| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - US Naval Power in the late 19th Century
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


US Naval Power in the late 19th Century

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345>
Author
lirelou View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 1346
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Mar 2011 at 04:59
To quote Penguin:  "Too bad the master plan failed when Latinos decided to move smarter... and moved to the U.S. LOL"

Well, there is the not inconsequential role of the Cuban-American community in ginning up public support for the Spanish-American war, which the big business interests opposed. (Ergo the Yellow Press's use of the term "Insurrectos" to describe Cuban resistance forces) And please note that while the U.S. did grab Puerto Rico and Guam, they turned Cuba over to those same 'Insurrectos'. Also, it seems silly to raise the old "U.S. stole Panama from Colombia" argument, in that Panama has had quite a while in which they could have happily sought reunification with Bogota. Yet, for some strange reason, they have not opted to do so. 
 

Some other minor points to your posts, feathered one: Custer's regiment was armed with the same 1866 trap-door single shot Springfield carbine that most regiments were still using in the Span-Am War, whereas no small number of the Indians were armed with Winchester repeaters. Don't believe those old John Wayne movies, the Cavalry never had Winchesters. The Indians at Little Big Horn had the technological advantage in firepower, and the tactical advantage of mass in numbers.

Also, your little dig on Vietnam falls flat, though you have the wisdom to recognize a Pyrrhic victory. Those nicely rounded numbers include the Vietnamese with whom the U.S. was allied, who died fighting the Communist Northern government. Review the events of 1972-75 and you'll find only Vietnamese ground forces engaged on both sides. (The U.S. Air Force did play a major role in support of Southern ground troops in the North's Easter 1972 offensive) 
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Mar 2011 at 08:46
Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:

To quote Penguin:  "Too bad the master plan failed when Latinos decided to move smarter... and moved to the U.S. LOL"

Well, there is the not inconsequential role of the Cuban-American community in ginning up public support for the Spanish-American war, which the big business interests opposed. (Ergo the Yellow Press's use of the term "Insurrectos" to describe Cuban resistance forces) And please note that while the U.S. did grab Puerto Rico and Guam, they turned Cuba over to those same 'Insurrectos'. Also, it seems silly to raise the old "U.S. stole Panama from Colombia" argument, in that Panama has had quite a while in which they could have happily sought reunification with Bogota. Yet, for some strange reason, they have not opted to do so. 
 

Some other minor points to your posts, feathered one: Custer's regiment was armed with the same 1866 trap-door single shot Springfield carbine that most regiments were still using in the Span-Am War, whereas no small number of the Indians were armed with Winchester repeaters. Don't believe those old John Wayne movies, the Cavalry never had Winchesters. The Indians at Little Big Horn had the technological advantage in firepower, and the tactical advantage of mass in numbers.

Also, your little dig on Vietnam falls flat, though you have the wisdom to recognize a Pyrrhic victory. Those nicely rounded numbers include the Vietnamese with whom the U.S. was allied, who died fighting the Communist Northern government. Review the events of 1972-75 and you'll find only Vietnamese ground forces engaged on both sides. (The U.S. Air Force did play a major role in support of Southern ground troops in the North's Easter 1972 offensive) 
 
 
Colonel really, you are not making light of us are you? Handed Cuba back to the Cubans? Cuba achieved neo-colonial status after the war; it was a land made safe for US investment and profit taking. If there was any doubt about that, the Marines returned on numerous occasions to refresh the memory, strenuously if need be, of those lucky, American liberated peasants.
 
As for Panama, there is a tendancy for tin horns, once they have tasted power, to want to keep it, at all costs. Look at khaddafi today. And at any rate, Panama was irrelavant. The US would have fought to keep the canal against anyone, once they had it, regardless of national sentiment, or ethical considerations. Attitudes only changed after technology rendered the canal less valuable as a strategic asset.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Mar 2011 at 13:39
Yes, the U.S. love to control territories and people that aren't theirs own. It seems the British tradition that started with the pirats of the Caribbean it is still not over.
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Mar 2011 at 14:53
Et tu CV--or could it be that as a Canadian you have a vested interest in "evil yanquis" when it comes to the business of Cuba? You wrote:
 
Colonel really, you are not making light of us are you? Handed Cuba back to the Cubans? Cuba achieved neo-colonial status after the war; it was a land made safe for US investment and profit taking. If there was any doubt about that, the Marines returned on numerous occasions to refresh the memory, strenuously if need be, of those lucky, American liberated peasants.
 
What can one say to such a riposte in the World of History through Internet Commentary other than inquire: Ian Chadwick is that you?
 
 
The glaring omission in all of these constructs is a simple one: it was in the economic and social interest of the Cuban "economic aristocracy" that an alternative to Spain remain on the political horizon [no less than a clause in the Spanish-U.S. peace treaty of 1899 touches upon it: Article 16--

It is understood that any obligations assumed in this treaty by the United States with respect to Cuba are limited to the time of its occupancy thereof; but it will upon termination of such occupancy, advise any Government established in the island to assume the same obligations.

 
The complicity of the Cuban wealthy (and its dependent Middle Class) can not be disguised during the years 1902-1926, and it is only subsequent to the Danza de los Millones and the fracturing of its wealth in the ensuing bankruptcies (only those that had kept their capital in the Spanish Banco Central escaped this ignominy) in the years 1927-1930 that one can begin to speak of an overall hostility to the United States among Cuban intellectuals. As for the Cuban Middle Class, well they simply transferred their old allegiances to the new "Dons" in town.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Mar 2011 at 20:51
It's just like trying to pin down a greased pig, isn't it? It squirms, it squeals, it struggles, and just when you think you have it, out it pops, and runs for dear life, squawking indignation all the way.
 
What is new here Dr? Find those that seem to have the biggest stick, and utilize them to best advantage. That's a method the British used to great success, and Americans eagerly adopted when it came time to have their own empire. This has continued right to this day, as Obama hummed and hawed about the opportune moment to jettison the formerly useful Mubarak.
 
The US was enthusiastic about expansion, right from the beginning, and various administrations continued this theme, with relish, well into the twentieth century, after which the concept of empire evolved somewhat, although it wasn't extinguished altogether.
 
Cuba was on the receiving end of these urges for about 60 years, which is why if you wander the streets of Havana today, looking for those that will express gratitude for all the US has done for them, you will be hard pressed to find even one individual.
Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 1346
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Mar 2011 at 20:59
My dear Captain Vancouver, I did not say that it was 'handed back' to the Cubans, I wrote that it was handed over to the Insurrectos, which is as history records it. You can nitpick the 'neo-colonial' all you wish, but the fact is that the Cubans were ultimately responsible for what they did or failed to do with their own country. The important point is that the U.S. had no intentions of making Cuba an American territory. However fractious, the Insurrectos had fought a long and bitter war to free their country, and the great majority of Americans felt we should support them. That was no the case with either Puerto Rico or Guam. We did have designs on the Philippines, a country we knew far less about going into the war, but a bitter insurgency convinced us that they were best left with a guarantee of independence. And yes, the U.S. did intervene in Cuba on several occasions, usually at the behest of some other Cuban faction.

By the way, should the U.S. now intervene in Libya? When Quadaffi finds the muscle to crack down on the rebels, can we count on your voice being raised high in the cause of non-interference? Even as thousands are being killed? Derailing the thread? No, merely trying to ascertain if your objections are based upon a general principle (or adversary) or are case specific.

As for Panama, the simple truth is that the Panamanians were not qualified to run it n 1914. As they continued to develop as a people, so did we.
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 1346
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Mar 2011 at 21:09
Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

Cuba was on the receiving end of these urges for about 60 years, which is why if you wander the streets of Havana today, looking for those that will express gratitude for all the US has done for them, you will be hard pressed to find even one individual.


Would that be just about the number you'll find willing to express gratitude to Fidel? After all, they've since had 52 years of socialism, free from the pressures of 'coca-colonizacion', free of grabbing for the 'yankee dollar', and free of exploitation by those greedy Yankee corporations. And they are sooooo grateful for having missed all that. Which is why they keep sending money to all their poor, exploited relatives here in the U.S.


Edited by lirelou - 07 Mar 2011 at 21:10
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Mar 2011 at 22:47
I am fascinated by this statement:
 
The US was enthusiastic about expansion, right from the beginning, and various administrations continued this theme, with relish, well into the twentieth century, after which the concept of empire evolved somewhat, although it wasn't extinguished altogether.
 
One should be careful when issuing such blanket statements, and if you'd care to look at the administrations of Grover Cleveland (1885-1889, 1893-1897), you'd be hard put to discover any enthusiasm whatsoever in his foreign policy. Certainly the secretary of State in his second administration, Walter Gresham (a Reform Republican) blocked both the annexation of Hawaii and intervention in Cuba. Would you care to review the contents of the Blount Report issued by the US House of Representatives in 1895?
 
 
What can be more forthright that this statement:

I suppose that right and justice should determine the path to be followed in treating this subject. If national honesty is to be disregarded and a desire for territorial extension, or dissatisfaction with a form of government not our own, ought to regulate our conduct, I have entirely misapprehended the mission and character of our Government and the behavior which the conscience of our people demands of their public servants.

Grover Cleveland to the US Congress, 18 December 1893
 
The notion that "adventurism" was ever a maxim of the US government is one of the great myths of New Left historiography and one can understand why the real isolationism of John Q. Public has been considered one of the principal objectives ever to be overcome and condemned through political subterfuge. There was no popular fervor for the annexation of anything and when it comes to issues such as Cuba, the Philipines, and even American Samoa such was always in for a heavy dose of American skepticism on a par with the reaction to Seward's Ice Box. Perhaps this factor deserves a thread of its own, how about beginning it with observations once made by a certain Abraham Lincoln and a particular Bloody Spot.
 


Edited by drgonzaga - 08 Mar 2011 at 14:35
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 22 Jan 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 5076
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Mar 2011 at 23:20
Doc,

Historical sources are useless in convincing those who get off dumping on the States.  Their minds are made up; don't confuse them with facts.

All the naive, 1960s, Chomsky-esque tripe is not to be discouraged by a cogent argument when one gets aroused by criticizing a country that is right next door to him, that has ten times his population, and actually left it's territory after states of war.

Uhhhhh...wait a minute, I just described someone in Cuba!  LOL 

Fidel is a smart guy.  He has always known that he can get away with flipping the bird to the US living right next to it because Cuba is of little real importance, other than its strategic position - nothing to worry about there for the last half century.  Had he done the same living next to Russia, instead of the US, he would have wound up shot. 

 


Edited by pikeshot1600 - 07 Mar 2011 at 23:54
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Mar 2011 at 01:47

My dear Captain Vancouver, I did not say that it was 'handed back' to the Cubans, I wrote that it was handed over to the Insurrectos, which is as history records it. You can nitpick the 'neo-colonial' all you wish, but the fact is that the Cubans were ultimately responsible for what they did or failed to do with their own country. The important point is that the U.S. had no intentions of making Cuba an American territory. However fractious, the Insurrectos had fought a long and bitter war to free their country, and the great majority of Americans felt we should support them. That was no the case with either Puerto Rico or Guam. We did have designs on the Philippines, a country we knew far less about going into the war, but a bitter insurgency convinced us that they were best left with a guarantee of independence. And yes, the U.S. did intervene in Cuba on several occasions, usually at the behest of some other Cuban faction.

 

 

 

Best left with a guarantee of independence. Yes, that’s putting it mildly. Why seek any territorial gain, or semi-control as in the case of Cuba, if, as you seem to be suggesting, the aims of the US at the time were altruistic, and empire building was not on the agenda? Why insist on a treaty that guarantees the right of the US to intervene militarily when it sees fit, in the case of Cuba? After spending time and money to get Cubans started, why insist on the right to intervene, unless significant US interests were involved? Wouldn’t the administration at the time have considered they had done their job, and now it was up to the Cubans themselves? It is the refusal to accept the possibility of baser motives that strains credulity here.



By the way, should the U.S. now intervene in Libya? When Quadaffi finds the muscle to crack down on the rebels, can we count on your voice being raised high in the cause of non-interference? Even as thousands are being killed? Derailing the thread? No, merely trying to ascertain if your objections are based upon a general principle (or adversary) or are case specific.

 

 

 

Good question. My answer is yes I think they should, within the framework of some sort of international consensus, such as the UN, or perhaps an agreement of the major players. The distinction here is one I am sure you clearly understand. There is a difference between humanitarian effort, with no hope for personal, corporate, or national gain, other than the general benefits of a more peaceful world, and intervention as part of a geopolitical plan to gain strategic position in the world is a significant one. If you were to say that the US would intervene in Libya, do its best to set up the people there with some democratic institutions, throw in some aid, but, they would also demand laws that favored US exploitation of oil resources, and mandated US military intervention if it thought it right to do so at any time, then I would say no, it doesn’t wash.

 



As for Panama, the simple truth is that the Panamanians were not qualified to run it n 1914. As they continued to develop as a people, so did we.

 

 

If there were, would the US have relinquished control of the canal? Where there no engineers in the region until the 1970s?

 

 

 

Would that be just about the number you'll find willing to express gratitude to Fidel? After all, they've since had 52 years of socialism, free from the pressures of 'coca-colonizacion', free of grabbing for the 'yankee dollar', and free of exploitation by those greedy Yankee corporations. And they are sooooo grateful for having missed all that. Which is why they keep sending money to all their poor, exploited relatives here in the U.S.

 

 

The people I talked to while there seemed to have a very clear view of the situation. They had been roughly used by the Spanish, roughly used by the US, and they had embarked on a regime that has been, in many ways, a failure. Many want reform, but they also want to hang on to their gains, a relatively egalitarian society that supports education, health care, and culture. In those, and other respects, Cubans are doing pretty well compared to surrounding countries. Younger people especially are eager for more consumerism, but there is an awareness that one Fidel could easily be replaced by another, so to speak, corporate hegemony from the US.

Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Mar 2011 at 01:57
Cuba is doing pretty well? Please, give me a break.


Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Mar 2011 at 02:01
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

I am fascinated by this statement:
 
The US was enthusiastic about expansion, right from the beginning, and various administrations continued this theme, with relish, well into the twentieth century, after which the concept of empire evolved somewhat, although it wasn't extinguished altogether.
 
One should be careful when issuing such blanket statements, and if you'd care to look at the administrations of Grover Cleveland (1885-1889, 1893-1897), you'd be hard put to discover any enthusiasm whatsoever in his foreign policy. Certainly the secretary of State in his second administration, Walter Gresham (a Reform Republican) blocked both the annexation of Hawaii and intervention in Cuba. Would you care to review the contents of the Blount Report issued by the US House of Representatives in 1895?
 
 
What can be more forthright that this statement:

I suppose that right and justice should determine the path to be followed in treating this subject. If national honesty is to be disregarded and a desire for territorial extension, or dissatisfaction with a form of government not our own, ought to regulate our conduct, I have entirely misapprehended the mission and character of our Government and the behavior which the conscience of our people demands of their public servants.

Grover Cleveland to the US Congress, 18 December 1893
 
The notion that "adventurism" was ever a maxim of the US government is one of the great myths of New Left historiography and one can understand why the real isolationism of John Q. Public has been considered one of the principal objectives ever to be overcome and condemned through political subterfuge. There was no popular fervor for the annexation of anything and when it comes to issues such as Cuba, the Philipines, and even American Samoa such was always in for a heavy dose of American skepticism on a par with the reaction to Seward's Ice Box. Perhaps this factor deserves a thread of its own, how about beginning it with observations once made by a certain Abraham Lincoln and a certain Bloody Spot.
 
 
 
If you are stating here doctor that you have found an eight year period that goes against the grain, and that therefore you have an argument, then I can't say I see a very strong one.
 
As for adventurism, I disagree. There has been strong sentiment for expansion and military action at various times in US history, at the very least by those with something to gain by it. 54.40 or fight! Remember that one? The city I live in was founded because of a need to move a trading post out of territory that had been under the union jack, and move it northward, due to US settlers who were feeling quite a bit of fervor at the time. American planters in Hawaii were very enthusiastic about expansion to that part of the world. We could go on.
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Location: MS, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Mar 2011 at 02:34

I  just love the metion of "Chomsky!, or as I would rather spell his name "Sh-t!"Ouch

 
But, as some others before me have stated, "I am but, a llittle to the Right, of Attilla the Hun!"
 
But, that is just me!
 
Regards,
Ron


Edited by opuslola - 08 Mar 2011 at 02:37
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Mar 2011 at 14:54
Do not be facetious CV the example I cited with respect to Grover Cleveland is the norm and whether you call it isolationism or wariness over "foreign entanglements" such has been the maxim and "adventurism" the exception in the body politic. Any and all other perspectives demands the dismissal of the popular, which is always done by w**kers such as Chomsky who invert reality and interpret conservatives as 'expansionists" and laud liberal progressives as peace-loving stay-at-homes. Hell, it was always the "liberal minds" of their day that brought about crap such as Manifest Destiny and the Great White Fleet, we will not mention the forthcoming hoist of Obama on his own petard with respect to Lybia.
After all, you are forgetting the Great Betrayal, the presidential campaign of Woodrow Wilson in 1914 and his hypocritical motto: He Kept us Out of War! Then there is the demonization of Henry Cabot Lodge for his resistance of Wilson's Grand Design at Versailles...guess what old Henry proved right in the end as the mirror of popular sentiment.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Mar 2011 at 17:49
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Do not be facetious CV the example I cited with respect to Grover Cleveland is the norm and whether you call it isolationism or wariness over "foreign entanglements" such has been the maxim and "adventurism" the exception in the body politic. Any and all other perspectives demands the dismissal of the popular, which is always done by w**kers such as Chomsky who invert reality and interpret conservatives as 'expansionists" and laud liberal progressives as peace-loving stay-at-homes. Hell, it was always the "liberal minds" of their day that brought about crap such as Manifest Destiny and the Great White Fleet, we will not mention the forthcoming hoist of Obama on his own petard with respect to Lybia.
After all, you are forgetting the Great Betrayal, the presidential campaign of Woodrow Wilson in 1914 and his hypocritical motto: He Kept us Out of War! Then there is the demonization of Henry Cabot Lodge for his resistance of Wilson's Grand Design at Versailles...guess what old Henry proved right in the end as the mirror of popular sentiment.
 
Yes, true enough, most human behaviour fits on that classic bell curve. Many are more concerned with their own personal travail than they are with foreign expeditions to gain strategic advantage. And there was a current of isolationism that waxed and wained at various periods in US history.
 
But we are not really discussing popular sentiment here, but what really happened. If popular sentiment ruled, Britain would likely have not seized an empire, the troops probably would have rebelled in the trenches in WW1, and Japan would likely have not attacked Pearl Harbour. Those with power get a disproportionate amount of page space when history is written.
 
In WW1, I'm sure not many in the US were enthusiastic about going over to Europe to get shot, but it was the usual case of the machinations and invested interests of those with influence that wrote history. By 1917, the US had lent considerable sums to Britain and France, and there was just the slight possibility that they could loose the war, placing the US in a rather prickly strategic and financial position. Wilson had the choice of shipping more money and keeping his fingers crossed, or doing nothing and allowing the chips to fall wherever they may, or of intervening directly. He took the third route, and what was European folly was transformed into patriotic duty overnight. Public sentiment be damned. I think Wilson had some good ideas, and  my guess is that he was a basically sincere individual who tried to salvage a few positives out of a bad business. But power politics prevailed.
 
If you are trying to suggest that the US -not the Midwest farmer, or the shopkeeper in Boston- but those with political, financial,or military power and influence, where only interested in staying at home and improving democracy, and only ventured overseas to selflessly sacrifice their lives to improve the lot of others, with no strategic gains in mind, then I think you are getting lost in rhetoric, or have a very offbeat sense of humour.
 
The period in question was one when imperialism was riding high. European culture was superior, and it was the White man's duty to lift the lessor races out of degredation, while of course, extracting economic and strategic benefit from them. So the reasoning went. America was a late comer, and eager to catch the train before it left the station- hence the grab at the Spanish colonies. As in all large endevours, sentiment varied with individuals, and some no doubt sought positive outcomes within the overarching paradigm. Missionaries were going to ram their worldview down the throats of the natives, but they also brought medicine and education.
 
The point here is not to level an accusing finger at anyone, but to understand history and learn from it. There are those in the US today who seek power (and are sometimes getting it), who make the most uninformed and outrageous statements about the world, leaving one wary about their ability to make important decisions. Sarah Palin and her intellectual peers draw a lot of juice from the claim of American exceptionalism; of the idea that the US has allways been altruistic, and has risen above the commonplace. This is a concept we have seen before in history, and it has often ended badly. The refusal to look at events like US expansion in the nineteenth century objectively just adds fuel to this political extremism.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Mar 2011 at 18:07
The US altruistic? ....LOL What a good joke! 
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Mar 2011 at 20:00
From the US Navy at the close of the the 19th century to Sarah Palin takes quite a stretch of the imagination. Apparently what all do not want to look at is the striking fact that by 1875, the actual navy, in the words of Michael Palmer "was a collection of antiquated, obsolescent men-of-war, notable for their quaintness rather than their prowess as warships". If one understands that when launched in 1895, the USS Maine did not even rate "battleship" status and that by June of 1897, the US Fleet had only five true battleships (the Texas, the Indiana, the Massachusetts, Oregon, and Iowa) one has to wonder how people are defining a powerful navy. Even more ludicrous is the pretense that the cruisers first built by the Navy consequent to the Navy Appropriation Act of 1884 represented any sort of offensive weapon. Good lord, the first true armored cruiser, the USS New York, was not commissioned until 1893, at which time only six like vessels were contemplated. Hence in 1898 placing aside gunboats and obsolete monitors, the entire Navy consisted of but 12 relatively modern warships soon to be reduced to 11!
 
For the non-believers out there just do a fact check:
 
 
Main link site:http://www.navy.mil/swf/index.asp


Edited by drgonzaga - 08 Mar 2011 at 20:01
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Mar 2011 at 23:30
Just imagine how badly was the Spanish fleet then, defeated by that crap of a navy you describe.
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Mar 2011 at 01:59
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Just imagine how badly was the Spanish fleet then, defeated by that crap of a navy you describe.
 
Cervera's ships, as he well knew were mostly antiquated in terms of the new technology--more suitable for guarda costa chores than as a naval offensive weapon. The great question here as far as tactics are concerned is why did he sail out of Santiago harbor. At anchor in this haven at least his ships' guns when coupled with those of the Morro made the harbor impregnable to a naval assault. His original plan had been to isolate the older US vessels conducting the blockade while avoiding direct contact with the few modern vessels in the US Atlantic squadron [keep in mind that many of the modern US cruisers were with Dewey in the Pacific]. Naturally the publicity given by Madrid as to his location made all of his strategy irrelevant. Now, if you want pictures of the vessels at Cervera's disposal go here:
 
 
For some interesting asides:
 
The principal point here, however, is that the actual organization of modern navy by the United States is a story of the 20th century and not the 19th. It is only consequent to the Spanish American War that a program of construction is consolidated and actually forms part of the Great Naval Race that overtook all in the first decade of the 20th century and was then intensified by the commissioning of HMS Dreadnought in 1906 that in essence made both the US and Germany "contenders" in the game through industrial production.
 
 


Edited by drgonzaga - 09 Mar 2011 at 02:01
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Mar 2011 at 01:26
It may be, but the American ships on your sources look a lot bigger, heavy, modern and powerful than the Spanish.
Actually, the Spanish fleet doesn't look quite modern if compared with the contemporary Chilean... Just imagine.
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Mar 2011 at 10:49
Well Pinguin the thread addresses US naval power in the late 19th century and not the chaos of Spanish politics and policy at that time [interestingly the Silver Age of Spanish Letters did not translate into the like when it came to politics--cf. La Generacion del '98], which would last for a century (1876-1976). Interestingly, the Infanta Maria Teresa (Cervera's flagship) was an armored cruiser similar to Dewey's flag, the USS Olympia...the difference came in the realm of politics during the 1880s for while in the US insistence was on modernization, within the Spanish milieu any such program involving a branch of the military represented a threat to the politicla modus vivendi.
 
Nevertheless, the off-shoot of any discussion here demands the understanding that the actual transformation of the US Navy is a narrative of the 20th century and not the 19th. One might say that the Spanish American War of 1898 was the catalyst that made the thesis of Alfred Thayer Mahon in The Influence of Sea Power Upon History attractive for the justification of naval expenditures in terms of the offensive rather than the defensive within the context of American history.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 22 Jan 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 5076
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Mar 2011 at 14:00
Drgonzaga is correct in his time frame for the development of a modern US navy.  Before the 1890s, the American steel industry produced relatively little structural steel, and that was not engineered for naval architecture as much as for buildings (no sky scrapers as yet).  That did not change overnight and the learning curve was a slow process.  There was insufficient economic and public finance pressure.

Nearly all naval machinery and heavier guns were purchased from overseas (mostly from Britain).

The American steel industry was more interested in business from the railroad industry and the mining industry than the navy.  Ordnance for army and navy had been neglected since the ACW and there was little experience of modern gun founding and engineering.  Bethlehem Steel (my college days employer) was just beginning to experiment with and develop armor plate and naval artillery.  The Bethlehem Steel Corporation would not be a modern manufacturer of armor, guns and ships until into the 20th century - post 1905 at least.

The technical development of the US navy was in baby steps from the mid 1880s to about 1905.  It was not until after the 1898 war that the necessary appropriations had the support of Congress and the population that was needed to begin the process of becoming a naval power.

By 1908 when the "Great White Fleet" made its voyage, the navy was composed of obsolescent ships and the gunnery officers complained that there was more white paint than there was efficiency.  That 1908 voyage was mostly public relations.

By 1913/14 - 1918, a different story.  However, in 1898 it was a good thing the opponent was Spain and not someone else.


Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Location: MS, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Mar 2011 at 14:10
The USA always seems to have rapidly de-militarized after wars, except post 1950, when we assumed the role of "defender" of the "free world!"
 
Assumed is not a good word to describe the course of world events that made Americans support just such a build up.  A National desire to control world events, seems to have taken over America, and it might well be due to the propaganda that was expoused over the media, that pulled America out of its natural state of isolationism?
 
Regards,
 
Ron
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 22 Jan 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 5076
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Mar 2011 at 14:11
Two additional comments:

1)  The early steel hulled warships of the US fleet had full sailing rigs.  Smile  The reason for that was that the ships had such a short radius of operations.  The problem (that the engineers knew full well) was that the ships, being made of steel and having heavy machinery and coal bunkers, were too heavy for the sailing rigs to make any speed.

This was a major reason for distant coaling stations and the need and opportunity for forward deployment.

2)  Technological change brought other challenges.  American young people were not much interested in military jobs.  There were much better paying jobs everywhere else.  A modern navy required electricians and mechanics as well as enlisted specialists in gunnery and torpedo equipment.

Up until well into the 20th century, the large majority of enlisted personnel in the US navy were recruited from northern Europe, particularly Scandinavia and to some degree Germany.  This was a pathway to citizenship for many immigrant enlistees.

Language barriers and often insufficient educational backgrounds had to be dealt with every day and overcome by naval officers and chiefs.  That was no small distraction when the navy itself was still learning what it was doing.





Edited by pikeshot1600 - 10 Mar 2011 at 14:15
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 22 Jan 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 5076
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Mar 2011 at 14:20
Originally posted by opuslola opuslola wrote:

The USA always seems to have rapidly de-militarized after wars, except post 1950, when we assumed the role of "defender" of the "free world!"
 
Assumed is not a good word to describe the course of world events that made Americans support just such a build up.  A National desire to control world events, seems to have taken over America, and it might well be due to the propaganda that was expoused over the media, that pulled America out of its natural state of isolationism?
 
Regards,
 
Ron


This might make for a thread in another subforum (Geopolitical Institute?).  I don't think there was any "National desire."  By the decade after WW II, there was no one else left who could address all the global issues. 

Read about George Kennan and Daniel Spykman as well as Dean Acheson on US vital interests.  I don't recall if George Marshall published much - just can't recall.



 
Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 1346
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Mar 2011 at 19:38
Pikeshot, in re your: "Up until well into the 20th century, the large majority of enlisted personnel in the US navy were recruited from northern Europe, particularly Scandinavia and to some degree Germany.  This was a pathway to citizenship for many immigrant enlistees."

You would have an extremely hard time proving that such persons were "recruited from Northern Europe", so I am interested in your cite. If you double check that, I believe you will find that these Northern European personnel were recruited in the United States once they were already landed immigrants, which was when they were legally entitled to enlist. The only time foreigners, i.e. persons who had not been admitted to the U.S. for immigration, were allowed to enlist was after 1952, in response to the "Lodge Act", which allowed up to 5,000 such personnel to be recruited overseas. There was a pre-existing U.S. Navy program by which Filipinos could join the Navy to serve as Mess Stewards, which was the result of a bilateral agreement between the two nations.


Edited by lirelou - 10 Mar 2011 at 19:40
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 1346
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Mar 2011 at 19:54
Opuslola, in re your:  "Assumed is not a good word to describe the course of world events that made Americans support just such a build up.  A National desire to control world events, seems to have taken over America, and it might well be due to the propaganda that was expoused over the media, that pulled America out of its natural state of isolationism?"

I would use the word 'assumed', though it is hard to nitpick your statement, given that you preface it with: "post 1950s," which is certainly correct. Considering our massive demobilization post 1945-46, and the pitiable state of our Armed Forces as a result, combined with a 1950 statement from the U.S. Secretary of State that Korea was not within out area of interest. But to pin our assumption of a vision that we would have to do it mostly by ourselves on mere "propaganda" ignores a five year chain of Cold War events that led many reasonable Americans to conclude that they were witnessing a global version of Hitler's rise to power and march to WWII, and that WWII had shown that no one else was capable of stopping it.

So it wasn't a national desire to control world events that drove America, as much as a desire not to be caught unawares and unprepared. Ergo, the leadership of the 'Free World' was seen as a necessary burden, not some neo-imperial birthright.
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Mar 2011 at 19:57
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Do not be facetious CV the example I cited with respect to Grover Cleveland is the norm
I find it hard to see how one Democrat president in a string of seven Republican ones can be considered 'the norm'.  
 
But I see you consider Theodore Roosevelt as a 'liberal mind', and I have difficulty seeing that either, except in classic economic parlance.
Quote
and whether you call it isolationism or wariness over "foreign entanglements" such has been the maxim and "adventurism" the exception in the body politic. Any and all other perspectives demands the dismissal of the popular, which is always done by w**kers such as Chomsky who invert reality and interpret conservatives as 'expansionists" and laud liberal progressives as peace-loving stay-at-homes. Hell, it was always the "liberal minds" of their day that brought about crap such as Manifest Destiny and the Great White Fleet
'Manifest Destiny' in its pure form was certainly a Democrat concept but that didn't stop McKinley annexing Hawaii, and Cleveland being against it.
In any case in the case of Cuba pure Manifest Destiny doesn't apply since it was never intended that Cuba become a potential state. As with the Philippines and Guam, etc., any intent was to colonise them, not to annex them.
 
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Mar 2011 at 20:01
Originally posted by pikeshot1600 pikeshot1600 wrote:

Two additional comments:

1)  The early steel hulled warships of the US fleet had full sailing rigs.  Smile  The reason for that was that the ships had such a short radius of operations.  The problem (that the engineers knew full well) was that the ships, being made of steel and having heavy machinery and coal bunkers, were too heavy for the sailing rigs to make any speed.
 
That of course was true of all navies of the period, though some were in advance of others.
 
I agree with what you have mostly been saying (and drgonzaga) about the growth of the navy being 20th century.



Edited by gcle2003 - 10 Mar 2011 at 20:04
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 22 Jan 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 5076
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Mar 2011 at 20:59
lirelou:

Thanks for your comments on the personnel issue in the USN.

I obviously misread something there.  In the 1880s, the majority were northern Europeans.  That was when the personnel challenges were experienced most.  By the turn of the century, 75% of navy recruits were already US citizens, reforms having been made to pay, allowances, etc.


Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.