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.

The Epitaph of John Locke

Original Latin:

"SISTE VIATOR

Hic juxta situs est JOHANNES LOCKE. Si qualis fuerit rogas, mediocritate sua contentum se vixesse respondet. Literis innutritus eo usque tantum profecit, ut veritati unice litaret. Hoc ex scriptis illius disce, quae quod de eo reliquum est majori fide tibe exhibebunt, quam epitaphii suspecta elogia. Virtutes si quas habuit, minores sane quam sibi laudi duceret tibi in exemplum proponeret; vita una sepeliantur. Morum exemplum si squaeras in Evangelio habes: vitiorum utinam nusquam: mortalitatis certe (quod prosit) hic et ubique. 1632 Aug. 29

Mortuum Anno Dom. 1704 Oct. 28

Memorat haec tabula brevi et ipse interitura."

English Translation:

"STOP TRAVELLER

Near this place lies JOHN LOCKE. If you are wondering what kind of man he was, he answers that he was contented with his modest lot. Bred a scholar, he made his learning subservient only to the cause of truth. You will learn this from his writings, which will show you everything about him more truthfully than the suspect praises of an epitaph. His virtues, if indeed he had any, were too slight to be lauded by him or to be an example to you. Let his vices be buried with him. Of virtue you have an example in the gospels, should you desire it; of vice would there were none for you; of mortality surely you have one here and everywhere, and may you learn from it.

That he was born on the 29th of August in the year of our Lord 1632

and that he died on the 28th of October in the year of our Lord 1704

this tablet, which itself will soon perish, is a record."

Debate over death penalty: a humanitarian and utilitarian view

Recently the intermittent debate over death penalty was rekindled in China again. Yao Jiaxin, an undergraduate student majoring in music at the Xi’an Conservatory of Music, was sentenced to death after being found guilty on an intentional homicide. He was charged with stabbing a woman to death after hitting her seriously in a car accident. This case has triggered tremendous controversies. Chinese people and media overwhelmingly supported implementing capital punishment upon him as they hold an opinion that what Yao did is completely intolerable. But a bunch of lawyers and columnists in China are continuously questioning the legitimacy of imposing capital punishment upon him. In my opinion, the cancellation of death penalty is a conspicuous trend all over the world, and I am a staunch supporter of death penalty abolition.

Admittedly, the reason why people are vigorously disposed to support the death penalty is understandable. There is an old epigram in China: a murder must pay his life back. The conception that a murder’s death is a kind of compensation to the victim’s family is entrenched in Chinese traditional culture. Moreover, people reasonably tend to deduce that the death penalty has a deterrent function to prevent future crimes, which means that the possibility of serious crime will decrease due to criminal’s fear toward death penalty. Although these two propositions are plausible, as far as I am concerned, both of them are clearly unfounded.

First, the hackneyed conception that “a murder must pay his life back” is misguided. In order to attack this conception, it is important to crystallize the definition of compensation. Compensation means something received as an equivalent for debt, loss, injury, suffering, lack, etc. in order to normalize victim’s life. In short, the purpose of compensation is normalization. In my opinion, human life is definitely not compensable. In essence, victims can not possibly resurrect and normalize because of the criminal’s death. Actually, the purpose of death penalty is not compensation, but vengeance, which is morally controversial.

Moreover, the deterrent function of death penalty is logically problematic. Basically, it is self-evident that criminal of intentional homicide deserves more draconian punishment than criminal of unintentional homicide. But obviously deterrence is more functional on intentional criminal rather than unintentional criminal (because in my opinion, for rational criminal, 20-years detention is as deterrent as death penalty), which means lesser punishment is needed on intentional criminal than uncontrollable criminal. So this reasoning tries to demonstrate that for criminal like Yao, the deterrent function of death penalty is functionless. The sad fact is, plenty of murders are not rational, so the death penalty is always ineffective.

In conclusion, this essay’s point is that the prevailing mentality of Chinese people’s inclination and dependence on death penalty is pernicious and unhealthy. And this mentality could also be manipulated by the authoritarian government, which is detrimental to the human rights situation in China.

40 Min extemporaneous midterm essay

Subject HIS 375

Grade B+

This is a problematic essay cuz I didn't mention the Britain leaders

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I hold the opinion that the statement that from 1620 to 1823 the British leaders determined America’s future more than American leaders did is reasonable.

First, the common British protestant religious root and the common respect to the common law were prerequisites for the independence and developments of the United States. The major part of the population emigrated from Britain to America was British protestant. For example, the immigrants of Plymouth, New England, their common goal was to achieve their religious practice in the new world which could not be completed in Britain due to religious intolerance. Except this, their common respect to the common law was a very important element for building a law abiding society, which made the constitution-abiding United States come true.

Second, the relationship between Great Britain and other European powers like France and Spain mainly dominated the agenda of the New World and showed the American leaders the devastating consequences triggered from entanglement of European monarchies. Basically it was true that during the early years of the United States the New World was the arena of European politics. For example, the Glorious Revolution took place in Great Britain which banished the catholic king had a great impact on the New World. The new king William and Mary supported the New England’s endorsement to the Iroquois confederacy and determined to contain the French power at upper-state New York. The vehement contest between Great Britain and France over the Ohio Valley Issue triggered the seven year’s war. The remote Spanish succession war also escalated to the New World called Queen Anne’s war. All of these examples demonstrated the future American leaders that any entanglement between the United States and European monarchies could cause catastrophic ramifications. Therefore future American founding fathers such as George Washington and John Adams made their resolution to keep the United States out of the battlefield of European monarchies and hammered out the long term neutrality principle.

Last, and the most crucial, the different attitudes toward Great Britain among the leaders of the United States catalyzed the formation of the first bipartisan system of America which had a far-reaching impact on America’s future fate. The Jay Treaty in order to ease the seemly inextricable conflict between the United States and Great Britain lead to severe divisions among American leaders. The Federalist Party strongly approved the Jay Treaty but the Democrats adamantly opposed it. This pronounced division gave rise to the first contested president election of the United States between two candidates representing different parties: federalist John Adams and democrat Thomas Jefferson. The enactment of the first bipartisan system had a gigantic impact on the subsequent American political system and historical trajectory.

In conclusion, I agree with the proposition that the Great Britain really had a great impact on the American diplomacy and politics from 1620 to 1823.

rambling at the Metropolitan Museum of Art

I'm such a warmonger...

Response to The Algebra of Infinite Justice

The Algebra of Infinite Justice written by Roy explains the reasons to us that why America’s foreign policy is so hated around the world. She uses the OEF mission and Madeleine Albright’s inappropriate words on Iraq issue to illustrate the sophistry and arrogance of America’s foreign policy, and she also shows us that the U.S. government and Afghanistan are old friends, and the U.S. once supported Afghanistan in order to contain the power of Soviet Union. The author also contends that terrorism is transnational, and it is absurd for the U.S. government to target one specific nation in order to impair terrorism because every nation once had been invaded by the U.S. should has the motive to launch terrorism toward America. She argues that meeting violence with violence is useless. Policies of the U.S. and the terrorists are wrong. The other countries shouldn’t be forced to pick sides. American people shouldn’t back presumptuous arrogance of Bush administration and shouldn’t ignore the diversity of human being around the world. As far as I am concerned, I partially disagree with Roy’s proposition. First, I want to argue that who should be really responsible to the deaths of Iraq children. Second, I should demonstrate that the purpose of war is foreseeable peace and global economic stability. In the end, I also want to point out that actually it was American people’s will to wage counter-terrorism wars against evil countries.

First, eradication of dictatorships through war can theoretically decrease the possibility of humanitarian crises due to totalitarianism. To demonstrate this proposition, I will argue that who should really be responsible to the children’s deaths in Iraq. Actually, in order to avoid the humanitarian crisis triggered by economic sanction, the UN did launch a program called Oil-for-Food. But the dictator of Iraq Saddam Hussein didn’t use the profit generated from oil-selling to increase social welfare for children; instead, he used the money to increase the military expenditure. Saddam Hussein should be responsible to the deaths of children. Although war can cause humanitarian crisis as well (but due to military technology development, modern wars can lower the death toll to minimum), it will pale in comparison to the humanitarian crisis caused by dictatorships and totalitarianism. For example, the death toll of China’s Great Famine during 1958-1961caused by Mao’s desultory and arbitrary economic policy was over 10,000,000, which was the same as the total death toll of World War I. There are some other examples as well, like the genocide in Rwanda and Darfur or the killing started by Khmer Rouge; all of them were caused by the absence of mature democratic systems and the existence of dictatorships. In conclusion, military action is usually inevitable when tackling with recalcitrant dictators because they will not step down by themselves even people don’t want them anymore.

Second, eradication of dictatorships through war can theoretically prevent future war and economic instability. The purpose of war is for future peace, not violence. Numerous political Science and economy studies have already showed that the democratization of dictatorships can decrease the possibility of war and economic instability in the future. So in order to preserve foreseeable peace in the future, the United States and other western countries should promote democracy and republicanism all over the world and eradicate dictatorships through war when it is inextricable. In this respect, I think countries in the global community should pick sides. Supporting democracy and human rights is the righteous and reasonable choice. Recent military action toward Libya is a good example, the internal conflict in Libya, which later escalated to multinational military intervention, triggered the soaring oil price which aggravated the global economic recession. Admittedly, the previous foreign policy blunders made by the U.S. government were wrong, the United States should be embarrassed that they once aided dictatorships in Middle East in order to contain the power of communist Soviet Union and then propped up the hotbed of terrorism. But these blunders shouldn’t be used as reasons to oppose war against terrorists and dictators.

Last, eradication of dictatorships and terrorism through war technically was reflection of public opinion in the United States, at least before war. So I disagree with Roy’s statement that the war against terrorism was not American people’s will. We should always remember that the United State is a democratic regime; the president of the United States cannot possibly launch a war without American people’s endorsement. The poll conducted in 2001, after 9/11 attack, precisely showed that 90% of American people backed the war against terrorists. Roy could say this was a failure of American democracy and liberalism, or this was the tyranny or majority. But she could not say that President George W. Bush was ‘presumptuous’, as he was only obeying American people’s will. Since the 9/11 attack caused thousands of American people dead, he thought an immediate response was reasonable and necessary based on public opinion. The only issue we should question is the unilateralism instead of multilateralism the United States deployed when tackling terrorism. The United States should destroy the terrorism in Afghanistan and dictatorship in Iraq, but should not with the absence of international cooperation.

In conclusion, I still think that sometimes war is inevitable when dealing with terrorism and dictatorships.

Essay 4---His 375

Question 2

There is an element of truth in this statement that ‘Wounded Knee massacre had nothing to do with politics, parties, racism or even greed; this was a tragedy of Indian agent Daniel Royer’s incompetence’. Admittedly, the Indian agent Daniel Royer’s incompetence did exasperate the situation in Indian reservations. The oversensitive and incompetent agent eventually invited troops into the Pine Ridge reservation, which technically directly leaded to the Wounded Knee tragedy.

Ostensibly, agent Daniel Royer should be partially responsible to Wounded Knee massacre. But it would be arbitrary to conclude that the incompetence of Daniel Royer was the only factor that gave rise to the tragedy of massacre. Just like no one would contend now that the assassination of Hutu leader was the only factor that gave rise to the Rwanda genocide. The burst of tragedy always has more deep roots in comparison to one specific accidental event. Underlying the mask, there were three distinct reasons which resulted in the Wounded Knee massacre: the spoil system of Republican Party, the Republican’s protective economic policy and the ethnocentrism of American culture.

First, the bureaucratic system, to be more specific, the spoil system, was one of the significant roots which later played an important role in the Wounded Knee tragedy. Since 1829, President Andrew Jackson introduced the spoil system into American bureaucratic system, which meant that in order to keep party loyalty and assure election victory, the positions of federal government would be given to party members as an incentive for their support. ‘The spoil system thrived in nineteenth century in America’. (Richardson, 91) In United States presidential election of 1888, the spoil system which was implemented by Republican Party contributed a lot to the final victory. Admittedly, the spoil system is a pragmatic system which is very significant during presidential election, but it causes serious problems as well. The appointments of federal jobs in the west, such as Indian Agents, only focused on election consideration rather than ameliorating the suffering of Indian reservation. Moreover, one of the most serious problems was the incompetence of position candidate.

The Indian agent, Daniel Royer, was a typical epitome of this serious incompetence problem.  He was a pharmacist who knew very little about Indian issues. He also had drug addiction which inflicted him during 1890. “Royer might have been good at drumming up votes for the Republican Party, but he had few other skills”, “He was nonetheless a weak man who knew little of Indians”. (Richardson, 170) It did turn out that Daniel Royer was really not a smart choice for the Indian agent position. He was often oversensitive about the Indian Ghost Dance, which he insisted that it was a symbol of Indians’ cultural recalcitrance. He also suspected the Indians’ ammunition storage, which he thought was a conspiracy of belligerent Indians. But eventually it turned out that the purpose of ammunition storage was only for hunting, not killing. Actually, General Miles had noticed Daniel Royer’s miscalculation, “General Miles was still convinced that the political appointees, who had virtually no experience, were misleading the situation” (Richardson, 200).  So in conclusion, it was Republican Parties’ spoil system, rather than the incompetence of agent Daniel Royer, that indirectly, but critically gave rise to the Wounded Knee massacre.

Second, the Republicans’ economic policy, to be more specific, the protective tariff policy, was an important contributor to the Wounded Knee massacre. Nowadays the economic model of international trade has already showed that the protective tariff policy will increase the government’s tax income, but eventually it will hurt the consumers’ interest, especially for the farmers and ordinary workers. In 1861, one month before the American civil war, President James Buchanan signed the Morrill Tariff Act in order to protect the northern industrial development by raising the tariff.  After that, the Republican government gradually raised the protective tariff for the purpose of the support from industrial tycoons.  

The booming of industry and the protective tariff policy required the expansion of domestic market and sufficient labors. As a result, the massive railway construction was inevitable during that time. Moreover, the success of American economy attracted a large number of immigrants, and many of them were the main component of Westward Movement. The massive railway construction and the Westward Movement was not good news for the Indians, because it would endanger the Indians’ traditional lifestyle: hunting.  The decimation of bison forced the Indians’ to grudgingly transform their lifestyle from hunting to farming. This involuntary transformation of Indian lifestyle had gradually fermented the sense of resentment toward whites. This sense of resentment was a critical element which leaded to several American-Indian wars.

The protective tariff policy of Republican Party during eighteenth century triggered the burgeoning industry and the formation of trusts. But it caused pervasive complaints from farmers and ordinary people.  For example, the soaring price of binding wine due to high protective tariff chagrined the farmers. “Farmers resented the high costs they paid for all of their supplies, but nothing hit harder than the cost of this staple” (Richardson, 165) some trusts, like Jute Trust, monopolized the important twine. Prevailing dissatisfaction and poverty of farmers and workers propped up the hotbed of populist environment. Many history events had demonstrated that the massive poverty and economic discontent could trigger extremism and racism. Because of the populist environment, the editors of newspapers were willing to fan the tension between whites and non-whites. “The columns the reporter filed were electrifying, describing Indian murders and atrocities and predicting an imminent battle” (Richardson, 222) these irresponsible editors and reporters aggravated the misunderstanding between Indians and whites. 

Third, the ethnocentrism of American culture was another deep root of Wounded Knee massacre.  The ethnocentrism contained two aspects: lifestyle and religion.  The federal government contended that the only way to solve western Indian problems was to change their lifestyle. Whites were pushing the western Indians to accept American lifestyle after the Civil War, but because of the bad weather condition and the scarce federal supply, transformation of lifestyle didn’t turn out very well. This result irritated the Indian traditionalists, especially Sitting Bull----the Sioux traditional holy man. Moreover, American people’s intolerance of Indian new religions made the situation worse.  Indian had no Christian root and they didn’t believe in God. This baffled the English setters since the colonization era. Whites had made a lot of efforts proselytizing Indian’s religion, and separated the Indian kids from their parents in order to assimilate them. The Federal government sent teachers and doctors to the Indian reservations and built schools there, teaching the Indian kids of western culture and American lifestyle. Although progressive Indians welcomed the efforts, the traditionalists again regarded these efforts as a conspiracy.

At last, the appearance of the Ghost Dance terrified the whites. The Indian agents saw the Ghost Dance as cultural recalcitrance of Indian people, and thought this new religion was a signal of imminent battle.  This was a pronounced reflection of Indian agents’ ethnocentrism. ‘The agents were trying to stop the movement with commands, rather than addressing the desperate need of the Indians in ways that might offer them a future in this world’. (Richardson, 180) Although the Ghost Dance movement never endangered the Indian agents directly, they still saw the movement as a heresy. This racist mentality was an ominous signal which later leaded to the disaster. 

In conclusion, this essay argues that the Wounded Knee massacre was not a simple accidental event caused by the incompetent Indian agent. In the contrast, it was highly related with politics, parties, racism and greed.