Talk:Spanish–American War

Spanish American War

The article states it occured in 1998. Isn't it supposed to be 1898? There are a couple of typo's - '1900' used instead of '1800' dates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.97.68.145 (talk) 17:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

That was a brief transient due to vandalism. You can revert such things yourself. Look at the history... Dicklyon (talk) 17:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

yellow fever

I believe I fixed the style problems in this post. Also the point of it is to explain how yellow fever was a driving force behind the Spanish America War. The historical backround is meant to show how the Southern States had outbreaks of the disease which killed people and shut down trade in major cities. The next part is meant two sections are meant to prove my overall point by giving facts about how America dealt with the disease.

Yellow journalism and the war

Re this edit, I'm limited to sources accessible online, and so have not seen Smythe, etc (2003). I did some looking around, however and found Tucker, Spencer (2009), The encyclopedia of the Spanish-American and Philippine-American wars: a political, social, and military history, ABC-CLIO, pp. 514, ISBN 978-1-85109-951-1, which lists the 2003 Smythe etc. book as further reading and says, "While it is not at all accurate to say that media-inspired propaganda alone pushed the United States into war in April 1898, it did make that decision considerably easier." The assertion that historians no longer consider yellow journalism the major force shaping the national mood looks to me as if it might overstate that and/or might be dated. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

you can read Smythe at amazon.com and I recommend that. Yellow Journalism at the time = 2 newspapers in New York; newspapers all across the country were involved in discussions of the war and probably most supported war, but they were sober not the sensationalistic "Yellow" style. The "propaganda" Tucker refers to is the atrocities stories produced by the Cubans. Rjensen (talk) 05:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Explanation of my edit mostly reverting a good faith edit.

I've mostly reverted this good faith edit, which had the edit summary "Expand and clarify lead; add details on some of the battles".

• In the lead, the edit inserted an editorial observation that the war was "... effectively the result of American intervention in the Cuban War of Independence and Philippine Revolution." There may be some merit to that, moreso re Cuba than re the Philippines, but that would need support and the placement of this assertion in the lead sentence strikes me as WP:UNDUE.
• The edit inserts an assertion re yellow fever which is not supported by presently-cited sources. I haven't dug into this very much, but I have the impression that this has merit, but much moreso in re Cuba that in re the Philippines.
• The edit asserts that a Spanish fleet was denied passage at the Suez canal. My understanding is that this fleet was recalled after passing through the canal. See [1][2], [3], etc.
• I've left the added assertion re the Generation of '98 in, and have added a supporting source.

I find myself reluctantly preparing to mostly revert your good-faith revert while applying the (welcome) factual corrections you've volunteered:

• I've rephrased to distinguish between Cuba and the Philippines, where "intervention" was simply the result of striking at Spain's Pacific possessions. But omitting this statement entirely strikes me as a pretty egregious breach of the the global perspective, considering that over the summer of 98 the Cubans and Filipinos were doing most of the actual fighting and dying. The fact that the United States intervened in Cuba's war of independence cannot possibly be WP:UNDUE for the simple fact that it happens to be, in a nutshell, the central understanding of the war and something that's discussed at length in the body of the article (and let's be honest: just about every scholarly treatment of the war will make the same point. No one out there is suggesting that the war occurred in an historical vacuum.) You want to prune some WP:UNDUE? Try the American party politics or McKinley's own feelings about the war.
• The Cuba yellow fever deaths are cited as 13,000 in the Infobox; this of course covers only May–August 1898 and total figures for the Cuban campaign are truly staggering. But let's not quibble: the claim here is about the severe wastage of the Spanish armies and just about any source will corroborate this in one form or another. I can remove the reference to yellow fever but it's important to note Spain's deplorable situation (losing hundreds of thousands) if only to account for the stunning rapidity of the conflict—10-week wars are not all that common.
• You are correct about de la Cámara's squadron, which was actually denied coaling rights in Egyptian territorial waters and given an ultimatum to depart. This slowed its progress enough for Madrid to recall the squadron following news of Cervera's ill-fated sortie from Santiago. Having said that, I can only insist on the necessity of the statement as a whole: the destruction of Spain's naval forces was the overriding reason Madrid sued for peace when it did.

Thanks & let me know what you think. Albrecht (talk) 02:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Granted, it would have been better for me to have used a scalpel instead of a meat axe.

• re "effectively the result of American intervention in the Cuban War of Independence and Philippine Revolution", I don't think the situation re Cuba is comparable with the situation re the Philippines. The revolution in the Philippines was in a period of truce. The Pact of Biak na Bato had been signed, the senior revolutionary leadership had gone into exile in Hong Kong and Singapore. Some revolutionaries were continuing the struggle, but the steam had gone out of the revolution. U.S. involvement in the Philippines was, AFAICT, incidental to the war with Spain and was not undertaken as an act of intervention in the Philippine revolution. Dewey probably wouldn't have been in Hong Kong when the war began if Navy Secretary John Long hadn't taken an afternoon off one day and left Teddy Roosevelt at the helm of the Navy Department. Roosevelt ordered the Asiatic Squadron to Hong Kong on his own hook (see this pp.80-81 here and pp.57-58 here). IMO, the reference to the Philippine Revolution in the lead sentence implies a connection between the Philippine Revolution and the Spanish-American War which just wasn't there pre-war (though there is this, and there still is disagreement about who said what at various times and places, and with what authority).
• re "allowing U.S. expeditionary forces to disembark in Cuba and the Philippines, where the Spanish garrisons were already under tremendous pressure from nation-wide insurgent attacks and wasted by yellow fever.", Dewey had no land forces with him; that's what led to Aguinaldo's reinvolvement. The VIII Corps (PE) was formed in the U.S. to provide a ground contingent to exploit Dewey's success. In the meantime, Aguinaldo (transported to Manila by Dewey at the suggestion of U.S. Consul Pratt in Singapore) restarted his revolution. Also, as far as I know, Yellow Fever wasn't a big problem in Spanish garrisons in the Philippines -- and the only garrison of any real interest was Intramuros. I gather from this that it was a big problem mainly in Cuba. How about removing mention of the Philippines in the sentence about disembarking?
• re the deletion in "good performance of some of the Spanish infantry units", the cited supporting source seems to say that there was no good performance. Only the strikeout came from your edit, but how about removing the assertion re good performance unless it can be supported? indicates that good performance of Spanish infantry units in Cuba was spotty.

In sum, I think your changes introduced too much conflation of the situations in Cuba and the Philippines. I think the changes I've suggested above would improve that. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Removed assertion that the U.S. "backed" the Philippine Revolution.

Here, I've removed ", which the U.S. later backed upon entering the Spanish-American War", re the Philippine Revolution, and have rearranged the text a bit. This has been in the article for a long time ([4]). Commodore Dewey certainly facilitated the resumption of the revolution (which had been suspended in 1897 by the Pact of Biak-na-Bato) by returning Emil Aguinaldo to Manila from exile in Hong Kong, and this is explained a bit further down in this same section of the article. Asserting that the U.S. "backed" the revolution, though, overstates the extent and the depth of U.S. commitment in that regard. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill)

Spanish additude

There are two confusing sentences in this section:

1. "The island not only brought prestige to Spain, but it was also one of the most prosperous Spanish territories, just like it treated the rest of the Americas." I don't understand the "just like it treated the rest of the Americas" part. Spain treated the rest of the Americas as its most prosperous territory? The first two clauses of the sentence make sense together. The third just seems to come out of nowhere and make no sense given the context of the first two.
2. "In fact, Spain had taken so much from the island that it would require several decades to recover economically from the shock." It's completely unclear which region took several decades to recover. Was it Spain that suffered because of the shock of losing the island, or was it Cuba that suffered because of the shock of losing what "Spain had taken so much" of? It's also unclear what the "shock" is. If "it" means Spain, is the "shock" referring to losing the island? In the context, Spain has yet to lose the island so I'm not even sure it makes sense to mention this here. Maybe this would be better: "In fact, Spain had taken so much from Cuba that it would require several decades for Spain to recover economically from the shock of losing the island territory." or "In fact, Spain had taken so much from Cuba that it would require several decades for the island to recover economically from the shock of losing so many resources." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.225.31.249 (talk) 18:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)