Why not the Netherlands instead of Spain?

Sep 2019
185
Slovenia
I must admit that study done by Maj. Carolyn B. Bronson is most interesting. But you have on pages 26/27 she is writting also about Bates agreement which i mentioned before. She says Amerikans were concerned or frustrated as she puts it about about Moro civil structure based on Koran and about muslim piracy in the region. However USA military was ordered that they should keep peace with Moro until insurgency for Philippine independence is broken. Only later they broke Bates agreement and introduced civil law in Moro lands.

Wikipedya says about this treaty:

The Bates Treaty did not last very long. After the United States had completed its goal of suppressing the resistance in northern Luzon, it unilaterally abrogated the Bates Treaty on March 2, 1904, claiming the Sultan had failed to quell Moro resistance and that the treaty was a hindrance to the effective colonial administration of the area. Payments to the Sultan and his datus were also stopped, but were later restored by the US Philippine Commission in November 1904.



Othervise we should not forget that Philippines started their road toward independent state quite early. Already in 1916 with Jones law. This is not normal if they would be really a colony as they were under Spain.


Already president McKinley was talking about benevolent assimilation concerning the Philippines with this trying to underline American governament is different from Spanish colonial rule.


About the name Porto Rico as english version of Puerto Rico:


 

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
6,643
Spain
Nor Philippines, nor Cuba nor Puerto Rico nor Marianas were never Spanish colonies but Seaborne metroplitan territories as Canary or Balearic...Philippines, Marianas, Carolinas, Palaos were a Captaincy General... they were part of New Spain as Texas, California, Guatemala or Mexico.

Capitanía General de las Islas Filipinas (Philippines Islands Captaincy General)



All those islands: Philippines, Palaos, Carolinas, Marianas etc etc belonged to New Spain (as Guatemala or Texas).. and they never were Spanish Colonies but metropolitan territories in Seaborne.
 

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
5,888
Portugal
I must admit that study done by Maj. Carolyn B. Bronson is most interesting. But you have on pages 26/27 she is writting also about Bates agreement which i mentioned before. She says Amerikans were concerned or frustrated as she puts it about about Moro civil structure based on Koran and about muslim piracy in the region. However USA military was ordered that they should keep peace with Moro until insurgency for Philippine independence is broken. Only later they broke Bates agreement and introduced civil law in Moro lands.

Wikipedya says about this treaty:

The Bates Treaty did not last very long. After the United States had completed its goal of suppressing the resistance in northern Luzon, it unilaterally abrogated the Bates Treaty on March 2, 1904, claiming the Sultan had failed to quell Moro resistance and that the treaty was a hindrance to the effective colonial administration of the area. Payments to the Sultan and his datus were also stopped, but were later restored by the US Philippine Commission in November 1904.

[/QUOTE[/URL]]
Since you mentioned the p. 26/27, let me quote you a sentence there: “American officers in the region believed it was necessary to modernize and civilize the Moro people, but felt that Moro leaders hindered any attempt to do so.” p.26

Note the language used “civilize”, typical from the mentality of the colonial period, the concept so well expressed in “the white man’s burden”. The source given [94]: “Brian McAllister Linn, Guardians of Empire: The U.S. Army and the Pacific, 1902 1940 (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1997), 59 – 82.” The book title speaks for itself. Legally the Philippines were not a USA colony, as previously legally weren’t a Spanish one, as Martin also recalled us, as many British, French and Portuguese and other possessions were not legally colonies (after 1951 the Portuguese territories in Africa were no longer colonies but “Overseas provinces”), that doesn’t deny that there a relation of dominium from the USA over the Philippines. The Philippines were not independent. Were dependent, a colony as many other European dependencies of the period. Not a colony in the Ancient meaning (a settler colony, even if there were USA settlers there), but a colony quite typical of this time period.

Othervise we should not forget that Philippines started their road toward independent state quite early. Already in 1916 with Jones law. This is not normal if they would be really a colony as they were under Spain.


Already president McKinley was talking about benevolent assimilation concerning the Philippines with this trying to underline American governament is different from Spanish colonial rule.
The fact that they began the road to independency quite early means that they were dependent. Look to the terminology that we are using: they were dependent. They were not independent. So they were “de facto” a colony. We saw quite different “de jure” definitions. Usually the colonial power chooses “de jure” the option that best fits its interest. It wouldn’t be rational otherwise.

Thanks. Curious! And the link to “quora” show how I, a Portuguese, can find that quite curious. But it was really changed officially to “Porto Rico”? I confess that I didn’t read the all report, just some parts, and the report is an official document, and “Porto Rico” was used there, but, out of curiosity, it was official changed? It was a case on that period and when it turned back to the Castilian version?

By the way, “Porto Rico” is a another case of a Spanish colony turned to a USA colony.
 
Sep 2019
185
Slovenia
Basically you say it is normal that after a few years colony gets independence, or is on road toward it or that people from this colony became citizens of the dependent country. As it was in cases of Philippines and Puerto Rico. That i do not think really can be said is a colony. Rather it is a territory which is in preparation for two options: incorporation or independence. As also legal term unincorporated territory means and meant.


Also some other documents are mentioning Porto Rico but when it gets backs its old name i do not know.

Register of Porto Rico

 

royal744

Ad Honoris
Jul 2013
10,644
San Antonio, Tx
The Dutch had a relatively stable government, other than the instance leading to the formation of Belgium in the 1830's there was little if anything troubling at home. Since the mid to late 18th century the Dutch were not involved in any major wars or 'saber-rattling'. Holland's empire was considerably smaller in comparison to other European powers and after 1815 didn't engage in the carving up of Africa or Asia. For the USA or Germany to swallow up Dutch colonial territory would be a policy that could lead them towards losing friends.
As for Spain, although well past it's peak of power, it was in many way's the opposite of the Dutch example of stability and during the 19th century and early 20th centuries had much internal troubles and changing of regimes right up to the acquisition of power by Franco. It had been very active in the Western hemisphere trying to hold on to it's empire engaging in attempting to quash revolts for independence. For the Americans I could see why they would be more interested in reducing Spain's colonial empire instead of the Dutch. For the Germans I don't see any reason for them to swallow up either, unless by taking advantage in a time of war.
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.
because that is not what happened...
 

Willempie

Ad Honorem
Jul 2015
5,391
Netherlands
I don’t know how was the Dutch navy in 1898? Does anyone has information?
There isn't much, but the navy wasn't really up to par with the big ones. The main force was for coastal defense (meaning impeding invasions and harassing supply lines). The main part (say 60%) was focused on the Dutch Indies. So some cruisers and coastal defense ships (which could also enter shallow waters). So in short without any chance in a fleet battle against US (or Spain for that matter), but annoying enough to make an attack on Batavia not really appetizing.
 

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
5,888
Portugal
There isn't much, but the navy wasn't really up to par with the big ones. The main force was for coastal defense (meaning impeding invasions and harassing supply lines). The main part (say 60%) was focused on the Dutch Indies. So some cruisers and coastal defense ships (which could also enter shallow waters). So in short without any chance in a fleet battle against US (or Spain for that matter), but annoying enough to make an attack on Batavia not really appetizing.
Thanks. I only have some info about the Dutch Navy in WWII.
 

Willempie

Ad Honorem
Jul 2015
5,391
Netherlands
Thanks. I only have some info about the Dutch Navy in WWII.
Well the thing is that the organization of the navy up until after WW2 was a complete mess. For example in the Dutch Indies you had the Colonial and the governmental navy (and their HQ's weren't across the road). On top of that the navy top had no clear doctrine. It always flip-flopped between going dreadnought/battleship or going for torpedo vessels (think Germans in WWI with U-boats and small cruisers). And any time a decision was made in the top either politics or war intervened.
 

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
5,888
Portugal
Well the thing is that the organization of the navy up until after WW2 was a complete mess. For example in the Dutch Indies you had the Colonial and the governmental navy (and their HQ's weren't across the road). On top of that the navy top had no clear doctrine. It always flip-flopped between going dreadnought/battleship or going for torpedo vessels (think Germans in WWI with U-boats and small cruisers). And any time a decision was made in the top either politics or war intervened.
For a moment I thought that you were describing the Portuguese strategy! :)

Just before WWI there was a governmental plan that would make the Portuguese Navy one of the biggest of the world! Plans! Plans! Plans! Aparently the ones that made the plan forgot that it was needed money to carry with it!
 

Willempie

Ad Honorem
Jul 2015
5,391
Netherlands
For a moment I thought that you were describing the Portuguese strategy! :)

Just before WWI there was a governmental plan that would make the Portuguese Navy one of the biggest of the world! Plans! Plans! Plans! Aparently the ones that made the plan forgot that it was needed money to carry with it!
When I was in highschool, I had to do a paper for history. Since my uncle had access to the navy library, I did about the Dutch response to the Japanese threat. The money was a huge problem, but whenever there was a coherent reasonable plan, politics cancelled it. Either because the colonial army was against it or because the peacemongers were in charge.