previously, it had been believed that the fever was spread through material like clothing and bedding. Wood discovered that yellow fever was actually caused by a certain mosquito's bite. Although Wood's work came too late to save American lives in the Spanish-American War, his research beginning during the war led to a better understanding of yellow fever, which was later practically eliminated in Cuba and Latin America by systematically destroying mosquito breeding and nesting areas.



7 of 9

Treaty of Paris: August - December 1898

Summary

From the signing of the armistice in August up until late 1898, Spanish and American diplomats met in Paris to argue over the terms of the peace agreement that would end the Spanish-American War. Most of the terms did not require serious debate. Of course, Cuba would become independent from Spain, with the intention that US occupation forces would eventually leave Cuba to become a free nation, as the Teller Amendment had promised. Also, the US would get Guam, a small Spanish island colony that the US had taken by surprise attack, as well as Puerto Rico. US acquisition of Puerto Rico ended several centuries of Spanish presence in the western hemisphere.

The only major contested issue in the Treaty of Paris was the question of what would happen to the Philippines. Because of Dewey's decisive victory at Manila, President McKinley refused to just give the islands back to Spain, an act he felt would be a cowardly betrayal of the Filipino people. The Spanish, however, had a legitimate complaint. Since it took so long for US ground troops to reinforce Dewey, the actual surrender of Manila, the capital of the Philippines, took place after the American-Spanish armistice was signed. Technically, the US should have stopped all fighting, so the Spanish claimed that the US conquest of the Philippines did not count. The American negotiators offered the Spanish a deal: $20 million dollars for the Philippines. The Spanish accepted this offer.

The question of what to do with the Philippines remained, however. American leaders decided that granting the Philippines self-government would be a prelude to disaster. They came to their decision not only because they had a feeling the Filipinos weren't ready to govern themselves, but because it seemed likely that some other European power would annex the country in short order. In particular, the US was afraid Germany might invade, especially after the German fleet's ominous attempts to intimidate Dewey. Therefore, the US decided to annex the Philippines, in order to "educate and Christianize" the Filipinos. The ultimate goal was to eventually make the Philippines independent, once it was "ready" for self-government. No specific timetable for independence was provided, however.

On December 10, 1898, the US and Spain signed the Treaty of Paris.

The treaty of Paris gave Puerto Rico to the United States, beginning a long relationship between the two countries. Among other things, one of the long- term effects of the Treaty of Paris was that many Puerto Ricans immigrated to the US, especially New York City.

The American annexation of the Philippines in order to "Christianize" the Filipinos seems to make little sense, since the Filipinos were almost entirely Catholic and had been for centuries. Partially, this American desire was based on the American public's ignorance. Many Americans assumed that the Filipinos were all "heathens". Though plenty of Americans knew the Filipinos were Catholics, many Protestants, who considered Catholicism only barely removed from heathenism, still largely dominated political decision making in the US. The decision to annex the Philippines was also justified in terms of an American adoption of the British idea of a "white man's burden", which required that "racially superior" nations such as the United States had a duty to share their wisdom and government with their "little brown and yellow brothers" all over the world. Arguments made for the annexation of Philippines in 1898 represent some of the most racist and paternalistic strains in American thought.

But as is usually the case with the United States, business interests also supported annexation of the Philippines. While Wall Street and business insiders like Mark Hanna had originally opposed the war, they all argued for the annexation of the Philippines. The Philippines, they said, had a population of 7 million people, which was a sizeable new market for American manufactured goods. Also, following Mahan's theories, the Philippines would provide an American coaling station and naval base to protect US trade interests and maintain stability throughout Asian waters. With both the public and big business largely behind annexation, McKinley pushed for the acquisition of the Philippines.



One of the results of the Spanish-American War was that the Mahan's theories of the influence of sea power on history became generally accepted as correct. After the Spanish-American War, in which the US Navy had played such a decisive role and acquired the coaling stations to support a worldwide Navy, the US accelerated growth of the Navy under Elihu Root, secretary of the War Department. (Root also founded the War College.) Therefore, partially because of the Spanish-American War, the US commanded a stronger Navy for World War I (1914-1918) than it might otherwise have had. However, the Philippines, far away from the US, did prove to be an indefensible commitment and a military liability in World War II, when the Japanese quickly overran the island in 1942.



8 of 9

Effects of the Treaty of Paris: 1899

Summary

Not surprisingly given the American anti-colonial, anti-imperialist tradition, the acquisition of territories and colonies as outlined by the Treaty of Paris caused considerable debate. An organization known as the Anti-Imperialist League arose in the US, standing in opposition to American expansion and imperialism. Some of the nation's most famous people, including the writer Mark Twain and the philosopher William James, were leading figures in the Anti-Imperialist League. This vocal minority had many points that still smack of good reason today. However, in the late 1890s, their view did not win out. Instead, pro-imperialism, backed by an ideology of jingoism, carried the day.

The Treaty of Paris, though signed, still had to be passed by two-thirds of the Senate in 1899. The Democrats had enough votes to block passage of the treaty, and for a while it looked as if Senate deadlock was inevitable. Finally, William Jennings Bryan, a leading Democrat and constant opponent of President McKinley, decided to support the treaty. Convincing several of the Democratic senators to change their mind, Bryan barely got the treaty passed in the Senate on February 6, 1899.

In supporting the Treaty of Paris, Bryan had a trick up his sleeve. He knew that if the treaty passed, the nation would see the Republicans, the majority party at the time, as responsible. In the election of 1900, Bryan hoped to run against McKinley on an anti-Imperialist platform, and by passing the treaty, he hoped to associate the Republicans with Imperialism. Bryan expected imperialism to quickly become unpopular, giving the Democrats an issue to criticize the Republicans over. Unfortunately for Bryan, not enough voters were upset about imperialism by 1900 to aid his cause: he still lost to McKinley. Bryan also appeared to vote as he did for ideological reasons reminiscent of British patriarchal colonialism: he suggested that the sooner the US annexed the Philippines, Guam, and Puerto Rico, the sooner the US could prepare them for independence.

The annexation of the Philippines caused major problems, however. The Filipinos had fought with the Americans against the Spanish, thinking that the Americans were there to liberate the Philippines in the same way they were liberating Cuba. When hoped for freedom failed to materialize and the Americans did not go home, the Filipinos felt betrayed. On Jan 23, 1899, the Filipinos proclaimed an independent republic and elected long-time nationalist Emilio Aguinaldo president. The US sent in reinforcements to put down this "rogue" government. Fighting against the Filipino nationalists they had fought alongside months earlier, the US endured two harsh years of battle. Aguinaldo's guerilla fighters put the US through a much more difficult and bloody conflict than the relatively easy Spanish-American War. Still, the Filipino's never had much chance against the superior force of the Americans. On March 23, 1901, the US finally put down the Filipino revolt by capturing Aguinaldo. After being forced to take an oath of loyalty and receiving a pension from the US government, Aguinaldo retired, and never led further revolutions.

The founders of the United States, who fought a revolution to end its own status as a colony of Britain, probably never expected that a little more than a century later the United States would take colonies of its own. From this perspective, America's imperialism during and after the Spanish-American War is quite a shock, which some have called the "Great Aberration." It is therefore not surprising that a strong resistance movement, the Anti-Imperialists, would rise up. However, from another perspective, American imperialism in 1898 was not a sudden abandonment of anti-colonial tradition, but a was logical extension of commercial expansion, something the US had been doing throughout its history. The claim that the year 1898 was an aberration in American history are undermined by the facts. Today, the biggest colonialist of recent history, Great Britain, has relinquished its last colony, Hong Kong. Meanwhile, America still possesses the protectorates of Guam and Puerto Rico, and still has naval bases in Cuba and the Philippines. In this sense, the imperialist effects of the Spanish-American War remain alive even in the present.

The Anti-Imperialist argument was as follows. Since the Filipinos wanted freedom, annexing their homeland violated the basic American principle that just government derived from the "consent of the governed." Second, and perhaps more practically, the Anti-Imperialists felt that American territory in the Philippines would make it likely that events in Asia would involve the US in more conflicts and more wars.

The pro-Imperialist viewpoint succeeded because it appealed to the American public's sense of national honor and pride, as well as the jingoism taking hold in the period. From a business perspective, imperialists felt strongly that there were many opportunities for profit inherent in American possession of the Philippines. And of course, the imperialists proudly promised to "uplift" the "poor" Filipinos and satisfy the "white man's burden". (If only to simultaneously get something out of the bargain.)

The conflict with Aguinaldo and his guerrilla fighters in the Philippines seems to offer some foreshadowing of the Vietnam War. In Vietnam, the US became so caught up in a large, geopolitical goal (fighting Communism) it failed to realize that in the pursuit of this larger goal it was harming a smaller country full of proud people who desperately wanted to govern themselves and who were willing to fight a long war to set up a unified, independent Vietnam. In annexing the Philippines, the US did much the same thing: looking towards large geopolitical goals like increasing the US commercial presence in East Asia, the US stopped the nationalist Philippines from pursuing its own independence. Not surprisingly, the Filipinos fought back. In fact, just as the Vietnam War became a subject of intense public dissent against illegal US infringement upon the sovereignty of a foreign nation, so too did the struggle in the Philippines have its Anti-Imperialists, who argued along similar lines.



9 of 9

Puerto Rico & Cuba After the Treaty of Paris

Summary

Puerto Rico, which became an American protectorate under the Treaty of Paris, was very poor. US troops were welcomed in 1898, and the Puerto Ricans greatest hopes were for increased rights and a better economy. Puerto Rico's experience under US rule was more positive than that of the Philippines. In 1900, Congress passed the Foraker Act, which set up a civil government for the Puerto Ricans, and gave the Puerto Ricans some amount of self-government. However, most power still belonged to officials appointed by the US government, a fact which angered many Puerto Rican natives. The US went right on working to Americanize Puerto Rico, importing institutions, language, political systems, and the like. However, the US was always vague about Puerto Rico's eventual political future. As a result, a resistance movement sprung up, led by Luis Munoz Rivera. Gradually, the US granted more and more concessions to the Puerto Ricans, and in 1917, Puerto Ricans were made US citizens, with full citizens' rights. In addition, the Puerto Rican immigrant community in the US was largely a result of the relationship that developed between the US and Puerto Rico as a result of the Spanish-American War.

In Cuba, the US installed a temporary military government after the war. At first, General John Brooks was sent in as leader of the occupation government, but he proved too antagonistic to the Cuban population. The US soon installed a second occupation government under the direction of the former leader of the Rough Riders, the newly promoted General Leonard Wood. Wood's main goal was to improve Cuban life. He modernized education, agriculture, government, healthcare, and so forth. Wood also had Havana's harbor deepened, in preparation for a higher volume of trade with the US. At the same time, research by Dr. Walter Reed, begun during the war, located the mosquito that carried yellow fever. Wood followed Reed's advice, and destroyed many of the swamps, marshes, and pools of water where these mosquitoes bred, reducing the frequency of yellow fever cases.

But although Wood seemed to have a knack for Cuban government, and the US would probably have liked to keep the island, there still was the problem of the Teller Amendment. In 1902, the US did indeed honor its promise in the Teller Amendment, and, while it did not withdraw from the Philippines or Puerto Rico or Guam, did withdraw from Cuba. However, afraid that another great power might conquer Cuba, the US forced the Cubans to write the Platt Amendment into their new constitution, which was ratified in 1901. Among other things, the Platt Amendment gave the US a Cuban base (Guantanamo) that remains to this day. The Cubans, although they always followed the Platt Amendment, deeply resented that the US left a military base behind, which they did not feel truly lived up to the Teller Amendment's promise to withdraw entirely from Cuba after the war.

For Puerto Rico, life as a US protectorate had its ups and downs. On the positive side, the US improved many areas of Puerto Rican life, providing more education, improving sanitation, and building roads. On the negative side, there always were a certain number of Puerto Ricans who chafed under American rule and who desired independence from the US, such as Luis Munoz Rivera and his resistance movement. Nonetheless, Puerto-Rican American relations were far more peaceful than US-Philippine relations.

A problematic legal issue arose over the fate of the Philippines and Puerto Rico. As protectorates, many wondered, did the US Constitution apply to the people there or not? The dispute was finally cleared up in a series of 1901 decisions known as the Insular Cases, in which the Supreme Court found that the Constitution and other US laws did not necessarily apply to colonies. Because of the decision, the task of deciding which US laws did and did not apply to the colonies fell to Congress.

General Leonard Wood's Cuban occupation seemed fairly reasonable and willing to compromise, except for one major blemish. When Wood set up the occupation government, which granted some small amount of self-government to the Cubans, he put structures in place so that Afro-Cubans would be kept out of politics.

As wars go, the Spanish-American War (1898) was neither very long, nor extremely violent. It was nothing like the horrible Civil War (1861-1865) that the US had fought a few decades earlier, or the total warfare of World War I (1914-1918).

Yet, the Spanish-American War had considerable historical significance. American success against Spain took many European powers by surprise, Demonstrating that the US had become a world power. For the US, perhaps the war was too successful or too easy, instilling an optimism about war in the American public, which was quick to forget just how horrible the Civil War had been. As a further result of the war, US national pride soared, and nationalism and jingoism peaked. The US took a first successful step onto the world stage. Pledging that it was fighting a war against empire with anti- imperialist statements like the Teller Amendment, the US somehow emerged from this originally anti-imperialist war with an empire of its own. In this, the Spanish-American War blatantly revealed some of the dualism in American foreign policy that would remain throughout the twentieth century in more subtle forms. As in the Spanish-American War, the US would continue to preach high ideals, but those ideals would almost always be invoked whenever they most conveniently served US interests.

Finally, the Spanish-American War offered a sign that the US really was a union again. For the first time since the Civil War divided the country, Northern and Southern soldiers had fought on the same side against a common enemy. In this way, the 1898 war with Spain serves as a transitional moment between 19th century America and 20th century America.