Why not the Netherlands instead of Spain?

Apr 2017
1,636
U.S.A.
We should have aimed to get more populated territories, IMHO. Not too populated, of course (for instance, I think that taking the Philippines was a mistake on our part), but not territories that have no or virtually no population either. (Of course, we could take the latter as well, but more territorial acquisitions such as the US Virgin Islands would have been really nice to have.)
The Dominican Republic and Cuba were almost annexed at one point. We also attempted to acquire Greenland, Iceland, Trinidad and Jamaica.
 

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
6,643
Spain
I am not sure I see the connection. Most blacks and many southern whites became share croppers, giving a share of their crop the land owner, as was often done in Europe. It wasn't that much more expensive than slavery.

The Civil War did devastate the southern economy. Many slave owners were badly effected economically by the war, not just by the loss of human property.

The situation where Cuba was given independence was very advantageous for US sugar and tobacco interests.They could control the Cuban government directly and by pressure from the US government. This would not have been possible if Cuba was really independent or under Spanish or direct US rule. The mafia moved down there and created a pre Las Vegas, because the environment was so good for them for the same reasons.

Cuba kept going out of the frying pan into the fire, becoming quasi independent and then with Communist rule.

As for why Spain, part of it was Cuba's closeness to the US and sugar interests. It was also the weakness and obsolescence of the Spanish navy. The Netherlands and Portugal were not as easy targets.

I agree with you Betgo... 1898 War is not matched or linked with 1861-1865 war....We likely are never going to know what happened really those years and the cause of the war.... Spanish Nave was weak...but stronger than Portuguese or Dutch navies...Spain had electrical engine submarine from 1888 (in fact, it was the oldest navy in the world to have electric propulsion submarines.. and the first navy in the world to have Destroyer (a Spanish invention designed by Villaamil... Oldest destroyer in the world are Furor, Terror and Destructor (Destructor (as Dreadnought in English).. is a Sp Word adopted in each naval language.. so US Navy have Destroyer... from the Spanish ship DESTRUCTOR.

I agree with you...It was a full of contrasts Navy ... with the latest innovations ... and obsolete ships ... the Spanish fleet was not designated for the "decisive battle" and never to opposite US Navy in a battle.... Sp Navy was built according to the "Jeune École" doctrine...to give up the naval rule to the adversary and attack its naval trade by very fast ships.


Sincerely nor Portugal nor Netherland had better navies and not more new type of ships...what famous Dutch naval designer you know from period 1870 - 1900?




The famous DESTRUCTOR that originated a new type of ships still in service in World Navies.... in 1887




Furor in 1895



So...yes..... not ships for a battle but yes ships to apply the doctrine around which the Fleet had been built.

Regards.

One year I will open a thread about the Maine and what could have happened.
 

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
5,888
Portugal
Spanish Nave was weak...but stronger than Portuguese or Dutch navies...



Sincerely nor Portugal nor Netherland had better navies and not more new type of ships...what famous Dutch naval designer you know from period 1870 - 1900?
I don’t know how was the Dutch navy in 1898? Does anyone has information?

The Portuguese navy at that date was… humble… to say the least. Portuguese navy suffered much with the transition from sail ships to the steamers that used coal, and even more to the ones that used fuel oil.

A thread about the Maine would be a good idea!
 
  • Like
Reactions: martin76

Lord Fairfax

Ad Honorem
Jan 2015
3,401
Changing trains at Terrapin Station...
.

There's nothing in the Constitution providing for the US to have colonies.
Nothing to prevent it either...

Throughout the 19th century the US was busy colonizing - the western half of the current USA.
Between 1889 and 1912 the United States added 10 more states to the union.
They were already too busy incorporating new lands in North America, to really worry about Dutch territories.
 

VHS

Ad Honorem
Dec 2015
4,609
Florania
Nothing to prevent it either...

Throughout the 19th century the US was busy colonizing - the western half of the current USA.
Between 1889 and 1912 the United States added 10 more states to the union.
They were already too busy incorporating new lands in North America, to really worry about Dutch territories.
Did It take a little time for the USA to organize its territories in today's states' borders, even after the national borders are settled?
 

Chlodio

Forum Staff
Aug 2016
4,471
Dispargum
Did It take a little time for the USA to organize its territories in today's states' borders, even after the national borders are settled?
The territory of the contiguous 48 states was all acquired by 1848, but the last of the 48 states did not join until 1912. Alaska was purchased from Russia in 1867 but didn't gain statehood for about 90 years. Hawaii was acquired in 1898 but didn't gain statehood for almost 60 years. Puerto Rico was acquired in 1898 and is still a territory.

The process of advancing from unorganized territory, to territorial status, and finally statehood was mostly driven by population, but other factors could also prevail. I think at 5,000 people they could apply for territorial status. At 50,000 they could apply for statehood. Because of the gold rush, California skipped territorial status and went straight to statehood in 1850. Utah had enough people for statehood in the 1850s, but Congress refused to grant statehood until after the Mormons renounced polygamy. Nevada probably got in with less than 50,000 because Lincoln was in a tight race for re-election and wanted an extra state he thought he could win. It proved unnecessary as Lincoln won reelection easily. The Republicans rushed in six states in 1889 and 1890 so that they could win the election of 1892. It didn't work in 1892 nor over the long run as the west could go for either party until fairly recently. Sometimes a territory would be denied statehood because the party in control of Congress did not want to give another state to the opposition. Kansas had to wait four or five years and then only got in because of the Civil War and the South no longer having a political presence in Washington.
 

Chlodio

Forum Staff
Aug 2016
4,471
Dispargum
So basically USA never had colonies.
The Philippines were a US colony. There are arguments about Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands, and maybe a few other places. It depends on what we mean by colony and why colonial status matters. I first brought up colonies to highlight the legal and political difficulties that colonies present to the US. Lord Fairfax denied those difficulties existed because he denied the US ever had colonies. I still maintain that our legal and political difficulties with the Philippines and Puerto Rico were one reason why forward thinking Americans in 1898 may have had qualms about conquering Spanish or Dutch colonies. The American tradition had always been that territories would eventually become states, yet with hindsight we can see that some of our acquisitions from the time circa 1898 did not become states, at least not yet, and two eventually gained their independence. (I hadn't previously mentioned Cuba.) It was already known in 1898 that the former Spanish colonies were going to prove difficult to fit into the American system.
 
Last edited:
Sep 2019
184
Slovenia
Well i think none of this territories were colonies. They were rather in the phase of preparation to become either part of USA or independent states.
 

Chlodio

Forum Staff
Aug 2016
4,471
Dispargum
Well i think none of this territories were colonies. They were rather in the phase of preparation to become either part of USA or independent states.
Doesn't that describe most colonies though? Eventually they either joined the mother country or gained independence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tulius