Transcription
What's going on, APUSH people? We have a video on the Spanish-American War as a turning point. One of the things that the AP exam asks you will ask you to do is be able to understand why certain events are turning points in US history, and the Spanish-American War absolutely is one of them.
All right, before we begin, it's shout-out time. I have to give shout-outs to Mr. Haynes' class in New York, Mr. Clark's class in Indiana, Miss Ralden's class at Hiron High, and Miss Wright's class. Thank you all so much for your support. If you want to shout out to your teacher, leave it in the comments below, and I will get to it.
All right, let's do a little background on the Spanish-American War. I do encourage you to watch my video on the Spanish-American War first, and there's a link in the description for it. So, what was it? It was the war between Spain and America, hence the title, from April to August of 1898. So, it is four short months. The fighting occurred in both the Caribbean and Cuba. We have people like Teddy Roosevelt and the Rough Riders fighting in Cuba, and also in Asia, especially the Philippines. Here is the Battle of Manila Bay down there. Causes the war: We have the Delhomme letter, yellow journalism, the explosion of the USS Maine, and there is the Maine. And if you want to see this mast right here of the USS Maine is located in Arlington National Cemetery. The United States won the war, and the US gained the Philippines, Cuba, Guam, and Puerto Rico. We're really going to focus on the acquisition of these four areas of land.
So, the US before the war. So, turning point will ask you what changed prior to and after the war. So, talking about before the war, Manifest Destiny was complete in the 1850s. We know about this. And after the Civil War, the US government encouraged westward settlement of Americans. They did this through the Homestead Act, which provided 160 acres of land to American settlers, and also by providing subsidies or money and land to railroads. In the 1890s, the frontier was perceived to be closed, or all land essentially was settled. At least that's what Frederick Jackson Turner argued in his frontier thesis. And in 1890, we have a very important book, *The Influence of Sea Power Upon History*. It was written by this dude, Alfred T. Mahan, and he argued that a naval power was important for world dominance. This will play a very instrumental role because this will help encourage the United States and other countries, but especially the United States, to build up its navy.
Let's jump on over to foreign relations before the war. Going back with the Monroe Doctrine of 1823, this stated that Europe could not recolonize any areas of Latin America. That they essentially had to stay over in Europe, and America will stay over in the Western Hemisphere. This is a continuation of Washington's Farewell Address of saying out of foreign affairs. In 1844, we have the Treaty of Wania, in which Caleb Cushing, an American, travels to China, and this is the first treaty with China. Ten years later, we have the Treaty of Kanagawa, in which Matthew Perry opens up Japan. And do you think he was like, "Hey, Joey and Ross, want to go to Japan with me?" It's a little French joke for you people. And up until the 1890s, most of the US interactions with other countries were for economic reasons, not to acquire territory. Please make sure you are underlining or highlighting this: economic reasons. So, the United States was looking to open markets, not necessarily acquire or gain territory.
In 1890, with the passage of the McKinley Tariff, and McKinley is a Republican, so you know he's going to—this tariff is going to do what to the tariff rates? Yep. You know, they're going to increase because Republicans want to raise them. Democrats want to see them go down. So, this will raise prices on many goods, including sugar imports from Hawaii. So, many farmers in Hawaii who grew sugar, they were Americans. So, they began to call for annexation because if Hawaii was a part of the United States, they would be exempt from these tariffs. Grover Cleveland, he blocked the annexation of Hawaii to the United States after a revolt in 1893 overthrew Queen Liliuokalani, pictured here. So, a revolt successfully overthrows her. The Americans living in Hawaii are pleading for the US to annex Hawaii. And Grover Cleveland says no. Hawaii would not be annexed until 1898 under President McKinley. And that's the same year as the Spanish-American War.
Okay, let's jump to foreign relations after the war. So, do these newly acquired territories get independence? Well, McKinley believed that the Philippines were not ready for independence. So, he advocated Christianizing and civilizing the Filipinos. So, no, the answer is the Philippines did not get independence right after. When we're talking about Cuba, we have the Platt Amendment. This stated that the US could intervene in Cuba to restore order if necessary. The US must approve all Cuban treaties, and the US also gained Guantanamo Bay, located right down here, which the United States still has today. We'll talk about this more when we get to the Cold War. So, does Cuba get independence? Yes, they do on paper, but the US still kind of is involved in Cuba.
So, let's talk about land acquisition and national identity. With the exception of a few Pacific islands prior to the Spanish-American War, land acquisition was limited to North America. You have the Mexican Cession, you have the Louisiana Purchase, Alaska, etc. It's really limited to just North America. So, the cultures, the governments, and languages of these territories of Guam, of Puerto Rico, of Cuba, of the Philippines were vastly different from America. So, should these territories be incorporated with full rights of Americans? That's going to be a question that needs to be answered. So, turn to the Supreme Court. They have a court case that asks the question, does the Constitution apply to these newly acquired territories? Or the phrase, "Does the Constitution follow the flag?" In other words, wherever the American flag is, wherever there is land, does the Constitution apply to this area? And they state, not necessarily. The Insular Cases from 1901, three years after the Spanish-American War, the Constitution, the Supreme Court says the Constitution does not necessarily apply to the newly acquired territories. Even if they are citizens, like Puerto Rico, they will be granted American citizenship. They're not necessarily entitled to the same rights as Americans. So, the question, "Does the Constitution follow the flag?" The answer is, not necessarily.
Then we have debates after this late acquisition. Two groups emerge: anti-imperialists versus imperialists. So, the Anti-Imperialist League emerges, and this is made up of Andrew Carnegie, Mark Twain, down here with his nice mustache, William Jennings Bryan, the three-time presidential loser, similar to Henry Clay, and presidents of colleges such as Stanford and Harvard, and many others. Now, they argued against the land acquisitions that the US acquired from the Spanish-American War, and they used arguments that violated self-determination in the ideals of the Declaration of Independence. Now, what do I mean by self-determination? That's a country or people's ability to pick their own ruler. So, they basically are saying, listen, the United States was once in a spot where they were being controlled by another country, and the United States didn't like it. So, why should the US do this to other countries? They also argued that the US could become involved in fighting in Asia. We do see a protracted nationalist insurrection in the Philippines led by Emilio Aguinaldo. Supporters of acquisition would be people like William McKinley and the poet Rudyard Kipling. They argued it was America's patriotic duty to civilize other regions, and that the land would provide economic opportunities for America. So, it was the US's responsibility to spread ideals such as democracy and Western civilization to these countries.
So, let's jump on over to Latin America in the early 20th century. We have the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine. This will be an add-on to the Monroe Doctrine. And Teddy Roosevelt feared European intervention in Latin America. And he did so because some nations were in debt to Europe. So, he put forth in his State of the Union address what is known as the Roosevelt Corollary, and this stated that the US could intervene in Latin America to preserve order, and essentially the doctrine allowed the US to become a police power. So, let's take a look at this political cartoon. We have Teddy Roosevelt with a brand new steel navy pointing a cannon at a European monarch, and he's using the Monroe Doctrine, basically saying, "Stay out of Latin America." Now, he said in his speech, "Chronic wrongdoing may in America, as elsewhere, ultimately require intervention, ultimately require intervention by some civilized nation. And in the Western Hemisphere, the adherence of the United States to the Monroe Doctrine may force the United States, however reluctantly, in flagrant cases of such wrongdoing or impotence, to the exercise of an international police power." Everybody should underline or highlight right now for me: police power. That is the result of the Roosevelt Corollary. Now, whether it's Teddy Roosevelt or his successors, Taft and Wilson, they will send troops to Latin American countries and they will invoke the Roosevelt Corollary. The US also encourages Panama to start a revolution in Colombia because at that time, Panama was not its own independent country, and the US, through the Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty, created the Panama Canal, and the US would control it until December 31st, 1999.
So, big question is, how was this war, the Spanish-American War, a turning point? Well, prior to the war, the US focused on promoting westward settlement. To the 1890s, most interaction with foreign countries was for economic purposes. We talked about this again: the US did not acquire overseas territory in large numbers. After the war, the focus shifted from westward settlement to overseas land acquisition, again, because of the closing of the frontier and the influence of sea power upon history. The US will gain significant territory, and they did not grant statehood to those territories, whether it was Guam, Puerto Rico, the Philippines, or Cuba. And economic motives, still a large factor, they were no longer the only factor in foreign policy. And of course, there are huge debates between anti-imperialists and imperialists.
All right, we'll finish up with some test tips for multiple choice and short answer. Absolutely no reasons for and against US expansion overseas. This to me is screaming a short answer question for essays analyzing the war as a turning point. That's what this video is about. And comparing and contrasting arguments for and against expansion. All right guys, thank you very much for watching. I do hope that cleared up the Spanish-American War as a turning point. Please check out the playlist I have on YouTube on turning points so you could take a look at other turning points throughout US history. And best of luck on all your exams, especially the one in May. Have a good day.