Abstract
If February was the month of proposal and counterproposal, when policy lines were drawn by the two countries, in March and April the McKinley administration bided its time, making a few interpretations to ease the burden of consent, and the Cuban Convention gradually agreed upon a modus vivendi that would lead to eventual acceptance of the Platt Amendment. The Times of London maintained that the “essential security for American interests will be secured,” and the Platt Amendment eventually accepted.1 The British newspaper understood the United States’ fear of foreign incursion into Cuba and stated that unless Cubans submitted to the Platt Amendment, American troops would remain until there was a guarantee that the United States’ policy would prevail. The next few months would confirm this statement.
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
London Times, March 2, 1901.
New York Times, March 2, 1901.
CDDC 3051, Wood to Méndez Capote, March 2, 1901.
Wood papers, Wood to Root, March 4, 1901; Root papers, Wood to Tamayo, March 2, 1901. March 2 was a Saturday, Wood gave the information to the Commission on Relations in person on March 4 at 5:00 p.m. The same afternoon Wood delivered a letter containing the provisions of the Platt bill as passed by Congress to the President of the Convention. The Platt Amendment was now the object of attention and the United States never considered the Cuban proposals of February although they were sent to Root by Wood officially. Wood papers, Root to Wood, April 15, 1901.
Mención histórica, 538, 423.
Root papers, Wood to Root, cable, March 2, 1901; Wood papers, Root to Wood, March 2, 1901.
Wood papers, Wood to Root, March 4, 1901.
Wood papers, Wood to Root, March 4, 1901; New York World, March 4, 1901; Wood to Root, Feb. 8, 1901, cited in Hagedorn, Wood, I, 347.
CDDC 3051, file of telegrams and letters on the Constitutional Convention.
Martínez Ortiz, Los primeros años, I, 286; Diario de la Marina, March 6, 1901; Wood papers, Wood to Root, March 6, 1901, March 7, 1901, Root to Wood, March 7, 1901, cable; CDDC 3051, Tamayo to Wood, March 9, 1901, transmitting protest against Platt Amendment by Máximo Gómez. Wood explained to Root that Gómez protested only to retain his hold on the radicals and that Gómez assured Wood there would be no trouble in Cuba, Wood papers, Wood to Root, March 13, 1901.
Mención histórica, 538–39.
Ibid., 539–40.
New York Times, March 8, 1901.
Wood papers, Wood to Méndez Capote, March 12, 1901.
Epistolario, I, 149, Estrada Palma to Quesada, March 14, 1901.
Wood papers, Wood to Root, March 20, 1901.
Ibid.
Root papers, Root to Wood, March 20, 1901; Wood papers, Wood to Root, March 20, 1901, both cables.
La Discusión, March 27, 1901; Wood papers, Wood to Root, March 23, 1901.
New York Times, March 25, 1901, March 28, 1901, March 26, 1901; Wood papers, Wood to Root, April 4, 1901; Diario de la Marina, March 25, 1901, Feb. 26, 1901, reporting a majority of the convention disposed to accept the Platt Law; La Discusión, March 27, 1901.
Wood papers, Root to Wood, March 29, 1901; Mención histórica, 549, 457.
New York Times, March 30, 1901; Diario de la Marina, March 29, 1901, March 30, 1901; Mención histórica, 425–26.
La Discusión, March 27, 1901; CDDC 3051, Tamayo to Wood, April 4, 1901, showing Tamayo sent proposals to Wood for his consideration.
Diario de la Marina, March 29, 1901, March 30, 1901; Mención histórica, 422–50, Quilez’ proposal was not even printed and p. 542 shows omissions in the minutes made by the secretaries.
Mención histórica, 427–40. Portell, Historia de Cuba, TV, 214–215, maintains that with Gómez’ report most delegates opposed the Platt Law.
Mención histórica, 451–54, 542–44. The commission idea first appeared in March.
Ibid., 545–46.
Ibid., 547–49.
Wood papers, Wood to Root, cable, April 2, 1901; Root to Wood, April 2, 1901, cable; Wood to Méndez Capote, April 3, 1901; Wood to Root, April 3, 1901; Root to Wood, April 3, 1901; Wood to Root, April 4, 1901; New York Times, April 4, 1901, showing Portuondo, Alemán, J. G. Gómez, Manduley met with Wood and received assurances about clause 3. At the behest of various Cuban leaders, Wood obtained this statement from Root.
Mención histórica, 550–51.
Wood papers, Wood to Root, April 6, 1901; Portell, Historia de Cuba, IV, 228–29 claimed that Wood wantonly abridged the freedom of the press.
New York Times, April 8, 1901.
Ibid.
Mención histórica, 552. Martin Morúa Delgado submitted a moderate plan, but it lacked support; Ibid., 458–64; J. González, Martin Morúa Delgado, Impresiones sobre su ultima novela y su gestion en la Constituyente de Cuba (La Habana, 1902).
Mención histórica, 553–54. 36 Ibid., 555–56.
Ibid., 557.
Ibid., 558. Yeas: Alemán, J. M. Gómez, Robau, Fortún, Cisneros, Silva, Betancourt, Llorente, Quesada, Berriel, Lacret, Portuondo, Fernández de Castro, Ferrer, J. G. Gómez, E. Tamayo, Manduley, Méndez Capote. Nays: Monteagudo, Morúa, Giberga, D. Tamayo, Sanguily, Gener, Núñez, Quílez, Zayas, Villuendas. New York Times, April 13, 1901, April 14, 1901; Diario de la Marina, April 12, 1901; La Discusión, April 13, 1901. Diario of April 13 quoted Patria statement of J. G. Gómez as saying the Platt Amendment was not rejected. Radicals did not want to break relations with the U.S. Patria on April 9 said that the Platt Amendment had been practically rejected because the proposals of Diego Tamayo, Giberga, Quesada and Quilez could not obtain any votes. On April 13, La Discusión said that the assembly declined to maintain further political relations with the American government through the Military Governor whose “failure is now recognized.” Cf. Robinson, Cuba and the Intervention,” 260–63.
Mención histórica, 559.
Ibid., 560–62.
Ibid., 562. Here part of the minutes are deleted. Martínez Ortiz, Los primeros años, I, 291, said the commission was ordered to follow the declaration of Portuondo, that the commission was to inform McKinley that the convention opposed the Platt Amendment. But the integral motion as it appears in Mención histórica omits Portuondo’s motion. Martínez Ortiz agreed that the convention decision was not intended to break negotiations, rather to express a general opinion about the issue in order to obtain some concession from Washington. Opinion in the convention wanted to show non-acceptance, not rejection. Portell Vila, Historia de Cuba, IV, 214–15, said that the commission intended to state opposition to the Platt law and obtain concrete interpretations and reciprocity. The commission did not go, Portell maintained, to accept the Platt law.
Mención histórica, 562–63. This vote was probably closer to real feeling in the convention than the 18–10 vote on the Portuondo amendment. Absent were Fortún, Ríus Rivera, Gener, Bravo. Abstaining were E. Tamayo, Alemán, Robau, Silva, Quesada. All of these men were radicals, except Quesada. In some cases their failure to appear or vote indicated they were not as hostile to the Platt law as they said; they wished to avoid responsibility.
New York Times, April 14, 1901. Martínez Ortiz, who was there, said that the commission was to take the pulse of the government in Washington and measure its intent, to examine how far they could go on the road of intransigence. Los primeros años, I, 288.
Mención histórica, 564, 566–67.
Wood papers, Wood to Root, April 15, 1901, Root to Wood, April 15, 1901. 48 Martínez Ortiz, Los primeros años, I, 291.
Bravo Correoso accused Wood: Como se hizo la constitución de Cuba, 78–80.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1971 Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, Holland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hitchman, J.H. (1971). Negotiating the Platt Amendment, March Through April 15, 1901. In: Leonard Wood and Cuban Independence, 1898–1902. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-0749-3_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-0749-3_8
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-015-0236-8
Online ISBN: 978-94-015-0749-3
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive