The Spanish-American War was basically a case of everything going right for the U.S., right before and at the beginning of the war the various European governments thought Spain would win and even the U.S. government thought their gains would be limited, by the end of the war pretty much everyone was surprised what had happened.
Cuba as a US state
- Thread starter Syphon
- Start date
The Spanish-American War was basically a case of everything going right for the U.S., right before and at the beginning of the war the various European governments thought Spain would win and even the U.S. government thought their gains would be limited, by the end of the war pretty much everyone was surprised what had happened.
katchen
Banned
Prelude to war with Germany? TR hoped so
One of the things that was being thought about (and which the US would likely have done) would have been to dig a ship canal across Cuba roughly about as far east as Lazaro Cardenas so that shipping can make a beeline to the Panama Canal. Cuba would have become important industrially, too, since it also has significant nickel deposits, which the US does not have elsewhere. And Cuba would have been important strategically, even as a commonwealth, from a road and railroad point of view woo. Remember, the Florida East Coast Railroad went all the way to Key West by 1900. A rail ferry to Havana and the railroad could branch two directions. One east to Guantanamo Bay with a ferry link to Port Au Prince, Haiti, continuing on to Santo Domingo and on to Ponce and San Juan Puerto Rico. The other, more importantly, to Pinar del Rio, with a ferry link to Cancun Mexico, then down through Quintana Roo, Puerto Barrios, Guatemala and into Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and on to Panama City, though I doubt if Colombia would be politically interested or the engineering good enough at that time to bridge the Darien Gap into Colombia and points south into South America. .It would be a key road and rail link into Central America, though (as it could be today, if we would normalize relations with Cuba) and funnel a great deal of Latino immigration into the Southeast and Northeast. The latter, all that Latino influx into the South, would probably be the most far reaching social change resulting from an annexed Cuba.
One of the things that was being thought about (and which the US would likely have done) would have been to dig a ship canal across Cuba roughly about as far east as Lazaro Cardenas so that shipping can make a beeline to the Panama Canal. Cuba would have become important industrially, too, since it also has significant nickel deposits, which the US does not have elsewhere. And Cuba would have been important strategically, even as a commonwealth, from a road and railroad point of view woo. Remember, the Florida East Coast Railroad went all the way to Key West by 1900. A rail ferry to Havana and the railroad could branch two directions. One east to Guantanamo Bay with a ferry link to Port Au Prince, Haiti, continuing on to Santo Domingo and on to Ponce and San Juan Puerto Rico. The other, more importantly, to Pinar del Rio, with a ferry link to Cancun Mexico, then down through Quintana Roo, Puerto Barrios, Guatemala and into Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and on to Panama City, though I doubt if Colombia would be politically interested or the engineering good enough at that time to bridge the Darien Gap into Colombia and points south into South America. .It would be a key road and rail link into Central America, though (as it could be today, if we would normalize relations with Cuba) and funnel a great deal of Latino immigration into the Southeast and Northeast. The latter, all that Latino influx into the South, would probably be the most far reaching social change resulting from an annexed Cuba.
Tallest Skil
Banned
How the States Got Their Shapes, Too.
Would that have really been a meaningful investment? Cuba's not huge.
Really? That said that? Did it give any evidence for the assertion? Why did they make the assertion anyway, that seems fairly secondary to the topic of the book.
Tallest Skil
Banned
It was the section on "almost states". As for evidence for the assertion, well, I suppose personal experience and even a family history carried down could be more accurate than a historical aggregation.
No it really can't. Especially since personal experience is completely wiped out by time and family history is often innumerate.
NothingNow
Banned
I wouldn't take it over say, anything written by Jose Marti or Juan Gualberto Gómez, who were the big ideologues of the 1895 revolution, and really held sway over the island.
Pretty much everyone who was involved in the revolution, from intellectuals like Alfredo Zayas to generals like Antionio Maceo and Juan Ríus Rivera, were very much set on nothing less than complete independence.
Plus the Teller Amendment directly blocked any such attempts at annexation by the United States (to protect the Sugar Beet industry actually,) and was signed in to law on April 20th, five days before the war started.
NothingNow
Banned
The OP can go fuck itself for all I care. All it'll lead to is the Tropical troubles and a rather nasty bout of ethnic cleansing if Cuba isn't just let go.
If he didn't actually set up POD, or request one that would create an economic situation which would prevent the (very popular) Teller Amendment, or a functional duplicate from being brought into law in the first place, as far as I'm concerned it wasn't butterflied.
And you know what? America has insanely high Sugar tariffs for a reason. Our growers in the US have long been very powerful, and they dislike competition, especially the sort that cuban annexation would bring.
Flubber
Banned
No it doesn't because the OP didn't even know the Teller and Platt amendments even fucking existed.
As for your earlier assertions regarding Cuban desires for statehood, works of popular history and family fireside tales don't amount to shit.
Last I checked, most Puerto Ricans have an incredibly distinct culture than the mainland US. So much so, when my Puerto Rican grandma came here she was regarded as much a foreigner as my Mexican grandpa.
I imagine it's easier than people let on - so long as the US treads a careful line, and makes sure from day one to assure the residents of Cuba that they are viewed as equal Americans, afforded the rights granted to any other territory, including possible statehood, tossed in with commercial/industrial investment and a strong prescence of the US military, I'd say all but the biggest die hards for independance would be placated.
Now, whether or not the US would tread that line is the issue.
Now, whether or not the US would tread that line is the issue.
NothingNow
Banned
They flat out wouldn't. We're talking about a government which flat out refused to deal with the fact that the Mambises' command structure was racially integrated.
Also, pretty much everyone was a firebrand by 1895. Half measures won't do a damn thing, especially when one of Marti's main talking points was the threat posed by the United States, a land he somewhat admired, even if his opinion of the US government was always much worse.
But, the thread's right about the problem of racism - they were the wrong color and culture. Jim Crow and Black Laws were sadlu healthy. And racist imperialism joined in this very war, where Filipino democracy was suppressed for their own good because they were the wrong color. And Puerto Ricans, ISTR, lost legislature rights. That's presumably WHY the Teller Amendment passed blocking it.
And, yes, there WOULD be serious Cuban resistance - as there was ,later, OTL, a successful rebellion in response to an American puppet dictatorship, especially since Cubans'd likely get as much robbery of their rights as blacks under Jim Crow and the Mexican-looking in Texas.
My Puerto Rican history book claims that Spanish loyalists were concentrated in PR, and Cuba was pretty seriously rebellious at the time.
Who knew PR had EVER integrated? When was that?
And, yes, there WOULD be serious Cuban resistance - as there was ,later, OTL, a successful rebellion in response to an American puppet dictatorship, especially since Cubans'd likely get as much robbery of their rights as blacks under Jim Crow and the Mexican-looking in Texas.
My Puerto Rican history book claims that Spanish loyalists were concentrated in PR, and Cuba was pretty seriously rebellious at the time.
Who knew PR had EVER integrated? When was that?
They've definately integrated, (I mean just look at the fact they voted in a referendum for statehood), they just haven't assimilated.
Since it sounds like it is a short quote, how about quoting that section in full along with any footnotes or notes that accompanied it?
Generally though I find that "How the States got their shapes" to be accurate but at times prone to oversimplification. I wouldn't expect that in a section on "Almost States" that they would pay as much attention to detail as they would to individual states.
It wouldn't surprise me for instance if they just based the claim off the fact that a few Cubans were annexationist instead of off hard data showing that most of the revolutionaries and most of the population was actually in favour of being annexed to the United States.
Nope. Not possible.
Look at the political cartoons drawn during that era. Most of them invariably show a very white Uncle Sam having 3 very brown or black children representing Cuba, the Philippines and Puerto Rico under his tutelage or in his possession. The fact is that even "Cuban whites" saw themselves as white, most of them would still be seen as brown/black by many in the United States. In that situation being treated as "equal Americans" means that most Cubans would be subject to Jim Crow like blacks were in the US (and bear in mind that at this point, blacks were supposed to be equal Americans under the 1866 Civil Rights Act).
Also the idea that statehood would even be considered is probably ASB unless a LOT of stars align in just the right way. After all this is the United States in the period of Jim Crow, when an annexation treaty with the Dominican Republic had been rejected by the Senate in part due to President Grant's refusal to drop the guaranteed statehood clause in the treaty. In that regard the Dominican Republic, Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Philippines would all be viewed in pretty much the same way: as territories which various groups (for some reason or another) would NOT want to see becoming states.
Assuming that the Teller amendment (or it's equivalent is butterflied away) then a Territory of Cuba is likely to follow the trajectory of Puerto Rico and the Philippines (and less generally of the US Virgin Islands, American Samoa and Guam): military rule from 1899 until about 1902. A civil government (with a limited elected component) in 1902 (probably under a "Cuba Organic Act of 1902"). Between 1917 and 1920 US citizenship might be granted to Cubans if the US hadn't already decided to let Cuba become independent (as it had with the Philippines officially by 1916 withe 1916 Jones Law and unofficially much earlier in 1907 and before). If Cuba was slated for independence then do not expect US citizenship to be extended to the residents via an Act of Congress. Indeed, I expect this to be the most likely outcome with a Cuban-American War also featuring from 1899 until 1902 (at the earliest) or 1912 (at the latest) mirror the Philippine-American War of 1899-1902 and the Moro rebellion of 1899-1913. This would be followed in 1912 by attempts to modify the Cuban government in preparation for independence. A successful bill to this effect would probably be passed between 1912 and 1917. Afterwards in the 1930s a new bill would probably be modelled off the legislation involving the Philippines resulting in a "Commonwealth of Cuba" that would be granted independence in the 1940s. If Cuba was not slated for independence then a modification of the Cuban government to provide more local democracy would probably still pass between 1912 and 1917 followed by Cuba being allowed to draft its own constitution around the 1950s as a territory.
The major problem is butterflying away the Teller amendment. For this one would seem to need for the sugar beet industry in the US to be dead or for some bright fellow to come to the conclusion that as a territory of the US, Congress could basically do whatever it wanted with Cuba including restricting sugar imports (ie treat the area as a separate customs territory as was done with the Philippine Islands and as is still done with Guam, the US Virgin Islands and American Samoa). Then you might get an alternate "Teller Amendment" which would prevent the United States from guaranteeing statehood to Cuba or any other territory acquired overseas and which would provide for limitations on the imports of goods from Cuba in the event that the United States acquired Cuba.
Last edited: