Why not the Netherlands instead of Spain?

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
5,888
Portugal
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.
The Philippines were de facto an USA colony. We could argue about Liberia or the others previously mentioned, as well as the new colonialism system in the Latin America.
 
Sep 2019
185
Slovenia
@Chlodio i do not think so because the owners were usually not preparing the colonies to gain independence or join their own state-that means they became citizens with full rights. In Philippines you had first lower Philipine assembly than both assemblies were elected by Philipinos than you had Philippine independence act in 1934 and in 1946 country became independent. Under Spain Philippines were colony yes for around 350 years but not under USA.
 

Chlodio

Forum Staff
Aug 2016
4,471
Dispargum
In those territories that eventually became states, it was known right from the start that the end goal was statehood. In Cuba, the Philippines, and Puerto Rico I don't think anyone saw statehood in their futures. Puerto Rican statehood was an idea that had to grow on most Americans for the better part of a century before people could seriously consider it.

During the nearly fifty years of US rule in the Philippines I don't know what else to call them if not a colony. You're right about the US encouraging Filipino independence, but that's because Americans were not comfortable in the role of colonizers. Which brings us back to the OP - Why did Americans not conquer the Dutch colonies? Because Americans did not want to have colonies. In the Spanish case, we Americans could convince ourselves we were liberators, not colonizers, but we couldn't fool ourselves into thinking we were liberating the Dutch colonies. Having liberated Cuba and the Philippines we quickly set about giving them independence. Puerto Rico and some of the smaller possessions have proved more problematic so that here we are in the present day with possessions that have not yet achieved statehood and in most cases probably never will.
 
Sep 2019
185
Slovenia
Ok this is preseny day politics. But they had a referendum in Puerto Rico i believe in 2017 and they voted they would like to become part of USA as another federal state i believe. Why did not Trump accept it? He would like to make America strong again he said.
 

Chlodio

Forum Staff
Aug 2016
4,471
Dispargum
We must avoid modern politics. The issue does go back to before 1991. There are three opinions on the matter. Some Puerto Ricans want statehood. Others want independence. Some want to stay as they are. Currently Puerto Ricans enjoy most of the benefits of American citizenship but do not pay federal income tax. There have been several votes going back to the 1950s. I believe statehood has consistently drawn the most votes, but there is no clear majority support for statehood. I believe there have been votes where statehood won more than 50% but there has always been controversy, for instance large numbers of voters boycotted the election. Also, a territory gaining statehood has never been the sole choice of the territory. The rest of the country must also agree to accept the new state. This is where it gets really political, and I'm not going to go into that. It has issues of red states vs blue states and reallocation of Congress. Puerto Rico would be entitled to five or possibly six representatives which means that some states would lose representatives as Puerto Rico gains them. Public policy and sausage - two things you don't want see being made.
 

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
5,888
Portugal
@Chlodio i do not think so because the owners were usually not preparing the colonies to gain independence or join their own state-that means they became citizens with full rights. In Philippines you had first lower Philipine assembly than both assemblies were elected by Philipinos than you had Philippine independence act in 1934 and in 1946 country became independent. Under Spain Philippines were colony yes for around 350 years but not under USA.
The USA crushed the independence of the Philippines in 1898/9-1902, and fought there for some time to supress several rebellions, including among the Moros. In all the way this was no different from other colonial conflicts at the time.
 

Chlodio

Forum Staff
Aug 2016
4,471
Dispargum
Interesting video. The idea circulating circa 1899 that America was bigger than the contiguous 48 ultimately did not catch on. Within a few years Americans stopped thinking of their overseas possessions as part of America.
 
Sep 2019
185
Slovenia
@Tulius About the war between USA and rebels in Philippinies which were fighting first against Spain and then with USA army. As i was able to check Spaniards in Philippinies were more afraid of them than of USA army and were ready to make an agreement with USA quite soon in the fear of reprisals. About Moro people ( muslims ) they did not want to be part of a christian majority state so they did not join the rebels but made an agreement with USA that Americans will pay their sultan some money, that they can keep sharia law, slaves etc. The agreement was later broken by USA.

But anyway that does not prove Philippines were considered as colony by USA, rather they were considered as unincorporated territory. It was quite clear already after WW1 that the country will get independence. That is something very different like the Spanish rule which lasted for 350 years and ended because of war with USA.

April 11, 1899The Treaty of Paris of 1898 came into effect, transferring Guam, the Philippines, and Puerto Rico from Spain to the United States, all three becoming unorganized, unincorporated territories. Puerto Rico's official name was changed to Porto Rico, a phonetic reinterpretation of the Spanish name for the territory.


 

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
5,888
Portugal
@Tulius About the war between USA and rebels in Philippinies which were fighting first against Spain and then with USA army. As i was able to check Spaniards in Philippinies were more afraid of them than of USA army and were ready to make an agreement with USA quite soon in the fear of reprisals. About Moro people ( muslims ) they did not want to be part of a christian majority state so they did not join the rebels but made an agreement with USA that Americans will pay their sultan some money, that they can keep sharia law, slaves etc. The agreement was later broken by USA.
Several points:

That a regular army has more “afraid” of an irregular is normal since the rules of engagement are different. But if you have a specific source of that “fear” feel free to share it with us.

The Filipinos begun to fight with the USA because they felt betrayed, since they were fighting for independence, not to change master. That fight took several years (+-3).

The Moros fought the new power has they previously had fought against Spain. This fight also took several years, at least until 1913, with lesser problems after that date, even if the military strong posts were maintained in Mindanao at least until 1917, the year of the last engagement. The Sultan of Sulu didn’t participated actively in the conflict, but the treaty that you mentioned was made with him in 1915, since he was a strong reference for the Moros.

According to a recent work from Maj. Carolyn B. Bronson of the US Army, both upraisings failed to maintain the support from the population:

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1021907.pdf

The library of Congress has interesting resources:

here in the USA anti-imperialist leaflet texts about the new colony:

Image 1 of Save the republic. Anti-imperialist leaflet no. 11 [-21] [Washington, 1898-99].

And here some news at the time: The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, February 07, 1899, Page 3, Image 3

By the way, somewhat out of topic, but in the last yers there came out some quite interesting movies about this period, both Spanish and from the Philippines:

Los 1898. Los últimos de Filipinas: 1898. Los últimos de Filipinas (2016) - IMDb

José Rizal: José Rizal (1998) - IMDb

El Presidente: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2477732/

Bonifacio: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4304364/

Heneral Luna: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4944352/

The Boy General: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5094192/

But anyway that does not prove Philippines were considered as colony by USA, rather they were considered as unincorporated territory. It was quite clear already after WW1 that the country will get independence. That is something very different like the Spanish rule which lasted for 350 years and ended because of war with USA.
My point was that the conflicts were like any other colonial war at the time. A colonial power making a pacification campaing.

April 11, 1899The Treaty of Paris of 1898 came into effect, transferring Guam, the Philippines, and Puerto Rico from Spain to the United States, all three becoming unorganized, unincorporated territories.
In the colonial period “colonies” had many designations. The fact that the legal term wasn’t “colony” doesn’t change the concept of colony neither it determines that it was a colony or not. The Spanish also didn’t had colonies, but dependencies, and yet can we deny that they had a colonial empire?

Puerto Rico's official name was changed to Porto Rico, a phonetic reinterpretation of the Spanish name for the territory.
Didn’t knew that. I believe that is the first time that I see it mentioned. Have a reference?