There were two events prior to the declaration of war with Spain that occurred that gave the media, New York media in particular, the ammunition it needed to not only force public opinion towards going to war, but more importantly, it was a selling point. The first event was a private letter written by the Spanish Minister to the United States, De Lome, in which he characterized President McKinley as “weak and a bidder for the admiration of the crowd.” The second was the sinking of the American battleship Maine in which 260 American sailors died. It was this event that the media exploited as being an attack by Spain. The New York Journal seemed intent on garnering the public opinion into believing a mere theory, considering there was no proof indicating Spanish treachery. This is where the historical argument becomes prevalent in the understanding of the situation. On one hand we have Joseph E. Wisan, who states in “The Cuban Crisis as Reflected in the New York Press,” that “…the Spanish-American War would not have occurred had not the appearance of Hearst in New York journalism precipitated a bitter battle for newspaper circulation (1).” This is a very realistic possibility considering the power of the media. With the American public buying into the media’s fabrication of the truth, the government would have been under immense pressure to act. On the other hand John Offner states in “Unwanted War” that “Had there been no sensational press…the American public nevertheless would have learned about the terrible conditions in Cuba…(and) would have wanted Spain to leave (2).” This is another possibility that we must take into advisement. Living, at the time, in a “so-called” free country many Americans might not have needed the incentives of bold theories to provide others what we already had, freedom.
As you can see from these two historical perspectives, we still don’t quite understand the necessity of media exploitation. Was war inevitable? This is the question relating to the media that history is supposed to answer. Media intervention wasn’t the only source of confusion pertaining to the Spanish American War. Industrialization also played a major role, not only in going to war with Spain, but what to do after.
Throughout the Industrial Revolution the American economy grew substantially. Andrew Carnegie stated: “The old nations of the earth creep on at a snail’s pace,” while the United States “thunders past with the rush of the express (3).” This statement was backed up by the fact that between 1870-1900 American manufacturing jumped from 23.2 to 30.1 percent of the world’s manufacturing, making the United States the top manufacturer in the world. With this increased production came a need for more consumers which is what John A. Hobson stated as: “The power of production far outstripped the actual rate of consumption, and, contrary to the older economic theory, was unable to force a corresponding increase of consumption by lowering prices (4).” Here lies the question that historians must wrestle with: Does economic necessity justify an imperialistic nature? Two differing opinions are that of Hobson and Carl Schurz. Hobson stated: “…whereas various real and powerful motives of pride, prestige and pugnacity, together with the more altruistic professions of a civilizing mission, figured as causes of imperial expansion, the dominant directive motive was the demand for markets and for profitable investment by the exporting and financial classes within each imperialist regime (4).” If we wanted to keep thundering past the rest of the world we would have to find new markets. Being so isolated geographically in comparison with Europe and Asia it was of economic necessity that we have some sort of “hub” in which we could keep demand high enough to sustain our production. On the other hand, Schurz makes a convincing argument in his address opposing the annexation of the Philippines when he states: “If we do adopt such a system, then we shall, for the first time since the abolition of slavery, again have two kinds of Americans: Americans of the first class, who enjoy the privilege of taking part in the government in accordance with our old constitutional principles, and Americans of the second class, who are to be ruled in a substantially arbitrary fashion by Americans of the first class…(5).” This is an argument impossible to disagree with. Considering the suffering this country had to endure to live up to the constitutional promise “That all men were created equally” we now put ourselves in a predicament that could set us back socially many years. This begs the question; does economic necessity outweigh the shear possibility of moral instability? This is a hard question to tackle considering we were now a force on the world’s stage. This new found status made not only industry a priority, but expansion as well.
“The impressive ascent of the United States in the international system and the vigorous rivalry among imperialists states for spheres of influence, particularly evident in Asia and Africa, gave a real urgency to American participation in the great-power game, and urgency that infused the war of 1898 (6),” was how Thomas Paterson characterized expansion with the Spanish-American War. There was only so much territory that could be had, and if we wanted to keep our ascent going we would have to be aggressive in nature. With this said, the aggressive nature led to the hypocrisy that scarred our nation for many years after. Senator Hoar wrote: “The war that followed it crushed the Republic that the Philippine people had set up for themselves, deprived them of their independence, and established there, by American power, a government in which the people have no part, against their will. No man, I think, will seriously question that that action was contrary to the Declaration of Independence… (7).” Our need to keep up economically as well as internationally blinded us from what makes us Americans. This thought process is one that shouldn’t just resonate within the confines of this country, but throughout the world. This is where the confusion sets in. As long as we are capitalists we are always going to try to ascend in an economic sense. Do we sacrifice our moral principles in order to live up to our capitalistic principles? I don’t believe historical perspective can answer that.
The historical perspectives on media, industrialization, and expansion all have the same contradiction. One side of the coin looks at the benefits of capitalism. The other side of the coin looks at the pain that capitalism causes. When I look back on that illustration in “The Record” I can’t help but want to believe the war was for a righteous cause. As I look at these differing historical perspectives I also can’t help but to be confused. On one hand I look at what that war helped us achieve. It helped usher in a new found confidence that we are able to share today. It also makes me question if our Declaration of Independence has true meaning, or is it just words that individuals invoke when they want to get a point across? It seems as if the confusing nature of history surrounding the Spanish-American War raises a lot more question instead of answering them.
Works Cited
1) Wisan, Joseph E. "The Cuban Crisis as Reflected in the New York Press." New York: Columbia University Press, 1934.
2) Offner, John. "Unwanted War." Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1992.
3) Quoted in Thomas Paterson's "United States Intervention in Cuba, 1898: Interpretations of the Spanish-American-Cuban-Filipino War," The History Teacher 29 (May 1996).
4) Hobson, John A. "Imperialism." London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1938.
5) Schurz, Carl. "American Imperialism." (The Convocation Address delivered on the occasion of the Twenty-seventh Convocation of the University of Chicago, January 4, 1899)
6) Paterson, Thomas. "United States Intervention in Cuba, 1898: Interpretations of the Spanish-American-Cuban-Filipino War." The History Teacher 29 (May 1996)
7) Quoted in Tyler Dennett's, "Americans in Eastern Asia; A Critical Study of the Policy of the United States with References to China, Japan and Korea in the 19th Century. New York: The Macmillan company, 1922.
No comments:
Post a Comment