DBWI: What if the United States had gone to war with Spain in 1898?

[Dean_the_Young]

I was reading a history article on my plane ride from North Venezuela to the North Con US today, about the turn of the Century. Apparently towards the lead up to the 20th Century, there had been pressure from the Yellow Press for a war with Spain over Cuba, culminating in the flurry of activity after the explosion of the USS Maine. But with Spain's quick and well publicized rescue of many people off the ship, who testified at lax procedures that a Military Board ruled was the cause of the explosion, the furor was cut short and eventually died today.

But what if the US had gone to war with Spain? Would the American Empire have been launched early, or would we have been beaten down before we could come into the world as a major power?

 

[Roberto]

Well, for one thing, the Japanese Empire wouldn't have had a foothold in southern Asia as early as it did when it took the Phillipines and East Timor from Spain and Portugal in the Indies War. I recall that the Dutch also participated, but minimally for fear of losing their colonies. That was in 1901-1903, IIRC.

 

[Fenwick]

Would we simply have liberate Cuba then and not in the 1960's? I know Spain was declining, and was a second or third rate power at that point but they had repeating smokeless rifles and machine guns at that point, no?

Would we have had any real shot against Spain? I see this as a rather prolonged war, with maybe another European power trying to sneak its influenece into the region like during the ACW.

 

[Roberto]

Hmm, you have a point. Germany was rising in power at the time, would they have intervened in the Pacific? I know for certain that American interests in Japan and China would look to the Spanish Phillipines, they talked about it in OTL even before the incident.

 

[The Sicilian]

Could the Emperor have participated then? He was of the right age, but would he have gained the fame and glory the Canadian conquest to propel him to the monarchy?

 

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

Could the Emperor have participated then? He was of the right age, but would he have gained the fame and glory the Canadian conquest to propel him to the monarchy?

Naw ...

No Guts, NO Glory ...

Would've Probably Been Another Accidental President, Like if President Ranier had Gotten himself Shot or Somethin' ...

 

[Tocomocho]

Would we simply have liberate Cuba then and not in the 1960's?

OMG how can you Americans still call that brutal invasion and illegal annexation of the Republic of Cuba as "liberation"? Has nothing changed since Patton's presidency?

 

[The Sicilian]

OMG how can you Americans still call that brutal invasion and illegal annexation of the Republic of Cuba as "liberation"? Has nothing changed since Patton's presidency?

Oh, so now you're supporting the illegitimate democratic insurgency against our beloved monarch?! How shameful!

 

[Cherico]

it would have put us on an entirely differnt footing psycologically
since america doesnt have an overseas empire we were able to become
the leader of the developing world. A third way between the twin super
powers of England and russia.
Maby if we had colonial intrests it would have inspired us to ally with
the entente during the first great war. It might even have butterflyed
the british into joining france instead of holding the neutral posistion it
did.
If britian wasnt nuetural it couldent of played the european powers
of the central and allied sides aganst each other for economic gain.
With out this economic gain its possible that we wouldent still be
talking about the british empire.

 

[Dean_the_Young]

OMG how can you Americans still call that brutal invasion and illegal annexation of the Republic of Cuba as "liberation"? Has nothing changed since Patton's presidency?

Oh, so now you're supporting the illegitimate democratic insurgency against our beloved monarch?! How shameful!

It's not even like he's a real monarch in the traditional sense. The rules are clear: the Emperor rules for life, unless a 3/5ths majority of the Electors that convene every four years declare against him. His family is barred from the throne thereafter for a minimum of fifty years. Should he die, the Chief Secretary will rule in his stead until the Electoral Convention, and the Chief Secretary is elected every four years by election. The Electors are also constantly rotated similar to the Senate; one third of them have a successor elected every two years.

There's enough representation for us, and most of our Emperors are old when they come into office; the longest reign has been thirty-five years, and most are under twelve. Contrary to what some members of the board would say, we are not tyrannized by a despot.

 

[Dan1988]

OMG how can you Americans still call that brutal invasion and illegal annexation of the Republic of Cuba as "liberation"? Has nothing changed since Patton's presidency?

Well I for one do not call it a "liberation". In fact, thanks to that annexation (and creation of the "Estado Libre Associado de Cuba", aka Commonwealth of Cuba), things have gone pretty downhill. The health care and educational system is good, but I don't know if Cuba has benefited from American control. There are exceptions, I agree (I already mentioned health care and education - the transport network is pretty good, even though it focuses only on La Habana, even with the "Autopista Transcubana" and the Cuban railway system, for example), but it seems that things have remained the same since the annexation in the 1960s. It is really turning into Mafia country now, and this is bad.

In addition, I don't understand how the American minority in Cuba is trying to push its agenda in Cuba. Remember how in the 1980s they demanded to have ABC, NBC, CBS, and DuMont affiliates even though a majority of Cubans preferred watching Telemundo, Televicentro, Galavision, Telefutura, Canal Sur, Super Siete Cubana, Tele Rebelde, TeleOro, RHTV, Televen, Caribevision, and the PBS affiliates "Cubavision" (owned by the University of Havana, which also includes programming from the Puerto Rican "Nuevavision" TV channel and from the Mexican TV channel Teveunam), "TuTV Cuba" (owned by the Puerto Rican TV channel of the same name), and "Telecubana" (owned by the state-owned Cuban Broadcasting Corporation, and aired a majority of locally-produced programming in addition to programming from the Mexican TV channels "Conaculta" and "Once TV") and even though you could get American TV channels via cable and satellite?

And why is it that the Americans want everything for themselves, whilst Cubans are often denied the exact same things that Americans want? Why is it that 75% of Cubans are living in poverty? Also, what disgusts me is how Cuban politics has turned out. Both the Authentic and Orthodox parties have alternated in power and sought alliances with US parties (the Democrats and the GOP respectively), yet other parties that are more popular with Cubans, such as the Christian Democratic Party, the Cuban Liberal Movement, the Liberal Democratic Paty, the Democratic Solidarity Party, the Popular Socialist Party, the Popular Democratic Party, the Radical Civic Union of Cuba, and the New Progressive Party are denied representation in the Cuban General Assembly? Remember that the Orthodox Party won 85% of the seats of the Chamber of Deputies of the General Assembly with less than 35% of the vote during the last election, whilst the Christian Democrats managed to get 52% of the vote yet has less than 2% of the seats of the Chamber of Deputies of the General Assembly. Now, with an election next year, maybe things will change, but I doubt it.

As a result of these events, there is a pretty strong independence movement taking foot. In addition, the Cuban-Canadian community and Cuban communities in Puerto Rico and México are backing the independence movement, with some interesting results. Pretty much all they want is the restoration of a free and independent Republic of Cuba, without any interference from the United States. From what I heard from my Cuban-Canadian colleagues, there is a possibility that the structure of the Republic of Cuba itself will probably remain, but the system will be slightly altered to allow for some serious electoral reform to take place as well as making the Prime Minister responsible for domestic affairs, thus creating a semi-presidential system. In addition, there will most likely be the possibility of creating a comprehensive social safety net and land reform to ensure that Cubans would not be impoverished again. The independence movement has already forced the Cuban government to give more power to the provinces instead of the unitary state that the US wanted, and La Habana is now focusing its attention on its rural regions. AFAIK, there is going to be a referendum on whether Cuba should be a state, independent, or maintain the status quo. I'm backing the independence option, since that I think the US has done more harm than good in Cuba.

 

[Dan1988]

OOC: I think I found a possible story for the Writer's Forum!

IC:

To get back to the original topic, if the US were to go to war with Spain, then this would have only come if popular pressure thanks to the Yellow Press made it work. If Spain did not help the USS Maine survivors, then this could very well be a possibility. My only problem with this would be how troops and supplies would make it all the way there. Plus, it would interfer with the Cuban liberation movement. If the US won Cuba in 1898, then it would be likely that it would either be part of the US as it is now or would have to submit to popular pressure and allow Cuba to be independent. Plus, remember also that the vast majority of Americans then did not believe in colonies because through a collective (albeit selective) memory Americans remember what happened when it was a bunch of colonies.

 

[NHBL]

Sleeping giant waking up..

Even in 1898, the USA was becoming a rather impressive industrial power, though it wasn't really flexing its muscles.
Had the USA gone to war with Spain (and the American people supported the war) the Spainish navy would have been easily driven from the Carribean (Spain had one battleship, the Pelayo, and the USA had 4 plus the second class battleship Texas, and 5 more in various stages of construction. In a long war, the USA could have built more relatively rapidly compared to Spain.

Spain was not a great power at the time, but a victory over Spain would have made the European powers take a second look at the USA. Historicly, they didn't pay much attention until the Great War, when industrialists promised, "Should the USA need to, we'll build enough battleships that our boys can walk to france over their decks." Of course, that wasn't true...but htere were a heck of a lot of ships built in a hurry.

With the USA in the game in 1898, the European analysts would look to America, and see that the USA both had an impressive industrial base, and that it was growing fast. So...when the Great War broke out in 1913 (give or take a year, due to butterflies) both sides would be so well aware that they need to keep the USA out of the war, that neither would have provoked the Americans over much. (Assuming rational European leaders...a VERY risky assumption.)

 

[Analytical Engine]

Hmm, I think we (the British) would have intervened in the dispute, and aquired Cuba and the Philippines (the south, at any rate) from Spain.

 

[Dave Howery]

one thing it might have done is force the army to modernize earlier... the US could hardly go up against Spain with the Winchester rifles that were still being issued at the time! The US would undoubtedly be forced to develop it's own magazine rifle, or maybe license one from Britain or Germany. We did have Gatling guns around, but they lagged behind the development of proper machine guns in the rest of the world. Not to mention the dark blue 'shoot at me, I'm a big target' uniforms the army still issued...

 

[Dan1988]

Hmm, I think we (the British) would have intervened in the dispute, and aquired Cuba and the Philippines (the south, at any rate) from Spain.

In which case I think Cuba could be better off under British rule than having Spain suffer the long pain of the Cuban liberation movement, which finally culmiated in a deal between the Cuban rebels and the Spanish government in 1901. Mind you, the Republic of Cuba between 1901 and 1961 was okay, but I think the infighting between the Conservadores, the Liberales, and the centrist, ruling Partido Nacionalista del Cuba (OOC: Cuba's version of the Mexican PRI), plus the Machado dictatorship between 1928 and 1939 did more damage to Cuba than anything else, even the Batista dictatorship that lasted throughout much of the 1950s and even after the US annexed Cuba in 1961 (because Batista wanted to prevent the newly-elected President Fidel Castro from being inauguarated), until his death in 1973. What I think is just as damaging as the two dictatorships were the consolidation of the three parties into two - the Conservadores and some liberals into the Union Nacionalista (UN; later the Orthodox Party), and the merger of the Liberales and the PNC into the Partido Nactionalista Autentica del Cuba (PNAC; later the Authentic Party). Why? Because this began to limit choice and entrench the two partes in Cuban society.

However I think that had Britain took over Cuba, the Machado and Batista dictatorships could easily be butterflied away. Knowing Britain's involvement in the area as I do, I think that in the long run Cuba would be better off than under the Republic. Granted, I still think the Cuban liberation movement would still be going on, but I find the Westminster system to be more democratic than the American system. My question would be, if Cuba were to gain dominion status, would it be a unitary state (with the provinces getting powers similar to devolution) or a federal state along either the Canadian or Australian models?

 

[Grimm Reaper]

Let's not gloss over the US Army's weakness.

While the navy was far stronger than Spain's, and I understand that the Pelayo(Spain's sole battleship) was undergoing an upgrade or some such at the time, the US Army was not remotely ready for a serious war.

Didn't Spain have more professional troops in Cuba than the US had in the entire army?

The US can hardly wait months to train a professional force but it isn't hard to see the result of an amateur expeditionary force with inferior weapons trying to land on the beaches of Cuba. God forbid the Spanish get even a small contingent to meet the landing, it would be an absolute slaughter!

 

[NHBL]

Naval superiority

Never underestimate the capabilities of a good navy. In addition to the battleships, the USN had monitors that could, at need, have been sent to Cuba also. The USA couldn't easily have driven the Spanish off the island...but they could esatablish a beach head and hold it with naval gunfire support.

And--we have yet to see the USA just give up on a war because of a few rough spots. I suspect that, barring either Spain giving the US what it wants, or foreign intervention, the USA will create a second army after the first one fails, and take Cuba. By then, the Spanish forces would be in sad shape due to the blockade...and one thing we know; the USA does know how to run a blockade.

 

[Dan1988]

That's an interesting take on it. But wouldn't that interfere with the Cuban liberation movement? AFAIK the Cubans wanted to get independence on their own WITHOUT any outside help. Wouldn't the US getting Cuba make a mess of the whole thing?

 

[The Sandman]

Given that Emperor Norton II was firmly against any such war, I just don't see it happening. Unless you eliminated the Empire, of course, but that seems unlikely at best...