Spanish American War Historiography 2

Thomas A. Bailey

"The 1900 Election was a Mandate for Partisanship, not Imperialism" Thesis: The primary concern of the 1900 election was partisanship, not foreign policy or imperialism Method: Examines the factors influencing both party- Republicans fought for gold standard and validity following insurrection in Philippines, Democrats fought for silver and used failed imperialism/colonialism to their advantage Points out that common psychology is that Democrats are going to vote for the Democratic candidate regardless of the issues- will make peace with whatever their candidate believes in- and vice versa with Republicans FJT:

Thomas A. Bailey

"Without the War Hawaii Might Never Have Been Ours" Thesis: Hawaii was annexed to the United States due to pressure from the Spanish-American War and fear it would be dominated by Spain. Bailey makes the argument that Hawaii might not have been annexed without the influence of war. Method: This article is trying to persuade the audience that the mutually-beneficial relationship between Hawaii and the United States caused the annexation. He gave the article credibility by examining both the conflicting annexationist and the anti annexationist viewpoints. By evaluating the the different aspects of the two sides, he gave his writing an overall credibility due to the multi-faceted justification and reasoning. Due to his substantial evidence and thoroughness, Bailey's article achieves its purpose of explaining the reason of Hawaii's annexation. Provided a thorough examination of Hawaii's connection to the war Used multiple names and references throughout text Considered the matter from beginning to end, including Spain's possible involvement Considers the influence of the political party (republican views vs. democratic views) (first page) FJT: anti-Turner because he is using a very specific set of circumstances and saying that without the war we may have not annexed Hawaii- Turner would have believed this annexation to be inevitable

Julius Pratt

In "It Was au courant Manifest Destiny", he seeks to demonstrate the continuity of the ideology of "Manifest Destiny" in the American expansionist tradition. He claims that Americans always find a pious justification for their actions, and that in the case of the Spanish American War and the imperialism that followed, there was widespread appeal to what he calls the God of Business. In "The Business Community Was Reluctant," je argues that the business community was reluctant to enter the war because of the enormous cost settling offshore territories would bring. Method: He acknowledges several episodes of Manifest Destiny throughout American History and keeps his argument specific to McKinley and the Philippines Smoking gun: god of business- same logic used for Manifest Destiny Second smoking gun: War creates instability and instability is bad for business Doesn't use specifics- uses broad truths, contrasting Turner FJT: would disagree because according to Frederick Jackson Turner, a new phase of history had begun at this point and manifest destiny was not a part of it Second article goes against FJT because he applies universal logic (instability is bad for business and war always causes instability) that doesn't allow for a shift in reality

William A. Williams

Thesis: Argues that business communities were the tipping point in the war Economic motives of corporations and business leaders = decisive Big corporations want to expand because the business frontier of the US is closed- FJT Captains of industry are seeking new markets- they are not single factor but they are the decisive factor Idea that Spanish American War is inevitable is a lie Method: Opposes Pratt Supports Frontier Thesis in that businesses saw no opportunities for growth in the US Logic: When other countrie struggle, that creates opportunity FJT: supports Frontier Thesis- Frederick Jackson Turner was his mentor

Thomas J. McCormick

Thesis: America took the Phillipines to have more trade access to China. He believes America acquired the whole Philippine archipelago because of business interest in China because of its prime location close to China and strategic potential. Method: He refers back to the beginning of the Spanish American war, where Roosevelt's orders for Dewey were met without opposition, for they advanced McKinley's schedule for the Philippines, unknowingly to Roosevelt, in order to show the administration's plans for the Philippines that had already been made. He also points out that the effect from the benefits from the Philippines called for a reemergence of the debate over the annexation of Hawaii, a Philippine waystation, which succeeded on July 8th. He argues that this would allow the US to protect their businesses in China, in wake of the rebellions from the new government in China in 1898. The open door policy also assured the Chinese that the US would not go on the Manifest Destiny rampage all over the Pacific area. He seemed to cherry pick, he only picked arguments, events, and few consequences that benefited his argument. This limits the perspective of the article for the readers. FJT: agrees with frontier thesis as he studied under William A Williams at Wisconsin, who studied under FJT We need expansion in that overseas area (phillipines) - pro-Turner

Walter LaFeber

Thesis: Business Community was the most influential lobby for war. Method: Examines the role of persuasive financial journals in the attitudes of businessmen- "financial journals which advocated bimetallism had long urged a stronger attitude towards Spain in the hope that the resulting conflict would force the Treasury to pay expenses in silver." Outlines the possible decisions McKinley could have made regarding the war and studies the factors that provoked McKinley to make the decision he did Points out the uncertainty within the business community as a result of Senator Proctor's speech, yellow journalism, and the slowing of the stock market as a result of wary public opinion Points out also that business boomed following the declaration of war Argues in same logical style that Pratt does Uncertainty doesn't universally come from war- argues in universal truths FJT: Doesn't line up with Turner theory

Frederick Merk

Thesis: Imperialism was the antithesis of Manifest Destiny because America had already entered a new phase of history by the time of the Spanish American War since Frederick Jackson Turner had already declared the frontier closed. Thus, imperialism was insular. Method: He gives historical context for the war, unlike Pratt, rather than viewing it isolation. He makes bold assertions concerning what people were thinking. He studies the psychology of people Uses specific examples instead of broad truths His smoking gun/historical fact is that we didn't expand to Cuba/ Philippines/ Puerto Rico to make them states but to use their people and territories for economic reasons- sense of distance and otherness that isn't present with the frontier expansion = new page of history FJT: supports Frontier Thesis/ Frederick Jackson Turner

H. Wayne Morgan

Thesis: McKinley was pro-expansionism and got what he wanted in the Philippines despite his reluctant appearance. Method: Talked about how McKinley took territory as a way to gain power- he took what he wanted regardless of whether the people there would have liked Makes McKinley sound very important Morgan cites reasons for which expansionism would benefit McKinley He describes McKinley's appearance/behavior/physical gestures in converssations "eyes twinkling" that could have been suggestive Analyzed McKinley's psychology Master plan FJT: Pro-Turner- inevitability of overseas expansion

Evan Thomas

Thesis: Spanish American War was not inevitable and was stimulated by a small number of individuals, such as Roosevelt, Lodge, and Hearst, intentionally. Method: Goes through people's biographies to understand their psychology and what motivated them towards their stance on the war FJT: would agree that in the case of Roosevelt, Frontier Thesis was influential, but it wasn't as influential a factor on the entire population Men make history - no transitionary phases, history is based on the actions of individuals This makes him anti-Turner for the most part

Fred H. Harrington

Thesis: The Anti-Imperialist Movement was feeble and unsuccessful because of its failure to unite with a common political leader and its failure to embrace a common argument unrelated to abstract political ideals. Method: He goes through the history of the movement and its growth He acknowledges the specific people and groups of people who joined the movement and their reasons for joining/ their political opinions He identifies specific reasons and historical context for why the movement failed to gain traction FJT: agrees with FJT, studied at Wisconsin

Richard Hofstadter

Thesis: The Spanish American War and American Imperialism were results of a psychic crisis within the American population. He states that in the midst of a Depression, the people want action taken regardless of what action that is, so they support expansionism. Method: Uses numerous events and ideologies of the time period to support the idea that people were FJT: Frontier thesis was one of many influences, but not sole influence. Doesn't mean he follows Frontier Thesis, just says that articulation of Frontier Thesis caused widespread panic

Paolo Coletta

Thesis: Took this straight from the essay: "While Bryan did influence a number of senators, approval of the treaty resulted less from his efforts than from an overpowering public demand for colonial expansion and from superb leadership by such Republican Senators as Henry Cabot Lodge, Mark Hanna, and Nelson W. Aldrich, including the making of a number of "deals" by which opponents of the treaty were won to its support" Method: He examines the political parties and their views on expansionism and influence on the treaty He interprets Bryan's reasoning/ psychology regarding expansionism and his actions regarding the treaty Bryan is anti-expansionism but supports buying of Philippines in radical change of position for treaty He does this so that the Philippines are not kept by Spain - He is caught in a trap of whether or not we acquire the Philippines or Spain, already proven to be bad at governing other colonies, will keep them FJT: not concerned with FJT