Abstract
During the first six months of 1900, the United States combined initial attempts at self-government in Cuba with steps to ensure its own strategic interests. The story of the Military Government of Cuba from 1900 to 1902 was largely one of the reconciliation of these two principles. On the one hand, Americans, believing in representative government, considered themselves committed to leave Cuba to the Cubans because of the Joint Resolution of 1898. Many Americans felt uneasy at ordering the lives of other people. On the other hand, most Americans would not ignore the inability of Cubans and Filipinos to manage their own affairs. Furthermore, other interests were involved. In an age when navies depended on coaling stations and plans for an isthmian canal titillated imaginations, Cuba and the Philippines assumed a strategic interest. Cuba, only ninety miles from Florida, could never be allowed to constitute a threat, or harbor the threat of another power, to the security of the United States.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
U.S. Congress, House, Report of the Secretary of War, 56th Cong., 1st Sess., 1899, doc. 2, I, 25–34; Jessup, Root, I, 287, 300.
Jessup, Rooty I, 332. Root made this statement in a campaign speech at Canton, Ohio, on Oct. 24, 1900.
Ibid., 345.
Ibid., 304–305, in a letter from Root to Paul Dana, his friend and editor of the New York Sun, dated Jan. 16, 1900.
DIA 1327–1, C.O. 73 of Feb 16, 1900. The Cubans composed a representative group: Diego Tamayo, Luis Estévez, J. B. Hernández y Barreiro, E. J. Varona, Manuel Sanguily, Ríus Rivera, Fidel Pierra, J. M. Gálvez, A. Govín, Rafael Montoro, J. G. Montes, Eusebio Hernández, Martín Morúa Delgado. Three were radical revolutionaries, most were revolutionary war veterans, except Pierra and Montoro.
Wood, Civil Report, 1900, I, 45–49, 55–63; Wood papers, Wood to Root, April 12, 1900.
Wood, Civil Report, 1900, I, 49–52.
Wood papers, Wood to Root, June 3, 1900.
Wood papers, Wood to Root, Feb. 23, 1900; Jan. 19, 1901, where Wood argued that universal suffrage should be withheld for at least ten years to allow the school system to prepare responsible citizens; CDDC files 1305, 729.
New York Times, Feb. 28, 1900, approved the experiment of limited suffrage.
Wood papers, Wood to Root, Feb. 16, 1900.
Wood, Civil Report, I, 1901, 21. Of course Wood sought to generate good will, ally Cuban support and impress Congress, but his remarks were sincere.
Ibid.
DIA 1327–33, Root to Wood, cable of April 14, 1900; DIA 1327–4, Wood to Root, April 19, 1900, advising of publication of election law; DIA 1327–8 of May 18, 1900, 1327–12 of June 16, 1900.
Wood papers, Root to Wood, Feb. 28, 1900; New York Times, Feb. 28, 1900; Census of Cuba, 1899, 100–112, 218, 194–95, 96–97; CDDC 869, Enrique Parrdí to Root, Feb. 6, 1900, protesting the soldier vote because the army unlawfully collected rents during the war. He urged annexation to the United States. It affords a sample of the variety of views requiring the attention of the Military Government.
Wood, Civil Report, 1900, I, 43–44; Wood papers, Wood to Root, Dec. 30, 1899, Feb. 8, 1900, Feb. 23, 1900; Root to Wood, Feb. 28, 1900. In December Wood reported that the Cubans were beginning to accept the idea of property qualifications and literacy in order to vote.
Wood, Civil Report, 1900, III, Tamayo Report, table 8. Cf. Mario Riera, Cuba política, 1899–1955 (La Habana, 1955), 12–16, lists 110,816 voting out of 160,648, indicating a printing error.
There were no insular or national parties, however factions could be considered to align themselves on certain candidates and issues. The best accounts of Cuban politics at the turn of the century are to be found in Martínez Ortiz, Los primeros años, I, 128–80; Portell Vilá, Historia de Cuba, IV, 137–47; Riera, Cuba política, 1–66; Wood, Civil Report, I, 1900, 63ff.
Wood papers, Wood to Root, May 23, 1900.
Portell Vilá, Historia de Cuba, IV, 137–40. An opposing case could be made, however, on the tactics of other Americans in Cuba who resisted Wood. General Wilson, for example, employed a friend of his, J. H. Drake, from Morgan Park, Chicago, to tour Matanzas and Santa Clara, advising alcaldes and former army officers to oppose the proposed suffrage plan. Drake was also to secure information for congressmen. Wood papers, Wood to Root, Feb. 8, 1900.
Martínez Ortiz, Los primeros años, I, 137–41; New York Times, May 27, 1900; H. L. Scott, Memories of a Soldier (New York, 1918), 248; Wood papers, Wood to Secretary of State and Government, March 26, 1900.
CDDC 1305, May 11, 1900, Report of 1st Lt. C. H. Conrad, Jr.; CDDC 1305, June 29, 1900, Wilson to Scott, enclosing twelve reports of post commanders on elections, and on June 23, copies of Wilson’s orders to Rurales and troops; CDDC 1305, June 25, 1900, Scott to Wilson; July 2, J. M. Gómez to Scott.
CDDC 1305, June 23, 1900, Tamayo to Scott; July 14, 1900, Tamayo to Wood.
Wood, Civil Report, 1900, I, 62–64; CDDC 1295, April 22, 1902.
Wood, Civil Report, 1900, I, 12–13.
Ibid., 1902, III, 5–6.
Ibid., 1900, I, 13–14; II, C.O. 355 of Sept. 12, 1900 (budgets); C.O. 123 of March 24, 1900 (tax collection); C.O. 356 of Sept. 13, 1900 (registry of vehicles and loads allowable); C.O. 252 of June 27, 1900 (treasurers of municipalities).
Ibid., II, 1900, C.O. 254 of June 28; Wood papers, Wood to Root, April 4, 1901.
New York Times, April 2, 1900, April 3, 1900, March 15, 1900; Wood papers, subject file 248, 249; Washington Post, Jan. 9, 1900; Detroit Journal, Jan. 24, 1900; Detroit News, Jan. 19, 1900; Erie Times, June 13, 1900; Concord Monitor (N.H.), Feb. 8, 1900; Wilkes Barre Record, Jan. 11, 1900.
Root papers, Wood to Root, June 3, 1900. Nothing was found in any of the sources to indicate an earlier call. Jessup, Root, I, 306, agrees on this point about Wood’s instigation. Healy, United States in Cuba, 145, believes the idea was a scheme to allow the Cubans to feel a sense of self-government while the United States retained control of the island. The New York Times of Feb. 27, 1900 printed an article suggesting that officials in Washington had no idea of a definite timetable or how long the occupation would last. The point is that the Military Government and the War Department wished that Cubans could govern themselves so they could leave the island.
Hagedorn, Wood, I, 302–02, and Healy, The United States in Cuba, 145–46, stress Wood’s desire to serve in China. However, Wood’s optimism and progress in Cuba were equally important factors.
Wood papers, Wood to Roosevelt, June 7, 1900; Wood to Lodge, Aug. 8, 1900; Wood to Nelson W. Aldrich, June 21, 1900; Wood to Edward O. Walcott, June 21; Wood to Henry M. Teller, June 21, 1900; Wood to McKinley, June 22, 1900.
Wood papers, Root to Wood, June 20, 1900; Wood to Root, July 6, 1900.
Ibid. Wood cabled Root a formal request for China duty on July 7.
Wood, Civil Report, 1900, I, 64.
New York Times, July 18, 1900.
C. G. Dawes, Journal of the McKinley Years, 238. Charles Gates Dawes, youthful Comptroller of the Currency who had delivered Illinois to McKinley, later formulated the Dawes plan to aid German reparations payments in 1924, and served as Vice-President of the United States from 1925 to 1929.
New York Times, July 21, 1900.
Ibid.
Havana Post, July 21, 1900.
Nation, “Control of Cuba’s Foreign Relations,” LXXI (Aug. 2, 1900), 85–86; Wood papers, subject file 254, with clippings from the Chicago Times Herald opposing any failure to fulfill the terms of the Teller clause, and the Minneapolis Tribune of July 23, 1900, with a description of the foreign policy, debt, treaty and naval base requirements that were discussed in Washington and later appeared in the Platt Amendment.
Wood papers, Abbott to Wood, March 17, 1900.
Jenks, Our Cuban Colony, 321n; New York Times, Sept. 20, 1900.
Walter Wellman, “The Cuban Republic — Limited,” Review of Reviews, XXII (Dec. 1900), 708–12.
Leech, Days of McKinley, 569.
E. Stanwood, History of the Presidency (New York, 1928), II, 51–58
73
77
Pedro V. Vergara, “The Attitude of the United States Toward the Question of Cuban Independence, 1895–1902,” unpublished M. A. thesis, Univ. of California, 1934, 93; Portell Vilá, Historia de Cuba, IV, 143, points out that no date was set for leaving the island; Robinson, Cuba and the Intervention, 207, contends that the decision to hold the convention was due to political considerations and not to recognition of Cuba’s immediate readiness to assume control.
Martinez Ortiz, Los primeros años, I, 171.
Leech, Days of McKinley, 393–94.
Jessup, Root, I, 315, 374. The documents printed in Die Grosse Politik, and those microfilmed after the Second World War, together with the thorough research of Alfred Vagts in Deutschland und die Vereignigten Staaten in der Weltpolitik (New York, 1935), reveal that Germany would take no action in the western hemisphere to incur the enmity of the United States between 1898 and 1902 without European support. Vagts saw the United States interest in Cuba as primarily economic and secondarily as missionary (pp. 1283, 1320). On p. 1311, Vagts claims that another reason for leaving Cuba was to avoid the appearance of threatening Colombia and Nicaragua with whom the United States wished to negotiate for an isthmian canal. The microfilm of the German Foreign Ministry Archives, Series I, Reel 119, vol. I, Part 10, frames 409–491, B1112/1 “Die Monroe Doktrin” and Part 4, frames 305–421, vols. 2, 3 G 1380/1 and 2 “Die Allgemeine politik der U.S.,” Reels 108, 109, deal with reports incoming to the Auswärtige Amt from the United States. Series III, Reels 4 and 5 are incoming reports from the ministers in Central America. No German plans for the area were noticed in these documents. No outgoing instructions were found in these reels. See L. B. Shippee, “Germany and the Spanish American War,” American Historical Review, XXX (July, 1925), 754–777
L. M. Sears, “French Opinion of the Spanish-American War,” Hispanic American Historical Review, VII (Feb. 1927), 25–44.
A. Vagts, “Hopes and Fears of an American-German War, 1870–1915.” Political Science Quarterly, LIV (Dec. 1939), 514–535
LV (March, 1940), 53–76
D. Perkins, A History of the Monroe Doctrine (New York, 1955), 208–09
B. Schwertfeger, Die Diplomatischen Akten des Auswärtigen Amtes 1871–1914 (Ein Wegweiser), III (Berlin, 1924), 90, corresponding to Kapitels 4201, 4202, 4203, 4204 of Die Grosse Politik. See also the marginal notes and letters of the Kaiser and Bülow of April 7, 1898 and April 15, 1898, where they wish to avoid arousing distrust among the other powers and the United States. See also E. T. S. Dugdale, ed., German Diplomatic Documents, 1871–1914, II, 507–11; III, 151.
Wood papers, Root to Hay, Feb. 25, 1901.
J. A. Logan, Jr., No Transfer: An American Security Principle (New Haven, 1961), 265–66.
Wood papers, Root to Wood, May 14, 1900.
Wood papers, Root to Wood, June 20, 1900.
Wood papers, Hay to Wood, Jan. 15, 1901, Admiral Hackett to Root, Feb. 21, 1901; Root papers, Root to Wood, Feb. 25, 1901; Gen. N. D. Miles to Root, Nov. 15, 1900; Fitzgibbon, Cuba and the United States, 105–07. In the eventual treaty, the United States was given the right to use and occupy adjacent waters, to improve and deepen the entrances and anchorages, but not to use the premises for any other purpose than as coaling and naval stations. Cuban trading vessels were given free passage in such waters. The United States recognized the “continuance of the ultimate sovereignty of the Republic of Cuba” over the area and Cuba agreed to the “complete jurisdiction and control” of the area by the United States. No base was ever established at Bahia Honda and the land was relinquished by the United States in exchange for larger acreage at Guantánamo.
U.S., Congress, House, “Annual Message of the President,” doc. 1, xli, 56th Cong., 2d Sess., Dec. 3, 1900.
DIA 1947–2, C.O. 301 of July 25, 1900. C.O. 316 of Aug. 11, 1900 established the rules for the election, which paralleled those of the first electoral law (italics mine).
Martínez Ortiz, Los primeros años. I, 161–68; Portell Vilá, Historia de Cuba, IV, 166–67, contends that order 301 was intended to continue the United States policy of dividing Cuban society and thereby ruling it. Actually, unity would have delighted the War Department and Wood.
Martínez Ortiz, Los primeros años, I, 168.
New York Times, July 30, 1900; Robinson, Cuba and the Intervention, 209.
See Hagedorn, Wood, I, 323–28; Fitzgibbon, Cuba and the United States, 37–44.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1971 Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, Holland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hitchman, J.H. (1971). Self-Government and Strategic Security, January Through July, 1900. In: Leonard Wood and Cuban Independence, 1898–1902. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-0749-3_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-0749-3_5
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-015-0236-8
Online ISBN: 978-94-015-0749-3
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive