Scrollable Image
Illustrated War News v01n03 (1898-07.Tousey) (M&D).cbr
Get the full hi-res scan here
I'd meant to get this Illustrated War News posted last weekend, but life (or perhaps football) intervened, and today I've decided to join it with an issue of Collier's in an examination of a couple of artifacts from the Spanish-American War which is largely a glanced over period in American History yet a very valuable experience regarding the lessons of foreign intervention, lessons which America seems to need to learn over and over, as many of our trials Cuba and the Philippines are being reiterated in the Middle East today.
The American intervention in Cuba and concurrent war against Spain is often marked as America's emergence onto the world stage or as the beginning of American efforts at empire or colonialism, concepts many at the time found to rub against the grain of a country that began as rebellious colony itself. Marking too great of a line in the sand here might be a bad idea, as our method of settling the frontier might be regarded as a colonial system itself. Sending out settlers into the foreign wilds of America to form outposts with strong ties of feeling and commerce that would later be fully annexed into the country proper and which were protected by the American military certainly seems like a colonial system to me, but I suppose you could split hairs on this. And certainly America had defended its interests on the world stage before and had many confrontations on the American continent with the governments of Central and South America and with the European powers that had entanglements on this side of the globe (the Mexican-American War stands out as the largest example).
Here, I'll give an unabashed plug for my Kansas cousin's new book where much of this History is discussed, The Monroe Doctrine: Empire and Nation in Nineteenth-Century America, a concise and even-handed examination of the competing interpretations and uses of the Monroe Doctrine in the 19th century.
Scrollable Image
I'm awfully proud of my little cousin's academic exploits and success as a professor at Oxford (though I fear what that his children will talk funny and prefer tea to coffee), and I learned much from his latest book about politics in the 19th Century both foreign and domestic. It's plainly written and appeals to any with an interest in America's evolving place on the world stage and perhaps a path not taken in American foreign policy. The Spanish-American War and the issuance of the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine (which many might argue was in opposition to the original doctrine and rights of self-determination in the Americas) acts as the bookend to Jay's discussion, as America's appropriation of Spanish holdings meant a new level of American involvement far from its own shores. You can get the book and see some glowing reviews at Amazon here, or I recall that Jay mentioned it was available as book of the month through some History book clubs, so check it out.
I had some great History teachers in High School, but I remember very little regarding The Spanish-American War. In fact, all I really remember is the term "Yellow Journalism" and the murky facts surrounding the sinking of the Maine. Lately, I've learned more about the conflict, and it is indeed a fascinating History with many reverberations.
America's war with Spain to many scholars seems almost inevitable for two reasons. Firstly, America of the 1890s was in a sense bursting at the seams. In my recent post on Argosy and the birth of the pulp, I gave a number of statistics showing how the economy of America was rapidly expanding with an emphasis on developing infrastructure and new markets. Historian Frederick Jackson Turner's oft-cited Frontier Thesis caused a stir in that it points out that, per the census of 1890, there was no longer an American Frontier, a concept he argued is central to the American character. Although, we would (and do) perpetuate the idea of the wild west, in fact our population was so well distributed that a frontier had ceased to exist. Panicked that America had expanded as far as it might at home, America began to look elsewhere for markets in which to expand, particularly to the East. There was a rush on to exploit China and Japan and all points in the East, and America did not even have a base to replenish coal supplies for its Navy, a key instrument America would use for opening closed markets in the East. I do not think it is cynical to say that this was one reason why America was happy to fight Spain. Spain's holdings in the Philippines and Guam suited this need nicely, and I suspect this is one reason why America would stay in the Philippines for so long despite the hardships (more on that later). Theodore Roosevelt, who would play such a large part in the war, had reviewed Captain Alfred Thayer Mahan's The Influence of Sea Power Upon History for The Atlantic Monthly in 1890 and came to believe a strong Navy is key to realizing world power. You can read his review here. As an aside -Roosevelt was very active and made much of his living and earned much of his popularity from writing for the magazines (I'll put up my scan of his "The Home Ranch" with Frederic Remington illustrations one of these days from The Century in 1888). In his role as Assistant Secretary of the Navy to John D. Long, Roosevelt went about modernizing our Naval infrastructure, and, indeed, it was Roosevelt working while Long was on Summer vacation that had readied Admiral Dewey to attack the Spanish fleet in The Philippines if war were to break out in Cuba.
In fact, it was U.S. entanglements in Cuba that helped expose this need for modernization of the Navy. America had long had its eyes on Cuba. The island being so close to Florida, this is only natural, and there were many times where "annexation" of Cuba was considered going all the way back to Thomas Jefferson. Perhaps the most notable argument for the taking Cuba was the 1954 Ostend Manifesto a document arguing that America should offer to buy Cuba from Spain and take it by force if refused. Southern slave holders believed that Cuba would naturally come into the U.S. as a slave territory or that Cuban independence might mean the abolition of slavery on the island and the creation of another island like Haiti, always a Southern bugaboo, ruled by others than the white man where slaves might escape to or gather forces for a revolt. The Ostend Manifesto angered northerners, and arguments for Cuban annexation or independence were often formed due to shifting positions on both sides on how a free or American Cuba would affect the slavery question. Maybe the Cubans thought that after the Civil War America might more readily lend aid to rebels and independence with the slavery issue out of the way. 1868 marked the beginning of the Ten Year's War, Cuba's first war for liberation from Spain. And America did almost go to war with Spain at this time. Joseph Fry, former officer in both the Federal and Confederate navies, commanded the Virginius, manned by a mix crew of Americans and Britons and owned by Cuban revolutionaries, in running supplies through Spanish blockades to rebels. In 1973, the Spanish captured the Virginius and quickly courts-martialed and executed Frye and over 50 passenger and crew members. On the brink of war, Spain surrendered the Virginius back to the Americans, who had decided that the ship was not eligible to be flying the stars and stripes being Cuban owned, and Spain agreed to pay Americans damages for our slain citizens. During the tensions, a Spanish ironclad was at rest in NY Harbor, and America realized that the U.S. Navy had no ship capable of sinking it. The Navy ordered up five modern vessels, all of which were used in the Spanish-American War.
Beyond America's desire for new markets, the war in Cuba was fueled by the American press. In 1896, William Randolph Hearst, 33 years old and son of a successful CA goldminer, bought The New York Journal. Hearst, who would shape the face of the American media for decades to come, saw the atrocities being perpetrated by the Spanish against the Cuban population as a way to sell papers. It is probably unfair to simplify it to only that, as Hearst seemed to have a genuine concern for the plight of the Cubans and an actual desire for America to step in. The Spanish, who had for decades failed to completely "pacify" Cuba, sent in Valeraino Weyler, called by the U.S. press "the Butcher," as a strong man to get the job done. Tools he used included public executions, mass exile, and finally the use of what can only be called concentration camps. 300,000 Cubans were moved into camps with terrible conditions and farms outside of the camp areas were burned as any outside of camp areas were summarily killed to put an end to the rebels guerrilla tactics. Up to a third of the islands population died during the period of rebellion. It's understandable, then, that Hearst and others sensationalized the plight of the Cubans. In fact, the papers of the day sensationalized everything. Hysterics, unnamed sources, ginormous headlines, etc. were used in the escalating fight for a growing readership. With the war, there was an issue that united a broad spectrum of Americans. The younger generation had not seen the horrors of the Civil War and were anxious to fight. Roosevelt supposedly wrote (though I'm not sure where) that, ""I should welcome almost any war, for I think this country needs one." When the fighting did break out, almost one million Americans volunteered. Old Confederate veterans were appointed leadership positions alongside the Federals they fought against.
Though there was a united fervor for the war, it must be noted that the war also had opponents. President McKinley, who had been at Antietam and knew first hand the realities of conflict, was very hesitant to commit. American business interests as well favored stability in Cuba as much as anything. The sugar industry was very profitable there. It was Spain's prized possession, and America had many interests in stopping the fighting. In fact, America had pressured Spain to make peace by threatening to allow U.S. firms to rearm the guerrillas, and Spain transferred suposed autonomy to Cuba on January 1, 1998. Eleven days later, riots were sparked by Spanish troops in Havana, and the U.S. sent in the USS Maine to ensure the safety of American interests. At the same time the Maine shipped, the rest of the Navy was made ready to attack on all fronts if war were to break out. The Spanish were indignant about being given short notice of the arrival of the Maine. On February 15th, the spark that started the war was ignited when the Maine exploded in Havana Harbor. The cause of the explosion is unknown. At the time, the likely suspect was a Spanish mine. Much later, investigations pointed to an internal explosion in the coal room. Computer modeling is inconclusive. Conspiracy theorists point to it as a possible false flag operation. Whatever the cause, 266 American sailors died, and many who had opposed the war ceased their opposition. By mid-April, McKinley asked Congress for the authority to send troops to make peace in Cuba. Added to the resolution by Senator Henry Teller was the Teller Amendment, passed 42-35, disclaiming any intention to annex Cuba. The Teller amendment was later weakened by the Platt Amendment which allowed the U.S. the right to intervene militarily and granted us lease of Guantanamo Bay. Who knows when we'll let that go.
The war, in Cuba at least, proceeded fairly smoothly. At sea, America's modern navy made short work of the Spanish ships that were operating with inferior coal. On land, Americans employed superior numbers and brash tactics to defeat a Spanish force that fought well with modern rifles. In the end, disease was the biggest threat that faced the Americans, and we sped up the withdrawal of the bulk of our troops because of the hazards of the tropical climate. I will go ahead and today's first scan tell the tale, a newspaper from a man most known for his dime novels today, Frank Tousey. Tousey sells this issue as giving the readers what they want, more pictures. Pictures tell the tale, he writes, far better than any correspondent. If the last paper I presented, The Days' Doings shows the move towards engravings, today's first issue shows the move towards the use of photographs. The paper is 16 pages long with a colored poster insert. I'm going to go ahead and post the whole thing up here, but, as I so constantly harp, remember - the images in the scan are superior to what you get filtered through the image hosting service. And before I forget - big thanks to my main man McCoy for sending me the raws for this issue from his collection for me to edit. Page 1 is at the top of the post as the cover, the rest follow...
Scrollable Image
The philosophy of the paper is given in the bottom right hand corner.
Scrollable Image
I don't know exactly what type of gun this is/ I'd say it's a Gatling but I'm unsure how useful that would be mounted on a deck like this. The Gatling gun was key in finally winning The Battle of San Juan Hill, the battle which forever cemented Teddy Roosevelt and his Rough Riders as American icons.
Scrollable Image
New York volunteers, Michigan volunteers, in camp.
Scrollable Image
Battleship Texas, Battleship Indiana
Scrollable Image
Cruiser New Orleans, Cruiser Yankee
Scrollable Image
The centerfold, artist's (Hoppe?) depiction of Rough Riders at Santiago. Many great American artists depicted the war including Frederic Remington and Howard Chandler Christy.
Scrollable Image
Commander Cole and sailors of Cruiser Topeka
Scrollable Image
Foldout poster in color of the Bombardment of Santiago. The artist (W. Schattner?) did a series of color paintings of the war, some of which I think you can see digitally at the LOC (no name listed, though). I swear I've seen a printed collection of paintings by the artist from the war, but I'm unable to track down any particulars. I left this at a whopping 8000 pixel width in the scan since it is four pages wide, so you could probably print up a fairly nice sized image without losing quality (though I'm not terribly fond of the thing myself).
Scrollable Image
Marines on Cruiser Topeka, swabbing the guns on Monitor Nahant.
Scrollable Image
Two pages for the Hospital Ship Solace. Before hostilities, I take it.
Scrollable Image
Scrollable Image
These two pages have generated the most commentary when I've shared this scan previously. John P. Holland and the Holland Submarine Torpedo Boat.
Scrollable Image
Scrollable Image
Again by Schattner, the sinking of the Collier Merrimac by Lieutenant Hobson. The idea was to scuttle the hobbled ship in a fashion that would block the channel. See here for details.
Scrollable Image
Next time, hopefully tonight, I'll continue a discussion of the Spanish-American War and turn to the action and aftermath in the Philippines - where the war did not go so smoothly - and present an issue of Collier's. If I've glossed over the after-effects of the Spanish-American War in Cuba in saying it went "smoothly," I'd better also point out American involvement did not end with the war. Under the Platt Amendment, Cuba could not sell land to any other country than the U.S., could take on no foreign debt that could not be met by guaranteed revenues, solidified trade agreements whereby the U.S. would support Cuban sugar and U.S. goods would be favored in the market, and stated the U.S could intervene in Cuban affairs when it deemed fit. U.S. troops returned as early as 1906. The Platt Amendment remained in place until F.D.R.'s good neighbor policy removed it in 1934, though the lease of Guantanamo Bay was solidified. Cubans did appreciate America's help in the revolution but resented a "big brother" relationship. By the time of Batista, America and American business and crime interests were seen as co-conspirators in supporting a corrupt regime. How would Cuba be different today if America had not assisted in its liberation? I can't really hazard an answer to this question to be honest. Cuba had struggled against the Spanish for so long and had just barely been granted some autonomy right as the war broke out. Could Cuba have eventually cast Spain out without our help? Were we destined to intervene in Cuba no matter what? If human beings have the right of self-determination, do they also have they also have a corresponding responsibility? Is self-determination really possible when foreign powers are constantly meddling in a country's affairs? These are tough questions with no easy solutions, and over 110 years later, America does not seem very much closer to the answers. But more of this next post on the Philippines when America quickly learns that empire ain't all it's cracked up to be.
No comments:
Post a Comment