In the mid-nineteenth century, explorers headed out to sea, hoping to claim new islands for the United States.  One seemed promising: “These islands are small, high and rocky, barren and uninviting to the last degree, yet out of them has come wealth to stagger the dreams of oriental imagination.” ((“The Great Guano Deposits of Peru,” Bulletin of the International Union of the American Republics, Washington:  Government Printing Office, 1909, 884))  These islands held an extremely valuable resource.  With high levels of both phosphorus and nitrogen, it was excellent for crops.  In his 1850 State of the Union, President Millard Fillmore said this resource had “become so desirable an article to the agricultural interest of the United States that it is the duty of the Government to employ all the means properly in its power for the purpose of causing that article to be imported into the country at a reasonable price.” ((“Millard Fillmore: 1850 State of the Union Address,” Presidential Rhetoric http://www.presidentialrhetoric.com/historicspeeches/fillmore/stateoftheunion1850.html))  This article would enable American farmers to produce on a larger scale, at a time when farming was undergoing vast changes as a result of the Industrial Revolution.  This prized new resource was guano.

That’s right.  American explorers were looking for islands filled with bird poop.  They were not the first to think of using guano as a fertilizer.  Guano had been harvested and used for centuries.  In fact, the word “guano” comes from the Quichua language of the Inca Empire.  It is most commonly found in islands in the Caribbean.  The conditions in the islands near present-day Peru were perfect for forming large deposits of guano.  A large sea bird population meant there was plenty of excrement settling on the ground.  What really made the islands perfect, however, was the extreme dry heat.  This enabled the guano to dry out and solidify—making it perfect for harvesting.  For the Incans, guano was a highly prized fertilizer.  Disturbing sea birds (and thereby disrupting the process of making guano) was punishable by death.

“The Great Guano Deposits of Peru,” Bulletin of the International Union of the American Republics, (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1909), 884.

When the Spanish first arrived in the Inca Empire in the 1500’s, they were aware that people used guano as fertilizer for their crops.  As the Perrysburg Journal noted in 1855, “the Spaniards obtained this knowledge from them [the Inca], but were too indolent to apply it in practical life.” ((“The Guano Isles, “ Perrysburg Journal, December 29 1855))  Europeans and North Americans remained unfamiliar with the benefits of guano until the nineteenth century. From 1799 to 1804, Prussian explorer Alexander von Humboldt traveled around Latin America.  In 1802, while in Peru, he investigated the fertilizing properties of guano.  After hearing how effective it was, guano soon became highly prized on the world market.  In 1840, the first Peruvian guano was shipped to Europe, arriving in London.  Over the next two years, 182 tons were shipped to England.  Just twenty years later, in 1862, that amount had risen to 435,000 tons. ((“The Great Guano Deposits of Peru,” Bulletin of the International Union of the American Republics, Washington:  Government Printing Office, 1909, 888.))

GUANO ISLANDS ACT

 By the 1850’s, news of this revolutionary fertilizer being imported by the British had reached the United States.  Americans wanted a piece of the lucrative industry.  One writer said, “The commercial enterprise of our country is seeking out and bringing the treasures of the waters to our farms and orchards, in the form of guano…Treasures, indeed—rich in the one needful thing, without which our labor would be in vain, our fertile soils a barren waste.” ((Prospectus of the American Guano Company, New York:  John F. Trow Printer, 1855, 8))

The American Guano Company formed in New York City in September of 1855. The company already had an island in mind that they wished to mine.  They reported that “excepting this one, no Guano Island hitherto discovered possesses the natural advantages of a good harbor, safe anchorage, and convenience to load a large number of ships at once.” ((ibid, 4))  “From the past and present demand for Peruvian guano, now selling at fifty-five dollars per ton,” the company estimated that their profits would be $2,400,000 per annum. ((ibid, 5))

American companies had seen the success associated with the guano industry and were eager to get involved.  Congress facilitated this in an interesting way by enacting the “Guano Islands Act” on August 18, 1856. This new law allowed U.S. citizens to claim islands containing guano deposits for the United States:

That when any citizen or citizens of the United States may have discovered, or shall hereafter discover, a deposit of guano on any island, rock, or key not within the lawful jurisdiction of any other government, and not occupied by the citizens of any other government, and shall take peaceable possession thereof, and occupy the same, said island, rock, or key may, at the discretion of the President of the United States, be considered as appertaining to the United States.

The law further specified that when guano on any given island ran out, the United States would have no obligation to retain the territory:

“And be it further enacted, that nothing in this act contained shall be construed obligatory on the United States to retain possession of the islands, rocks, or keys, as aforesaid, after the guano shall have been removed from the same.”

The Guano Islands Act marked the beginning of insular, unincorporated territories of the United States.  According to the U.S. Office of Insular Affairs, an insular territory is “a jurisdiction that is neither a part of one of the several States nor a Federal district.” ((“Definitions of Insular Area Political Organizations,” Office of Insular Affairs http://www.doi.gov/archive/oia/Islandpages/political_types.htm))  Thus far, territory acquired by the United States as part of westward expansion was intended for eventual statehood.  The guano islands were not meant to be populated by Americans or entered into the union of the United States.  The explicit purpose of holding the islands was to mine guano, an increasingly valuable resource for the United States.

Baker Island was the first island to become a part of the United States under the Guano Islands Act. Although it was first discovered by whalers in 1818, the U.S. took possession of it in 1857.

• Guano and the Industrial Revolution:  Andrew Leonard, “When Guano Imperialists Ruled the Earth,” Salon, (Feb 29, 2008).
• Read testimonials from farmers about Imperial Guano in 1888
• Read about Guano Islands in Godfrey Thomas Vigne, Travels in Mexico, South America, etc. (London: WM H. Allen & Co, 1863).
•  “The Great Guano Deposits of Peru” in Bulletin of the International Union of the American Republics, (Washington:  Government Printing Office, 1909), 884-891.
• Read the prospectus of the American Guano Company.

NAVASSA ISLAND & ISSUES WITH ANNEXATION

The acquisition of territory through the Guano Islands Act seemed relatively straightforward.  However, this was the first time the United States attempted to annex overseas territories.

• Read the entire Guano Islands Act here.  An Act to Authorize Protection to be Given to Citizens of the United States Who May Discover Deposits of Guano.
• Read an interview with Columbia University legal historian Cristina Duffy Burnett about the Guano Islands Act.

Although the Guano Islands Act specifically indicated that American explorers could only claim “any island, rock, or key not within the lawful jurisdiction of any other government, and not occupied by the citizens of any other government,” this did not prevent territorial disputes.  In 1857 Peter Duncan and Edward Cooper of Maryland discovered that Navassa Island off the coast of Haiti held 1,000,000 tons of guano.  The Haitian government felt that Navassa Island was definitely “within the lawful jurisdiction” of the Haitian government.

Regardless of Haiti’s claim, Duncan and Cooper claimed it for the United States under the Guano Islands Act. ((“And It’s Only a Wind-Swept and Wave-Battered Rock Rising Out of the Caribbean Sea—Almost At War Over Guano Phosphate Deposits,” Ogden Standard, April 16, 1918))  President James Buchanan approved the annexation.

In 1918 the Ogden Standard said that Navassa Island had “long since proved to be the most troublesome, to the square mile, of any property this nation even came into possession of.” ((ibid))  The Americans, led by Edward Cooper and the newly formed Navassa Phosphate Company, immediately began mining guano once Navassa became a U.S. possession.  The company brought in droves of slave labor, such that “the crack of the slavedriver’s whip was soon heard where only the scream of the seagull had broken the silence for centuries.” ((“Freedom for a Slave,” Kansas City Journal, Feb 12, 1899))

Haiti had not, however, given up its right to the island.  In November or 1858, Mr. B.C. Clark, the commercial agent of Haiti in Boston, wrote that since the Haitian government “never ceded, sold, or leased either of these dependencies [including Navassa] to any nation, company, or individual,” the island remained a Haitian possession.  The U.S. Assistant Secretary of State replied that the annexation of Navassa by the United States was lawful since “the island was derelict and abandoned, with guano of good quality.” ((Jones v. United States, 1890))

The Haitian government “sent two vessels of war and soldiers to the island and interrupted and prohibited Cooper and his men digging or taking away any of the rock.” ((“And It’s Only a Wind-Swept and Wave-Battered Rock..”))   The U.S. Secretary of State, Lewis Cass, issued a letter to the Secretary of the Navy, Isaac Toucey, which read:

“The president being of the opinion that any claim of the Haitian Government to prevent citizens of the United States from removing guano from the Island of Navassa is unfounded…directs that you will cause a competent force to repair to that island, and will order the officer in command thereof to protect citizens of the United States in removing guano therefrom against any interference from authorities of the Government of Haiti, or of any other government.” ((ibid))

The Secretary of the Navy relayed the President’s message to the Haitian minister of foreign relations.  This stern message, along with the arrival of “one of Uncle Sam’s most vicious looking war vessels,” quieted the conflict enough for Americans to continue mining.

The question of jurisdiction was never entirely resolved.  But, the matter did not hold much importance for the U.S. government so long as the Navassa Phosphate Company could continue mining.

The issue of jurisdiction became paramount when Henry Jones murdered Thomas N. Foster in 1889.  In 1889, there were 137 black laborers and 11 white officers on Navassa.  On September 14, “a riot took place there, in which a large number of laborers were engaged against the officers, and the defendant killed Thomas N. Foster, one of the officers, under circumstances which the jury found amounted to murder.” ((Jones v. United States, 1890))

The defendant, Jones, was brought to Maryland for his murder trial.  The jury there found him guilty and he was sentenced to death.  He appealed his case to the United States Supreme Court, claiming that the District Court of Maryland had no authority to try him for crimes committed in Navassa Island.  Originally, acquiring overseas territory through the Guano Islands Act was a commercial endeavor.  Now, the United States was faced with establishing rule of law in far-flung territories.  In order to try Jones for murder in the American judicial system, the United States had to prove that “Navassa Island was recognized and considered by the United States as appertaining to the United States, and in the possession of the United States under the provisions of the laws of the United States.” ((ibid))

In 1890, the United States Supreme Court found that “the Island of Navassa must be considered as appertaining to the United States; that the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Maryland had jurisdiction to try this indictment, and that there is no error in the proceedings.” ((ibid))

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE GUANO ISLANDS

American companies mined huge guano deposits on a number of islands in the Caribbean and Pacific.  But, the more companies mined, the less sea birds visited the islands to renew the resource.  In the long run, guano was not beneficial as a fertilizer.

The Anderson Intelligencer, Feb 22, 1914.

The Ogden Standard wrote:

“There was a time when guano was in unusual demand in the United States.  Farmers had found their soil was enriched by its use.  But because the science of using commercial fertilizer was then crude, guano finally fell into smaller use.  After three of four years treatment with guano, land failed to yield to its influence and the farmers found that in the long run the ground would have been better off if it had not been used.” ((“And It’s Only a Wind-Swept and Wave-Battered Rock…”))

Guano Mining, Navassa Island. Consblog.org. http://consblog.org/index.php/2009/01/22/conservationcolonialism/

Eventually, the guano industry fell by the wayside, but the islands remain significant in American history.  The Guano Islands set a precedent for insular and unincorporated territory.  According to the U.S. Office of Insular Affairs, an unincorporated territory is “a United States insular area in which the United States Congress has determined that only selected parts of the United States Constitution apply.” ((“Definitions of Insular Political Organizations” )) The Guano Islands were the first overseas territories acquired by the United States.  The issues the government faced with incorporating the Guano Islands were were revisited in 1898, when the United States acquired its first peopled territories—not for commercial reasons, but for colonization.  Although Navassa was “only a wind-swept and wave-battered rock rising out of the Caribbean Sea,” it and other Guano Islands were the beginning of U.S. overseas territorial expansion.

For more information:

• Read more about slavery in Navassa from the Library of Congress:  “Freedom for a Slave,” Kansas City Journal (1899) and “The Navassa Riot,” Red Cloud Chief (1889)
• Use google books to access Eugene Guassoin’s The Island of Navassa (1866)
• Read the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Jones v. United States (1890)
• Visit the U.S. History Scene reading list for the Atlantic World

Some people’s lives make for good stories. In the 1870’s, the notorious “Boss” Tweed stood trial for corruption in New York City. In 1898, Teddy Roosevelt led the Rough Riders in the Battle of San Juan Hill—a decisive battle of the Spanish-American War. Admiral Dewey famously landed in Manila Bay, bringing total victory to the United States against the Spanish fleet there. After WWI, Woodrow Wilson boldly proclaimed his Fourteen Points that would ensure peace and tranquility among nations. Although he was a part of each major historical event, a name rarely heard in all of these landmarks is Elihu Root.

Elihu Root’s Career

• United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York (1883-1885)
• Secretary of War (1899-1904)
• Secretary of State (1905-1909)
• U.S. Senator (1909-1915)
• Nobel Prize Winner (1912)
• Elder Statesman (1915-1937)

No doubt about it—Elihu Root’s résumé is impressive. Yet, despite this, he is not featured as a leading man in American history. In 1914 James B. Morrow, writing of Root’s life and accomplishments in the Washington Herald, echoed this sentiment when he wrote, “No anecdotes are told of Elihu Root.” Root is reported to have once said to a group of friends, “Let us take no action unless we are in earnest and are prepared to follow it to the end.” Morrow concluded: “Following it to the end, first being in earnest, may explain the influence and eminence of this tranquil man in Europe and America.” ((James B. Morrow, “Life of Elihu Root, Statesman and Peace-Worker,” Washington Herald, Jan 11, 1914)) An earnest man who dutifully served without flourish or fame does not make for a grand tale. But, as the New York Times put it in 1899, “Any person meeting Elihu Root for the first time and on an occasion of no especial significance, would be likely to underestimate the aggressive vigor of the man’s character.” ((“Elihu Root,” New York Times, July 30, 1899))

New York Lawyer (1867-1899)

Root, a native of Clinton, NY, graduated from the New York University School of Law in 1867. The bread and butter of Root’s early private practice was corporate law. In this line of work, he “often represented railroads, banks, and some of the so-called ‘robber barons’ of American industrial expansion in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century.” ((James G. Apple, “Elihu Root,” International Judicial Monitor, May 2006)) His clients included “railroad tycoons” such as Jay Gould and E.H. Harriman, future president Chester A. Arthur, and most famously, William “Boss” Tweed.

“Boss” Tweed was known for controlling Tammany Hall, “the democratic political machine that dominated New York politics.” ((“Tammany Hall,” The Eleanor Roosevelt Papers Project, http://www.gwu.edu/~erpapers/teachinger/glossary/tammany-hall.cfm)) Tammany Hall, especially under Tweed’s leadership, was known for its corruption—one historian estimates that between 75 and 200 million dollars were “swindled from the City” from 1865 to 1871. ((David Wiles, “‘Boss Tweed’ and the Tammany Hall Machine,” http://www.albany.edu/~dkw42/tweed.html)) In 1873, Tweed stood trial for corruption charges. Elihu Root served as junior defense counsel—a role that would haunt his political career in later years.

Even with Boss Tweed’s controversial trial, Root was still regarded as a well-respected, trustworthy lawyer in New York. He ran in the highest circles; when President Garfield died in 1881, Root, one of Chester A. Arthur’s closest friends, was present as he was sworn in to the highest office of the United States. ((“The Nation’s Loss,” Forest Republican, September 28, 1881)) Almost immediately after Arthur took office, rumors began to swirl about a possible appointment for Root. Arthur initially squashed these rumors, but did give his friend an influential position a couple of years later. In 1883, Elihu Root was appointed United States Attorney for the southern district of New York—“the most prestigious federal prosecutor’s job outside Washington,” according to the New York Times. ((Benjamin Weiser, “A Steppingstone for Law’s Best and Brightest,” New York Times, January 29)) This esteemed position allowed Root to rub elbows with more important people, such as Teddy Roosevelt. When Tammany Hall attempted to keep Roosevelt from the New York governorship, Root came to his defense, allowing Roosevelt to be elected in 1898. ((“Elihu Root,” New York Times, July 30, 1899))

Secretary of War (1899-1904)

Though Root was well-known as a lawyer, he was not known as a political figure. Still, President McKinley entrusted Root with the office of Secretary of War in 1899. The United States was just emerging from the Spanish-American war, so it seemed strange that the President would choose a lawyer instead of a military man. For his part, Root was happy to serve what he called “the greatest of all our clients, the government of our country.” ((“Elihu Root-Biography,” Nobelprize.org http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1912/root-bio.html))

The New York Times ran a story introducing America to the new Secretary of War. The lede read:

“Any person meeting Elihu Root for the first time and on an occasion of no special significance, would be likely to underestimate the aggressive vigor of the man’s character…There is nothing in his character to suggest the lawyer militant, much less the warrior militant. Yet there are many men who have felt his power in legal and political controversy who are willing to concede that the new Secretary of War has the essential qualities of a fighter.” ((“Elihu Root,” New York Times, July 30, 1899))

Root’s Nobel biography states, “Since the nation was just emerging from the Spanish-American War, it seemed an unlikely appointment.  But President McKinley, with remarkable insight, said that he needed a lawyer in the post, not a military man.” ((“Elihu Root-Biography,” Nobelprize.org)) The war in the Philippines was about territorial control, but it was also about rule of law. Military strength had given the United States the islands, but it would take a legal mind to figure out how to keep them. Only a lawyer could deftly determine how a constitutional republic that boasted a representative government could have colonies, rule subjects, and build an overseas empire without seeming to sacrifice its principles.

Root is largely responsible for reforming the War Department. The Spanish-American War revealed that the U.S. Army was more of a rag-tag bunch of militiamen than a sophisticated military force. Root made it his personal mission to bring order to the Army. He enlarged West Point, the nation’s foremost military academy. In November of 1901, he established the General Staff and the U.S. Army War College as a sort of military graduate school, in order to better train military officers.

As Secretary of War in the aftermath of the Spanish-American War, Root was also a key figure in administration of new U.S. territories.  Elihu Root was the primary author of the Platt Amendment, which put significant limitations on Cuba’s newfound independence, including a provision that stated:

“That the government of Cuba consents that the United States may exercise the right to intervene for the preservation of Cuban independence, the maintenance of a government adequate for the protection of life, property, and individual liberty, and for discharging the obligations with respect to Cuba imposed by the treaty of Paris on the United States, now to be assumed and undertaken by the government of Cuba.”

Root staunchly supported American rule in the Philippines (read: “Secretary Root Defends Army in Philippines”), and was responsible for drafting a charter for governance in the islands.

In regards to Puerto Rico, Root managed to eliminate all tariffs on goods imported from the island to the mainland United States. Root’s stint as Secretary of War was so impressive that Henry L. Stimson, who would later hold that post himself, said “no such intelligent, constructive, and vital force had occupied that post in American history.” ((“Elihu Root: Secretary of State, Nobel Laureate (1845-1937)” The Century Association Archives Foundation http://www.centuryarchives.org/stamps/documents/root.pdf))

• “The Platt Amendment, 1901,” Modern History Sourcebook
• Elihu Root Collection of United States Documents Relating to the Philippine Islands
• Address of the Secretary of War, 1903

Secretary of State (1905-1909)

Root returned to his private practice in 1904, but returned to Washington in 1905 when he received an appointment from his old friend Teddy Roosevelt to be Secretary of State.

On the eve of the Spanish-American War (1898), African Americans lived as second-class citizens. During the Jim Crow era, they lived separately from white Southerners, using facilities that were anything but equal. While war presented hardship, suffering, and strife, for African American men, it also presented an opportunity.  Participating in one of America’s wars was an opportunity for African Americans to prove that they were just as patriotic as their white countrymen, and thus deserved the same rights.  This line of reasoning was not new; similar motives had encouraged African American participation in the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, and the Civil War. However, these were domestic wars fought by Americans on American soil in order to defend the union. The Spanish-American War was fought by Americans on foreign soil in order to expand the union.

African American soldiers sought another goal aside from American victory in battle.  In the army, all soldiers fought and died for their country—regardless of their color or creed. African American soldiers thought that while fighting against injustice abroad, they could also fight against injustice at home. This concept resurfaced yet again during World War II’s Double-V Campaign.

After the Spanish-American War, the courage and bravery displayed by African American soldiers was widely recognized—albeit begrudgingly by some. However, despite their best efforts, African Americans in the United States were not given their rights as a result of their exemplary performance in the war. Furthermore, their successes in the war helped to export the very racism they fought against to the far reaches of America’s fledgling empire.

Background: Race in late 18th century America 

In 1898, the wounds of the Civil War (1861-1865) were still fresh, and Reconstruction had only made those wounds deeper. The Spanish-American War was an opportunity for Americans to unite against a common enemy—Spain. Historian Amy Kaplan posits that in order to reunite North and South, “the Spanish-American War had to collapse and undo the thirty-year history separating the two conflicts by waging an ideological battle against Reconstruction.” ((Amy Kaplan, “Black and Blue on San Juan Hill,” in Cultures of United States Imperialism, ed. Amy Kaplan and Donald E. Pease, (Duke University Press, 1993), 219.)) That battle would include dismantling the progress made by African Americans since the abolition of slavery.

The late 1800’s were the heyday of “Scientific Racism”—a  pseudoscience that allowed the aforementioned cycle of racism to continue unabated in the United States by offering supposed justification for the superiority of Caucasian peoples. This “science” was based on evidence such as phrenology—the study of head shape to determine intelligence. Images such as the one shown here suggested a close link between peoples of African descent and apes. This reinforced the idea that people with African ancestry were unintelligent, uncivilized, and essentially less human. These theories had justified slavery by suggesting that peoples of African descent needed to be looked after by whites, and could no less be left to their own devices in a civilized society than a chimpanzee. Even after the abolition of slavery, it helped to forge a paternalist discourse that whites were meant to dominate blacks since they could not take care of themselves—much like a father would take care of his son.  This paternalist discourse was easily transferred to the new U.S. Empire after the Spanish-American war.

When the Spanish-American War began, many African Americans were only a generation removed from slavery. Most were granted their freedom by the Emancipation Proclamation (1863), and that freedom was maintained by a Union victory in the Civil War (1861-1865). But, the end of slavery did not mean the end of oppression.

Many whites still believed, with the help of Scientific Racism, that peoples of African descent were inherently inferior—even if new laws said otherwise.

The Fourteenth Amendment (1868) stated:

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

But, Jim Crow laws had created a segregated nation in which free black Americans were repeatedly and consistently disenfranchised. In 1896, just two years before the Spanish-American War, the famous Plessy v. Ferguson decision was handed down by the United States Supreme Court. The decision upheld Jim Crow laws that required segregation in the use of public facilities. In Plessy, the Supreme Court pronounced that separate facilities in and of themselves did not constitute a denial of Fourteenth Amendment rights. It upheld state laws that required segregation on the grounds that rights were not violated as long as facilities were separate, but equal. As most know, they were anything but.

Drinking at “Colored” water cooler in streetcar terminal, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division Washington, DC 20540 USA.

At the segregated bus station in Durham, North Carolina. Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division Washington, DC 20540 USA.

African Americans were almost universally disenfranchised through property laws, grandfather clauses, and literacy tests. They were unable to obtain suitable education or employment. They were often unable to rent or purchase satisfactory housing. On top of this, there was the constant fear of attack by racist groups such as the Ku Klux Klan who were notorious for lynching. Ida B. Wells, an outspoken opponent of lynching, wrote, “The real purpose of these savage demonstrations is to teach the Negro that in the South he has no rights that the law will enforce.” ((“Ida B. Wells (1862-1931)”, PBS: Jim Crow Stories, http://www.pbs.org/wnet/jimcrow/stories_people_wells.html)) In the United States, African Americans lived as second-class citizens if they were allowed to live at all.

• Frederick Tiedemann, “On the Brain of the Negro, compared with that of the European and the Orang-Outang,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 126, (1836): 497-527.
• Samuel Cartwright, “Diseases and Peculiarities of the Negro Race,” DeBow’s Review—Southern and Western States 11 (1851)
• The Emancipation Proclamation
• PBS: The Civil War
• PBS: The Rise and Fall of Jim Crow
• Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 157 (1896)

The Birth of the “Buffalo Soldiers”

Contrary to popular belief, not all free black American stayed in the South as sharecroppers. Many became soldiers and found that the army was an arena in which African Americans could operate on a more level playing field. After the Civil War, Congress passed an “Act to increase and fix the military peace establishment of the United States.” (1866). This act provided for the establishment of regiments of segregated, colored soldiers that would operate separately from the rest of the army.

Section 3 stated “that to the six regiments of cavalry now in service, there shall be added four regiments, two of which shall be composed of colored men.”—these became the Ninth and Tenth Cavalry.

Section 4 stated that forty-five regiments of infantry would be provided for by this act, “four regiments of which shall be composed of colored men.”—these became the Twenty-Fourth and Twenty-Fifth Infantry.

Since the Civil War, most African American soldiers had been relegated to fighting against Native Americans out West. This, in some ways, was a “win-win” situation for the United States. Fighting the fierce, painstakingly slow battle to subdue Native American populations in the harsh West was not a task that other soldiers envied. The African American soldiers that the government would never want representing the U.S. to European powers, for example, were perfectly suited to this task. The U.S. pitted the lowest segments of American society against one another—ensuring that white hegemony was not challenged by either population. African American soldiers’ service in these Indian Wars earned them the nickname “Buffalo Soldiers,” which soon extended to all African American soldiers.

An African American Corporal, in the 9th Cavalry in Denver. Snow covers the ground. 1890.

Although they served out West, “in a climate more severe for troops than any in the United States,” the Buffalo Soldiers were extremely successful in their efforts to subdue the Native American population. ((Edward A. Johnson, History of Negro Soldiers in the Spanish-American War, (Raleigh: Capital Printing Company, 1899), 21)) As their main source of protection, the soldiers had established a good rapport with the white pioneers out West. They were unprepared for the blatant racism they would encounter in the South when called upon to serve their country in the Spanish-American War.

• “Buffalo Soldiers & Indian Wars”

Debating Participation: Buffalo Soldiers Fighting for the U.S.

President McKinley sent the USS Maine to Havana in late 1897 in order to protect American citizens and interests in the face of rising unrest in Cuba. On February 15, 1898, the Maine exploded and sank in Havana harbor, resulting in the deaths of 266 Americans, including two African American men. The cause of the explosion was not known (nor is it known today), but it was not hard for the newspapers to sell it to the public as a Spanish attack. Although McKinley was reluctant, eventually he gave in to the repeated cries of the press: “Remember the Maine! To Hell with Spain!”

While whites wrote songs such as “The Darkey Volunteer” and “The Black K.P.’s” which praised “those brave black knights who are so bold” and “proud plumed darkies looking fine,” many in the black community were not so thrilled about African American participation in the Spanish-American War. The Washington Bee wrote “The negro has no reason to fight for Cuba’s independence. He is opposed at home.” The editors believed that African Americans should not fight for a country that denied their people rights every day.

Despite a strong anti-war contingency, many African American soldiers wanted to participate in the war. George Prioleau, U.S. Army Chaplain of the Ninth Cavalry said, “The men are anxious to go. The country will then hear and know of their bravery. The American Negro is always ready and willing to take up arms to fight and lay down his life in defense of his country’s honor.” ((PBS: Jim Crow Stories, http://www.pbs.org/wnet/jimcrow/stories.html)) Another soldier said, “We left our homes, wives, mothers, sisters and friends to break down that infernal prejudice and to have a page in history ascribed to us.” ((ibid.))  That page in history would presumably give African Americans the rights and respect they were not able to enjoy.

But, there was what the Richmond Dispatch called “A Burning Question”: whether black regiments would have black or white officers. ((“A Burning Question,” Richmond Dispatch, June 4, 1898)) The same paternalist thinking that had justified black enslavement informed military decisions concerning officers. Many felt that African American soldiers were just not capable of handling the responsibilities of an officer position. A regular army lieutenant said of African American soldiers, “They are all right physically, of course, most of them are illiterate and they know nothing about military tactics, but with good officers and careful training they ought to fight well.” ((“Call for Colored Troops,” Los Angeles Herald, June 26, 1898.)) The Los Angeles Herald pointed out that if African American soldiers were officers of African American regiments, then “the question of how the officers’ mess would be arranged when there were white and colored officers in the same regiment came up.” ((ibid.)) Jim Crow dictated that blacks and whites shouldn’t eat together, and the army wasn’t sure if it was ready to end that practice. The Herald concluded that “The negro needs to be fed well, they say, to make a good fighter, and there is some doubt whether colored troops will follow one of their own race as well as they would a white officer.” ((ibid.))

In response, many African Americans advocated a “No officers, no fight!” policy. The Washington Bee published an open letter to President McKinley decrying his administration’s policy that prohibited an African American soldier from holding a position higher than a lieutenant. The Bee stated: “Now, Mr. President, we are neither aggressive nor impudent, we have respectfully and firmly asked for recognition as citizens of a common country, nothing more. We want it.” They continued, “Call a halt now Mr. President, establish the practice of your departments upon the fine basis of equal and exact justice to all before it is too late or the day must come for unavailing regret.” ((“An Open Letter to President McKinley,” Washington Bee, June 25, 1898)) There would be political ramifications if McKinley, as a Republican president, did not keep his promises about being a friend to African Americans—even Southern Democrats were picking up on it. The largest error to come out of this policy, however, would be to reduce the number of African American volunteers: “Throw down the bars, open up the positions, and the Negro will flow into the army as a flood. Keep up the color line you have established and they will trickle in as now, only those driven by necessity to take a half loaf or be utterly without bread.” ((ibid.)) The Army was an opportunity for completely disenfranchised blacks to gain more than they would at home, but as the Bee put it, soon the Army would only recruit those who cannot get a “half loaf.” Any who could get more would have no need for the Army.

Buffalo Soldiers in the South

When the 24^th Infantry left Salt Lake City, residents lined the streets to see the soldiers off. In Missoula, Montana the whole town came to bid the soldiers of the 10^th Cavalry farewell. On April 15, 1898, they arrived in Chickamauga, GA. At Chickamauga Park, they were greeted with surprise and wonder. According to Sergeant-Major Frank Pullen, thousands visited from nearby Chattanooga daily: “Many of them had never seen a colored soldier. The behavior of the men was such that even the most prejudiced could find no fault.” ((Johnson, History of Negro Soldiers, 22)) But, this peaceful interest did not last for long. Pullen and the other men found that others in the South did not welcome them with interest or curiosity: “But in Georgia, outside of the Park, it mattered not if we were soldiers of the United States, and going to fight for the honor of our country and the freedom of an oppressed and starving people, we were ‘niggers,’ as they called us, and treated us with contempt.” ((ibid., 23))

Most Southern whites did not care about the service these men had given to the U.S. Army in the West, nor did they care about what they would do in Cuba. The local whites prohibited African American soldiers from eating, shopping, or intermingling in white society in any way.  Indeed, the soldiers were not just barred from “white-only” establishments, they were victims of harassment and violence. It was so bad that one African American lieutenant said, “If I owned both Macon, Georgia, and hell, I would rent Macon and live in hell.” ((Anthony L. Powell, “An Overview: Black Participation in the Spanish-American War,” The Spanish-American War Centennial Website, http://www.spanamwar.com/AfroAmericans.htm))

Things were not much better for African American troops in Tampa, Florida, the staging point for the invasion. On June 6, 1898, drunken white Ohio volunteers seized a local African American child and held a cruel contest. The winner was the man who could shoot a bullet through the child’s sleeve. The child was unhurt, but the event enraged African American soldiers. They stormed Tampa, taking special care to cause damage to those establishments that had denied them service. After the fact, the Atlanta Constitution wrote, “There was no need to send Negro troops to Cuba. Now, to send them after this event is criminal.” ((PBS: Crucible of Empire: The Spanish-American War http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YacDfVlDPY8))

Deeds of Valor in Cuba 

In 1899, historian Edward A. Johnson wrote, “History records the Negro as the first man to fall in three wars of America—Crispus Attucks in the Boston Massacre, March 5, 1770; an unknown Negro in Baltimore when the Federal troops were mobbed in that city en route to the front, and Elijah B. Tunnell, of Accomac county, Virginia, who fell simultaneously with or a second before Ensign Bagley, of the torpedo boat Winslow, in the harbor of Cardenas May 11, 1898, in the Spanish-American War.” ((Johnson, History of Negro Soldiers,18))  Tunnell’s legs were blown off by a shell: “Turning to those about him he asked, “Did we win in the fight boys?’ The reply was, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘Then I die happy.’” ((ibid.)) This was the first of many noble sacrifices made by African American soldiers in the Spanish American War.

Liberators of Cuba, soldiers of the 10th Cavalry after the Spanish-American War.

Frank W. Pullen, Jr., a Sergeant-Major of the 25^th U.S. Infantry, recalled two instances of bravery on the part of African American soldiers in Cuba.

On the first day of the invasion of Cuba, the 25^th infantry led the march. The order in which troops marched was shuffled as regiments would halt for rest and then resume. Eventually Theodore Roosevelt’s famed Rough Riders led the march. They were the victims of a surprise attack that resulted in the Battle of Las Guasimas.

On the battleground of Las Guasimas – Americans going to the front, from p. 378 of Harper’s Pictorial History of the War with Spain, Vol. II, published by Harper and Brothers in 1899. Taken 1898.

Pullen recalled: “They could not advance, and dare not retreat, having been caught in a sunken place in the road, with a barbed wire fence on one side and a precipitous hill on the other.” ((Johnson, History of Negro Soldiers, 27)) Roosevelt’s Rough Riders were trapped until the 10^th Cavalry came to the rescue: “Little thought the Spaniards that these ‘smoked yankees’ were so formidable. Perhaps they thought to stop these black boys by their relentless fire, but those boys knew no stop.” ((ibid.)) Pullen contended that the 10^th Cavalry gave the Rough Riders safe passage and defeated the Spanish in this skirmish.

Pullen was saddened by the fact that the noble actions of African American soldiers were not well-documented:

“The names of Captain A.M. Capron, Jr., and Sergeant Hamilton Fish, Jr., of the Rough Riders, who were killed in this battle, have been immortalized, while that of Corporal Brown, 10th Cavalry, who manned the Hotchkiss gun in this fight, without which the American loss in killed and wounded would no doubt have been counted by hundreds, and who was killed by the side of his gun, is unknown by the public.” ((Johnson, History of Negro Soldiers, 28))

After the war, a Southern man stated:

“If it had not been for the Negro Cavalry the Rough Riders would have been exterminated. I am not a Negro lover. My father fought with Mosby’s Rangers (43^rd Battalion, Virginia Cavalry, Confederate Army), and I was born in the South, but the Negroes saved that fight, and the day will come when General Shafter will give them credit for their bravery.” ((Johnson, History of Negro Soldiers, 85))

Sergeant-Major Pullen’s second memory comes from El Caney. Other soldiers had warned Pullen and his men, the 25^th infantry, “Boys, there is no use to go up there, you cannot see a thing; they are slaughtering our men!” But, the 25^th infantry plowed ahead—without orders from their white officers. In response to the accusation that African American soldiers were incapable of being officers, Pullen wrote, “Brigadier Generals, Colonels, Lieutenant-Colonels, Majors, etc., were not needed at the time the 25th Infantry made the charge on El Caney, and those officers simply watched the battle from convenient points, as Lieutenants and enlisted men made the charge alone.” ((Johnson, History of Negro Soldiers, 30))

On the same day that the 25^th Infantry helped take El Caney, American troops charged San Juan Hill. History has portrayed this as the shining moment of glory for Roosevelt and his Rough Riders.

But, recent scholarship has challenged the “Teddy-centric view,” as military historian Frank N. Schubert called it in his article “Buffalo Soldiers at San Juan Hill.” But while he refuses to give Roosevelt all the credit, Schubert also warns against new claims that Buffalo Soldiers were entirely responsible for the victory. He concluded that the effort was a shared one, “with black and white regulars and Rough Riders fighting side by side and with one group sometimes indistinguishable from the others.” ((Frank N. Schubert, “Buffalo Soldiers at San Juan Hill,” http://www.history.army.mil/documents/spanam/BSSJH/Shbrt-BSSJH.htm))

One African American soldier, however, did distinguish himself from the others. Sergeant George Berry was the color guard for the 10^th Cavalry. The History of the 10^th Cavalry reads, “About half way up the slope the colors of the Third were seen to stop and fall, the color bearer sinking to the ground, shot through the body; Sergeant George Berry, color bearer of the Tenth, dashed over to where the colors lay, raised them high, and waving both flags, planted them on the crest side by side.” ((History of the 10^th Cavalry, ed. Major E.L.N. Glass, (1923), 34)) The writer posits that it “is no doubt the only instance in our military history where the colors of one regiment were carried to the final objective by a member of a rival regiment.” ((ibid.))

Cleveland Moffitt, a white man writing for Leslie’s Weekly described it as follows: “Some white man had left it there, many white men had let it stay there, but Berry, an African American man, saw it fluttering in shame and paused in his running long enough to catch it up and lift it high overhead beside his own banner.” He concluded, “There are some hundreds of little things like this that we might as well bear in mind, we white men, the next time we start to decry the Negro!” ((Johnson, History of Negro Soldiers, 49))

• “The Charge of the ‘Nigger Ninth on San Juan Hill,” by George E. Powell
• Frank N. Schubert, “Buffalo Soldiers at San Juan Hill”

Giving Credit Where Is Due

After the war, many African American soldiers were rewarded for their efforts and deeds of valor in Cuba. But, very soon after that, people began to rewrite history. ((Kaplan, “Black and Blue,” 227)) Sergeant-Major Pullen denounced the 12^th Infantry for taking credit for the victory at El Caney: “Thus, by using the authority given him by his shoulder straps, this officer took for his regiment that which had been won by the hearts’ blood of some of the bravest, though black, soldiers of Shafter’s army.” ((Johnson, History of Negro Soldiers, 30))

Teddy Roosevelt was one of the main rewriters of the history of the Spanish-American War. He was willing to give some credit to the Buffalo Soldiers when he said, “I would be the last man to say anything against the Afro-American soldier, because I know of his bravery and his character. He saved my life at Santiago, and I have had occasion to say so in many articles and speeches. The Rough Riders were in a bad position when the Ninth and Tenth cavalry came rushing up the hill carrying everything before them.” ((“The Brave Black Men,” Colored American, Oct 27, 1900)) But, beyond that he refused to give credit where credit was due. While other accounts claim that the 10^th Cavalry played an integral role in the capture of San Juan and Kettle hills (with Sergeant Berry triumphantly carrying the colors), Roosevelt claimed that the African American soldiers had tried to flee the battle, and were forced back by Teddy at gunpoint. ((Kaplan, “Black and Blue,” 228))

Even the publicity photographs used reveal that history was already in the process of being rewritten.

“Colonel Roosevelt and his Rough Riders at the top of the hill which they captured, Battle of San Juan.” US Army victors on Kettle Hill about July 3, 1898 after the battle of “San Juan Hill(s).” Left to right is 3rd US Cavalry, 1st Volunteer Cavalry (Col. Theodore Roosevelt center) and 10th US Cavalry. This photo is often shown cropping out all but the 1st Vol Cav and TR. Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division Washington, D.C. 20540 USA.

This photograph, which was much more widely used, only shows Roosevelt and the Rough Riders atop San Juan Hill.

This photograph helped to write the history that Roosevelt and his men alone were responsible for the victory that day—and that they certainly were not helped by a regiment of African American soldiers.  Roosevelt’s desire to underplay the role of African American soldiers was not only driven by a desire for personal glory.  The idea of African American men in uniform, or “black in blue,” as Amy Kaplan calls it, was terrifying to many white Americans: “The specter of armed African American soldiers may threaten betrayal of the United States empire through the realignment with outside forces or may challenge the internal coherence of that empire by demanding participation and representation as equals.” ((Kaplan, “Black and Blue,” 235)) If credit were given to African American soldiers for their deeds, it would open the door to rewards such as equal rights, which would not only undermine the domestic racial order, but the entire basis of American empire.  Kaplan writes, “Black in blue raises the white fear that the imperial war meant to heal the rifts of the Civil War may continue to heighten that conflict by recasting it as a global race war.” ((ibid.))

Sadly, the great deeds of African American soldiers, whether hidden or well-known, were not enough to eliminate the paternalist thinking in many. Roosevelt, despite his kind words about their service, still thought “colored soldiers were of no avail without white officers; that when the white commissioned officers are killed or disabled, colored non-commissioned officers could not be depended upon to keep up a charge already begun.” ((Johnson, History of Negro Soldiers, 40)) Sergeant Presley Holliday of the Tenth Cavalry begged to differ. In response to Roosevelt’s remarks, he posited that Roosevelt must have been unaware that of the four officers of the 10^th Cavalry, one was killed and another was seriously injured. He must not have known that in lieu of this, the African American first sergeants “led them triumphantly to the front.” Roosevelt must also have been unaware of the fact that at Las Guasimas and at San Juan Hill, most of troop B of the 10^th Cavalry “was separated from its commanding officer by accidents of battle and was led to the front by its first sergeant.” ((Johnson, 63))

Holliday fiercely proclaimed:

“I will say that when our soldiers, who can and will write history, sever their connections with the Regular Army, and thus release themselves from their voluntary status of military lockjaw, and tell us what they saw, those who now preach that the Negro is not fit to exercise command over troops, and will go no further than he is led by white officers, will see in print held up for public gaze, much to their chagrin, tales of those Cuban battles that have never been told outside the tent and barrack room, tales that it will not be agreeable for some of them to hear. The public will then learn that not every troop or company of colored soldiers who took part in the assaults on San Juan Hill or El Caney was led or urged forward by its white officer.” ((Johnson, 67))

General Thomas J. Morgan, a white man, did speak out in favor of African American officers. He claimed, rather simply, that “so long as we draw no race line of distinction as against Germans or Irishmen, and institute no test of religion, politics or culture, we ought not to erect any artificial barrier of color. If the Negroes are competent they should be commissioned. If they are incompetent they should not be trusted with the grave responsibilities attached to official position. I believe they are competent.” ((Johnson, 54.))

• “Competent to be Officers—the Verdict of General Thomas J. Morgan, After a Study of the Negro’s Quality as a Soldier”

Bringing Racism to the Empire

The justifications for the Spanish-American War (and thus the beginning of American Empire), were based on high and mighty ideals such as freedom, equality, democracy, and justice—concepts that African Americans scarcely encountered in their everyday lives in the United States.  It seems counterintuitive that Americans could wage such a war without destabilizing the racial power structure within the borders of the United States. But, the justifications for empire did not undermine racism at home. On the contrary, the justifications for empire and the justifications for racism tended to reinforce each other as the United States began its colonial mission.

The paternalist discourse that justified white superiority in the United States began to emerge in new U.S. territories.  Just as dark-skinned people in the United States needed whites to look after them, so did dark-skinned peoples in Cuba and the Philippines. But, paternalism (as the experience of African Americans in the United States had clearly demonstrated), was not all about the love and support a father gives. Paternalism allowed “an assertion of authority, superiority, and control expressed in the metaphor of a father’s relationship with his children”. In Taking Haiti, historian Mary Renda argues that paternalism was a “cultural vehicle” for violence, allowing Americans to act out not just “paternal care and guidance,” but also “paternal authority and discipline.” ((Mary Renda, Taking Haiti, (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2001), 15)) Supporters of slavery often felt that peoples of African descent needed to be disciplined and kept in their place by white masters. They believed that dark-skinned peoples were not responsible enough to be masters of their own bodies. It was not difficult for them to assume that dark-skinned peoples in the new U.S. Empire were not fit for self-rule and needed the same kind of discipline and guidance.

In the midst of all this, African American soldiers tried to negotiate a contradiction. Many believed that war presented an opportunity to prove their worth as Americans and as people. But, they found that their sacrifices in Cuba did not improve their condition. Furthermore, the situation changed drastically when Buffalo Soldiers were sent to the Philippines. The similarities between the ways African Americans and Filipinos were treated by white Americans was striking—white soldiers even used the word “nigger” freely to describe both African Americans and Filipinos. It did not take long for African American soldiers to see that the plight of the Filipinos was not unlike their own. Some, like David Fagen, even defected to the Filipino army.

• “African American Soldiers in the Philippine Revolution” by E. San Juan, Jr.
• “The Philippine War—A Conflict of Conscience for African Americans.”

African American soldiers had believed that stories of valor and bravery could improve their condition. Danish-American journalist Jacob A. Riis wrote in the Outlook: “It was one of the unexpected things in this campaign that seems destined to set so many things right that out of it should come the appreciation of the colored soldier as man and brother by those even who so lately fought to keep him a chattel.” ((Johnson, History of Negro Soldiers, 46)) But, did it work? Did American whites really see African Americans differently after the war? In a word—no. Jim Crow did not die out because of the courage and patriotism the Buffalo Soldiers displayed during the Spanish-American War. Not only did their participation not have the intended result, it had an unintended consequence. When people like Teddy Roosevelt rewrote the history of the Spanish-American War, they underplayed the role that African American soldiers played in the war, but they also allowed for racism to be established in the new empire. Amy Kaplan argues that “while confronting and subordinating African Americans within the national body, Roosevelt was simultaneously making a place for newly colonized subjects in the disembodied American empire” ((Kaplan, “Black and Blue,” 229)) In the Spanish-American War, while fighting to prove themselves worthy of the same rights as whites in America, African American soldiers unknowingly helped to export the racism they had known all their lives to the territories of the new American empire.

For more information:

• Visit the U.S. History Scene reading lists for African-American History and the Gilded Age/Progressive Era

Last November, with all the hubbub surrounding the presidential election, you may have missed a historic moment for the little Caribbean island of Puerto Rico. For the first time, the majority of Puerto Ricans voted to become a U.S. State. This vote, although problematic in some ways (see Ben Fox’s article “Puerto Rico vote endorses statehood with asterisk”), could be an important step toward changing Puerto Rico’s current relationship with the United States. But what is Puerto Rico’s relationship with the United States? Well, it’s complicated.

Puerto Rico is currently a commonwealth of the United States. The Office of Insular Affairs defines a commonwealth as “an organized United States insular area, which has established with the Federal Government, a more highly developed relationship, usually embodied in a written mutual agreement.” This is not to be confused with an unincorporated territory: “a United States insular area in which the United States Congress has determined that only selected parts of the United States Constitution apply,” an organized territory: “a United States insular area for which the United States Congress has enacted an organic act,” or just plain occupied territory, in which the U.S. military forcibly claims sovereignty over people who would really rather they didn’t. Since 1898, Puerto Rico’s relationship with the United States has encompassed all of the aforementioned definitions, each with its own set of ever-changing rights and responsibilities.

Are we confused yet?

We’ll start at the beginning.

THE END OF SPANISH COLONIAL RULE

Spanish colonial rule in Puerto Rico was many things, but it was not complicated. Christopher Columbus discovered the island of Puerto Rico on November 19, 1493. The people who already lived there, the Taínos, (Columbus ‘discovered’ them, too) called the island Borikén. Their population dwindled rapidly from exposure to European diseases and the harshness of imposed slavery. Spanish settlers, left with no labor force, began importing African slaves to work on their plantations.

In 1873, the Spanish National Assembly abolished slavery in Puerto Rico, but the island’s plantation economy persisted.

• This GIF shows the different imperial powers who have owned parts of the Caribbean since 1700

Over the centuries, the French, Dutch, and British all tried to take Puerto Rico from Spain. Looking at a map, it’s not hard to see why. As the easternmost island of the Greater Antilles, Spain thought of Puerto Rico as the gateway to the Caribbean and the rest of its possessions in the Americas. But, Spain’s American imperium was surrounded by other colonial powers. Driven by the fear of losing their gateway to the Americas, the Spanish covered Puerto Rico in forts. By the end of the nineteenth century, Spain had lost all its colonies, save Puerto Rico, Cuba, the Philippines, Guam, and a few other Pacific islands.

During the nineteenth century, Puerto Ricans, inspired by Simón Bolivar and other independence movements in Latin America, pushed for independence from the weakened Spanish crown. Though unsuccessful, these sentiments eventually led to change towards the end of the century. In 1897, the Spanish agreed to the Carta Autonómica, making Puerto Rico an overseas province of Spain. This allowed for Puerto Rico’s first semi-autonomous government (the Spanish-appointed governor maintained the power to annul any legislative decisions).

• Read the Carta Autonómica: Translation: Constitution Establishing Self-Government in the Islands of Cuba and Porto Rico: Promulgated by Royal Decree of November 25, 1897 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1899).

Governor-General Manuel Macías, a Spanish general, inaugurated the new government in February, 1898. In March, general elections were held. Puerto Rico’s first autonomous government began to function on July 17, 1898—in the midst of the Spanish-American War.

THE SPANISH-AMERICAN WAR (1898)

• Chronology of Puerto Rico in the Spanish-American War

The importance of The Influence of Sea Power Upon History (1890), by Alfred Thayer Mahan, cannot be overstated. Captain Mahan was President of the U.S. Naval War College when he wrote this significant historical volume. His theories resonated with many leaders and strategists around the world, including President Theodore Roosevelt (read a letter from Roosevelt to Mahan that discusses Hawaii, an isthmian canal, and “big problems in the West Indies”). Mahan’s theories arrived in American consciousness at an interesting time. Frederick Jackson Turner’s “Frontier Thesis” (1893) posited that westward expansion and the frontier experience gave rise to American exceptionalism. Since that expansion ended when the United States reached the shores of the Pacific, Turner proposed that the period of American greatness might have ended with it. Mahan’s ideas gave the United States a way to be great again through expansion—overseas expansion. By the end of the nineteenth century, the United States had set its sights on world power. The first step, following Captain Mahan’s advice, was creating a large, powerful navy - and a large, powerful navy required coaling stations and naval bases. This is where the Caribbean featured. The ultimate goal of overseas expansionists was an isthmian canal (today, the Panama canal) that would facilitate sea travel between the Atlantic and the Pacific.

The idea of acquiring Puerto Rico did not spring up in 1898. In fact, William H. Seward (Secretary of State under Presidents Lincoln, Johnson, and Grant) proposed annexing the Dominican Republic and purchasing Puerto Rico and Cuba. ((“Biographies of the Secretaries of State: William Henry Seward,” Office of the Historian, http://history.state.gov/departmenthistory/people/seward-william-henry )) The U.S. Senate rejected the annexation proposal and Spain rejected the U.S. offer to purchase Puerto Rico and Cuba for $160 million. The U.S. Naval War College drafted plans for war with Spain as early as 1894. A more formal plan was drafted by Lieutenant William Kimball in 1896. His plan relied heavily on naval forces and first proposed a two-front war on Spain’s colonies in the Caribbean and the Pacific. ((John A.S. Grenville, “American Naval Preparations for War with Spain, 1896-1898,” Journal of American Studies 2, no. 1 (April 1968): 35.))

• Read more about U.S. Spanish-American War Plans.

No sooner had Puerto Rico been granted autonomy by Spain than the United States went to war with their former colonial masters (spoiler alert! Puerto Rico, although technically not a belligerent, loses).

The Spanish-American War began in April, 1898. The impetus for war was Cuba. Americans had become incensed by sensationalized stories of Spanish cruelty, which eventually culminated in the sinking of a U.S. naval ship, the Maine, in Havana harbor. Although the cause of the explosion remains unknown, it became the justification for the coming war with Spain. On July 17, the autonomous government began to function in Puerto Rico, led by Governor General Manual Macias; on July 25, the U.S. military invaded Puerto Rico.

OCCUPIED TERRITORY (1898-1899)

General Nelson A. Miles, Commanding General of the United States Army, led the U.S. forces that landed in Guanica in July 1898. General Miles assured the Puerto Rican people the U.S. military did not “come to make war upon the people of a country that for centuries has been oppressed, but, on the contrary, to bring you protection, not only to yourselves, but to your property, to promote your prosperity, and to bestow upon you the immunities and blessings of the liberal institutions of our Government.” Miles introduced the tenets benevolent rule that would come to characterize American empire: “This is not a war of devastation, but one to give to all within the control of its military and naval forces the advantages and blessings of enlightened civilization.” ((Annual Reports of the War Department for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1900. Part 13. Report of the Military Governor of Porto Rico on Civil Affairs, (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1902), 20.))

• Military Government in Puerto Rico
• Puerto Rico in 1898

On August 12^th, 1898, Spain and the United States agreed to terms of peace, which officially ceded Puerto Rico to the United States. After this peace protocol, General Miles was replaced by the new military governor Major General John R. Brooke. In December, U.S. Major General Guy V. Henry took up that post when General Brooke was recalled to the United States. Henry was “relieved upon his own request” in May 1899 and replaced by Brigadier General George W. Davis. ((ibid, 17)) During this time, the United States was, according to the War Department “a belligerent, who, under the laws of war, maintained hostile occupation, his army seeking by every means in its power to further the aims of its own government and to overcome by every lawful means the resistance and power of the armies of Spain.” ((ibid, 23))

This continued until the Treaty of Paris came into effect in April, 1899. In this new period, “The Army of the United States in Porto Rico was no longer a belligerent, for there was no public enemy, and there could no longer be a hostile occupation and control.” ((ibid, 24)) This assumed that the Spanish were the only ones opposed to American rule in Puerto Rico. Governor Davis proclaimed: “If all classes of the inhabitants, native and foreign, will work together for the common good Porto Rico should soon be the gem of the Antilles—the best governed, happiest, and most prosperous island in the West Indies.” ((ibid))

However, not all Puerto Ricans were pleased with the manner in which the United States assumed and maintained power in the island.  José Julio Henna and Manuel Zeno Gandia, Puerto Rican Commissioners, wrote several letters voicing their unhappiness at being “under the military control of the freest country in the world.” ((José Julio Henna and Manuel Zeno Gandia, The Case of Puerto Rico, (Washington DC: Press of W.F. Roberts, 1899), 7)) They lamented that in negotiations between the United States and Spain, “the voice of Puerto Rico was not heard” and “the island and its people were conveyed from one sovereign to another as a farm and its cattle are conveyed from a master to another.” ((ibid, 9)) Henna and Gandia exposed the hypocrisy of the United States’ new colonial venture by quoting the Declaration of Independence: “…that these governments only derive ‘their just powers FROM THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED.’ The Puerto Rican people, in asking from the people to whom they have been aggregated that these principles of the first enactment to be found in their statute books be applied to them, are not looking for favors. They are demanding justice.” ((ibid, 10))

Since the United States denied them independence, Henna and Gandia believed Puerto Ricans should at least enjoy all the rights of proper citizens of the United States. Military Governor Guy V. Henry, in October of 1898, stated, “the forty-five States represented by the stars emblazoned on the blue field of that flag unite in vouchsafing to you prosperity and protection as citizens of the American Union.” ((Frederick A. Ober, Puerto Rico and Its Resources, (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1899), 234)) But, Puerto Ricans were not citizens of the United States. History shows that Louisianans, Floridians, Mexicans, and Alaskans were all given citizenship rights when their territory became part of the United States. Puerto Ricans were no longer Spanish citizens, not yet American citizens, and could not be Puerto Rican citizens. ((Henna and Zeno Gandia, The Case of Puerto Rico, 24.)) For the Puerto Rican people, the outcome of the Spanish-American War was a far cry from the idealized justifications that led the United States to war in the first place. Henna and Gandia realized that the acquisition of Puerto Rico marked the beginning of the American imperium, one that would always be inherently contradictory.

UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY (1900-1917)

On April 12, 1900, President William McKinley signed the Organic Act of 1900. More commonly known as the Foraker Act for its sponsor, Ohio Senator Joseph B. Foraker, the main author of this legislation was Secretary of War Elihu Root. The Foraker Act established civil government in Puerto Rico. The U.S. President appointed a governor and executive council. Puerto Ricans elected their own 35-member House of Representatives and enjoyed a judicial system with a Supreme Court. A Resident Commissioner was to be sent to the U.S. Congress, to advise but not to vote. The Federal laws of the United States came into effect in Porto Rico. The act formally recognized Puerto Rican citizenship.

On May 1, 1900, the civil government began to function following the inauguration of Governor Charles H. Allen. Federico Degetau went to Washington D.C. to fulfill his duties as Puerto Rican Resident Commissioner. During this time, Americans on the mainland became more interested in their nation’s new island possession.

• Albert Gardner Robinson, The Porto Rico of To-day: Pen Pictures of the People and the Country (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1899)
• Charles H. Rector, The Story of Beautiful Porto Rico (Chicago: Laird & Lee Publishers, 1898)
• William Dinwiddie, Puerto Rico: Its Conditions and Possibilities (New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1899)
• Marian M. George, A Little Journey to Puerto Rico: For Intermediate and Upper Grades (Chicago: A. Flanagan Company, 1900)
• Frederick A. Ober, Puerto Rico and Its Resources, (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1899)

ORGANIZED, BUT UNINCORPORATED (1917-1952)

In 1917, President McKinley signed the Jones-Shafroth Act (more commonly known as the Jones Act) into law. The law amended the Foraker Act, and changed Puerto Rico’s status to an organized, but unincorporated, territory. One of the law’s most ardent supporters was Puerto Rican Resident Commissioner Luis Muñoz Rivera. Muñoz Rivera originally favored Puerto Rican independence, but eventually relented. He instead began to push for autonomy for Puerto Rico. In 1916, he stated his demands:

“Give us now the field of experiment which we ask of you, that we may show is it easy for us to constitute a stable republican government with all possibly guarantees for all possible interests. And afterward, when you acquire the certainty that you can find in Porto Rico a republic like that founded in Cuba and Panama, like the one that you will find at some future day in the Philippines, give us our independence and you will stand before humanity as the greatest of the great, that which neither Greece nor Rome nor England ever were, a great creator of new nationalities and a great liberator of oppressed peoples.” ((O. Nigel Bolland, The Birth of Caribbean Civilization, (Kingston: Ian Randle Publishers, 2004), 69))

Luis Muñoz Rivera asked the United States to be a new kind of empire, different from those of the old world. At this time, many Americans were still grappling with what their empire meant for them and for their nation. If Puerto Rico remained a colony with all the trappings of the Old World, the United States was no better than England, Greece, or Rome. But, as Muñoz Rivera pointed out, the United States had a chance to be extraordinary, even exceptional if it created a new empire. This fit in nicely with the rhetoric surrounding the new empire that spoke of benevolent uplift, spreading freedom and democracy, and helping the formerly oppressed by bringing all the benefits of American civilization. Muñoz Rivera argued, successfully, that autonomous government was one such benefit.

The Jones Act created a bill of rights, which extended many U.S. constitutional rights to Puerto Rico. Like much of the new empire, trial by jury was not included.  The bill also created a more autonomous government with three branches, much like that of the United States. The Governor, Attorney-General, and Commissioner of Education were appointed by the United States president. The governor appointed the remaining heads of executive departments (justice, finance, interior, agriculture, labor and health). The Puerto Ricans directly elected the members of a bicamerial legislature, although Puerto Rican women, like most women in the United States, were not allowed to vote. Perhaps most importantly, the Jones Act revoked Puerto Rican citizenship and stated that all Puerto Ricans, “are hereby declared, and shall be deemed and held to be, citizens of the United States.” ((The Statutes at Large of the United States of America from December 1915 to March 1917, (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1917): 953)) One immediate result of this was the extension of conscription—the Selective Service Act (1917) drafted 20,000 Puerto Rican soldiers into World War I.

Signing the Treaty of Paris

TRANSITION TO COMMONWEALTH (1947-1952)

The Great Depression severely affected Puerto Rico due to its dependence on the United States economy. Relief did not arrive in Puerto Rico until the appointment of Governor Rexford G. Tugwell in 1941. Governor Tugwell was an economics professor at Columbia University, and part of President Roosevelt’s “Brain Trust” of Columbia academics. He was dedicated to bringing economic growth to the struggling island. ((José Trías Monge, Puerto Rico: The Trials of the Oldest Colony in the World, (New Haven, Yale University Press, 1997), 101)) Tugwell first suggested the idea of a popularly elected Puerto Rican governor to President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1942. ((ibid, 102))

• Photo Gallery: Americans from the Great Depression to World War II: Puerto Rico

This was less than Puerto Ricans had hoped for. Luis Muñoz Marín, then leader of the Popular Democratic Party of Puerto Rico, wanted to end the debate over Puerto Rico’s status. He believed that a small concession such as popularly electing the governor would stall the more important conversation about amending the Jones Act and deciding Puerto Rico’s status. Muñoz Marín was inspired by the rhetoric surrounding World War II.

The third principle of the Atlantic Charter (prepared by President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Winston Churchill) read: “They respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live, and they wish to see sovereign rights of self-government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them.” On February 10, 1943, the Puerto Rican legislative assembly, under President of the Senate, Luis Muñoz Marín, unanimously adopted a concurrent resolution, “to lay before the President and the Congress of the United States of America the right of the people of Puerto Rico that the colonial system of government be ended and to decide democratically the permanent political status of Puerto Rico as expeditely as possible, immediately if feasible.” ((Tony Martin, The Economic Future of the Caribbean, (Dover: The Majority Press, 2004), 47-48))

In 1943, President Roosevelt formed a commission to evaluate the Jones Act; it included Governor Tugwell and Luis Muñoz Marín. ((Trías Monge, Puerto Rico, 103)) The Commission heard Muñoz Marín’s grievances, but did not recommend the vast changes Muñoz Marín had hoped for. The commission recommended that the Puerto Rican people must be consulted and agree to any further changes to the Foraker Act. They also endorsed Tugwell’s original recommendation—that the Governor of Puerto Rico be elected by the Puerto Rican people. ((ibid, 104)) The first formal change to the Jones Act came with the 1947 Elective Governor Act. In 1948 Luis Muñoz Marín became Puerto Rico’s first popularly elected Governor.

Muñoz Marín was still determined to redefine Puerto Rico’s status and relationship to the United States. He found a partner in U.S. Senator Millard E. Tydings (1927-1951). By 1945, Tydings was ready to file his third bill for Puerto Rican independence. On October 16, 1945, President Harry S. Truman sent a special message to Congress concerning the status of Puerto Rico calling for legislation that would become the Tydings-Piñero bill (named for Jesús T. Piñero, then governor of Puerto Rico).

The bill called for a referendum on Puerto Rico’s status. Puerto Ricans were to choose from three options: (1) independence, (2) statehood, or (3) an Associated State or dominion. ((ibid, 105)) The Tydings-Piñero bill died in committee, but it was an important moment in the history of U.S.-Puerto Rican relations. The provisions for an Associated State set the foundation for the eventual commonwealth status of present-day Puerto Rico. Furthermore, the referendum is essentially the same as those that would appear later, and again in 2012.

The Philippines (along with India and many other western colonies) gained independence after World War II. Puerto Rico did not. However, on July 3, 1950 President Truman signed Public Law 81-600, which allowed Puerto Ricans to write their own constitution. The Constitution of Puerto Rico (1952) officially established the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Following amendment and ratification by the United States Congress, Governor Luis Muñoz Marín enacted the constitution on July 25, 1952.

COMMONWEALTH (1952-PRESENT)

Today, Puerto Rico remains a commonwealth of the United States—a territory under the territorial clause in the United States Constitution. But, Puerto Rico’s relationship to the United States remains hotly debated. Puerto Ricans voted on their status in 1967, 1991, 1993, and 1998. In 1967, 60% of Puerto Ricans voted to maintain their commonwealth status, while 39% voted for statehood and 1% for independence. In 1991, Puerto Ricans voted not to review their commonwealth status. The 1993 vote yielded the following support for each option: 48.6% for commonwealth, 46.3% for statehood, and 4.4% for independence. In 1998, 46.49% of Puerto Ricans voted for statehood while 2.54% wanted independence, 0.29% voted for a “free association” with the United States, and just 0.06% voted to maintain the commonwealth. The problem with the 1998 vote was the 50% of the population that voted “none of the above.”

With no clear picture of the Puerto Rican people’s wishes, President Clinton issued Executive Order 13183, creating a Task Force on Puerto Rico’s Status. The purpose of this task force was to make recommendations for “the Commonwealth’s future status; to discuss such proposals with representatives of the people of Puerto Rico and the Congress; to work with leaders of the Commonwealth and the Congress to clarify the options to enable Puerto Ricans to determine their preference among options for the islands’ future status that are not incompatible with the Constitution and basic laws and policies of the United States; and to implement such an option if chosen by a majority, including helping Puerto Ricans obtain a governing arrangement under which they would vote for national government officials, if they choose such a status.”

The first Report by the President’s Task Force on Puerto Rico’s Status was published in December, 2005 (the recommendations of the Task Force can be found on page 10). The Task Force determined that Puerto Ricans had three choices for their future: remain a territorial commonwealth, become a state, or become an independent, sovereign state. The Task Force recommended two plebiscites, or referendums. The first would determine whether the Puerto Rican people wanted to remain a U.S. territory. The second, depending on the first, would either provide for Puerto Rico’s statehood or independence, or make arrangements to regularly consult Puerto Ricans as to their territorial status. The 2007 Task Force Report reiterates these same points.

• From the Congressional Research Service: R. Sam Garrett, “Political Status of Puerto Rico: Options for Congress,” June 7, 2011 & R. Sam Garrett, “Puerto Rico’s Political Status and the 2012 Plebiscite: Background and Key Questions,” October 2, 2012.

The 2011 Task Force Report recommended that Puerto Ricans express their “will about status options” by the end of 2012. President Obama supported the new plebiscite. In the 2012 election, Puerto Ricans once again voted on their status. For the first time, Puerto Ricans were asked about their wishes in two parts, as recommended by the Task Force. 54% voted against continuing as a territorial commonwealth. Puerto Ricans were given three choices: statehood, independence, or “sovereign free association”—which would give Puerto Ricans more autonomy. 6% voted for independence, 33% for the sovereign free association, and 61% for statehood. For some, this vote yielded the first decisive result. Many still see problems with the vote, however. First of all, a plebiscite is not a means to statehood. The path to statehood requires a joint resolution from the United States Congress, signed by the President.

So where does that leave Puerto Rico? Still in limbo—for now. There are still many Puerto Ricans and Americans on either side of the debate. Many Puerto Ricans favor statehood because independence would certainly mean failure as a state—Puerto Rico’s economy is too fragile and its politicians too corrupt to function without the help of the United States. However, some fear that statehood would result in a loss of Puerto Rican identity and culture. Still others are tired of existing as American citizens denied their citizenship rights—it is a curious case that Puerto Ricans cannot vote for the President, have no voting representatives in Congress, and yet are U.S. citizens that can be conscripted. Some Republicans in the United States fear that admitting Puerto Rico as a state would equate the addition of new democratic senators and representatives, despite Puerto Rico’s traditional Catholic values. Many are worried about admitting a state with a majority Spanish-speaking population. Still others believe adding a 51^st state, especially one that the U.S. government already supports economically, would not be a burden to the United States.

Puerto Rico may soon end its 115-year run as a colony of the United States. It remains to be seen whether the U.S. Congress will act on this most recent plebiscite. Barack Obama has pledged to fulfill the wishes of the Puerto Rican people, but must wait for a joint resolution from Congress.

For current debates about Puerto Rican statehood see:

• President Obama in Puerto Rico, June 2011
• Art Fennell Reports—Puerto Rico: The 51^st State?
• Sold Principles Radio Show: United States Plus One-The Prospect of Puerto Rico as the 51^st State
• Glenn Beck, Puerto Rico: the 51^st State
• Preview: Puerto Rico: The Time Has Come
• Source Fed: Puerto Rico 51^st State?!

For Teachers:

• Classroom Activity: Debate the Status of Puerto Rico
  • Have students take a position on Puerto Rico’s imminent future: should the island become the 51^st state, remain a commonwealth, gain independence, or have some other association with the United States?
  • Stage debates at crucial points in Puerto Rico’s history (1898, 1900, 1917, 1952, or in the future)
  • Students may argue as themselves, or assume the identity of an important historical figure in U.S.-Puerto Rican relations. If drawing on others’ ideas, make sure students still craft their own arguments using their own words.
• Discuss famous Puerto Ricans and their contributions to American culture and society, e.g. Joaquin Phoenix, Benicio del Toro, Jennifer Lopez, Ricky Martin, Elizabeth Vargas, and Geraldo Rivera
• Check out the Curriculum Unit “The Heritage and Culture of Puerto Ricans” at the New Haven Teachers Institute

For more information:

• Visit the U.S. History Scene reading lists for the Atlantic World and Imperialism & Colonialism

In 1773, Connecticut native John Ledyard dropped out of Dartmouth College to travel the world. From 1776 to 1780, he traversed the Pacific as a member of British explorer Captain James Cook’s crew. John Ledyard was the first United States citizen to reach the west coast of the American continent, the first to see the Hawaiian archipelago, and the first to witness maritime fur trade between the Northwest American coast and China – and he had no idea the United States even existed. Ledyard was unaware that he left England on Cook’s ship just before British American colonists signed the Declaration of Independence. ((Kariann AkemiYokota, Unbecoming British: How Revolutionary American Became a Postcolonial Nation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 150.))

Captain Cook’s Third Voyage, cited from http://bravowebs.com/eveh/maps.html

Read historian Jared Sparks’ Memoirs of the Life and Travels of John Ledyard from his Journals and Correspondence (1828)

John Ledyard returned to New England in the 1780s to find several British American colonies newly minted as the United States. In the first decade of United States independence, he was a vocal advocate for U.S. involvement in the lucrative maritime fur trade he had witnessed on his voyage. While life in the new United States may have been provincial for most, and Atlantic for some, the Pacific was central to John Ledyard’s life. He saw an opportunity for the new United States, not to connect the Americas to the Pacific World, but to enter a world already connected for centuries.

The United States as a political body or geographic place did not exist until 1776. Early American histories that focus on the British colonies creates a shared past and a nation where one did not yet exist. The East-to-West narrative of United States history means certain regions only enter the story when Anglo-Americans begin to populate them or the United States annexes them. Like Spanish and French colonial America, Pacific stories are rarely included in U.S. history before the mid-eighteenth century.  The United States acquired overseas territories in the Pacific from Alaska in 1867 to Hawai’i, the Philippines, and Guam in 1898, and the most recent—the Trust Territory of the Pacific after World War II. Like the thirteen British colonies that first formed the United States, these places also have a history that predates the formation and arrival of the United States. A completely different story emerges when we reorient early American history so that the western American continent becomes the Eastern Pacific.

One way that historians can paint a more accurate picture of early America is to trace connections that transcend present-day political boundaries. This short article does not attempt to encompass all aspects of the Pacific World. That effort has been undertaken by Dennis O. Flynn and Arturo Giráldez in The Pacific World: Lands, Peoples, and the History of the Pacific, 1500-1900 and has taken seventeen volumes to accomplish. ((Dennis O. Flynn and Arturo Giráldez eds., The Pacific World: Lands, Peoples, and History of the Pacific, 1500-1900, 17 vols, (Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2001-2010).)) Instead, we focus on two trans-Pacific trade routes in the sixteenth to nineteenth-centuries: the galleon trade between Manila and Acapulco and maritime fur trade between the Pacific Northwest and China. These trade routes moved goods, but also peoples, cultures, and ideas across and throughout the Pacific.

Manila Galleon Trade (1565-1815)

From the sixteenth to the early-nineteenth century, the Pacific Ocean was known as the Spanish Lake. In 1565, Spanish navigator Andrés de Urdaneta discovered a path from the Philippines to the Spanish Americas by sailing north from Manila to capture favorable winds in the North Pacific. This 1565 voyage marked the beginning of the Manila galleon trade that would persist into the nineteenth century. Two to three times per year, giant Spanish ships called galleons laden with prized goods from Asia goods traveled across the Pacific to New Spain by way of the Spanish colony in the Philippines. The galleons returned to Asia with silver mined in Spanish Latin America. Once goods arrived in Acapulco, they were transported across the American continent to Spanish ports in the Atlantic. In this manner, goods from Asia traversed first the Pacific to the Americas, then the Atlantic to Europe, creating the first truly global trade. ((Matt K. Matsuda, Pacific Worlds (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 116.))

A Spanish Galleon

These galleon ships carried goods, but they also carried people and their cultures. The Spanish employed Filipino workers on galleon crews from the beginning of the trade in the sixteenth century. Filipinos built the galleon ships and many traveled to or settled in the Americas. ((Matsuda, Pacific Worlds, 119.)) Because the ships moved slowly through the islands surrounding the Philippines, Micronesian islands, and American bays, the galleons connected and transformed cultures along the way. While trans-Pacific trade could mean hybridization and positive cultural interactions, it also involved environmental destruction, reckless slaughter, and indigenous slave labor. The same galleons carrying prized goods from China brought slaves from throughout Asia to work in the silver mines of Spanish Latin America. ((ibid, 124))

The Spanish were not the only European imperialists in the Pacific Ocean. California became connected to the Pacific World because of interimperial competition. The Spanish had claimed California and first became interested in developing Alta California as a stopping place for weary galleon crews before they reached Acapulco, although they found its coast rocky, inhospitable, and unsuitable for development. No action was taken until necessitated by increased threats to galleon ships and their treasures from English pirates such as Francis Drake and Thomas Cavendish. ((Iris H.W. Engstrand, “Seekers of the ‘Northern Mystery’: European Exploration of California and the Pacific,” California History 76, no. 2/3 (Summer-Fall 1997): 88-90.)) The Spanish first settled Alta California in 1769 as a strategic buffer against foreign aggression. ((Engstrand, “Seekers,” 92.)) Spanish missionaries soon followed, setting up missions throughout California. Through its connections to the Manila galleon trade, California became a self-sufficient part of the Spanish Empire.

Video: History professors Alan Taylor, Clarence Walker, and Karen Ordahl Kupperman on Spanish Colonization of North America:

Video: 4^th Grade Lecture for elementary school children: Early European Exploration of California

Maritime Fur Trade

To the north, a new trade was emerging that could rival the Spanish position in the Pacific. In 1741, Russians made contact with Native Americans on the Northwest Coast of the American continent. That first expedition returned in 1742 with otter skins that sold well in China. Russians returned to establish a colony and contract native labor to procure the prized pelts. We might recognize this region as present-day Alaska, but until the Russian empire sold the land to the United States in 1867, it was known as Russian America.

Russian America in 1860

Maritime fur trade brought furs from the Northwest Coast of America to China and brought Chinese goods back to America. The Hawaiian Islands became a way station on this journey, linking Hawaiians to the Pacific trade. A Pacific triangular trade network, much like the one that developed between Africa, Europe, and the Americas in the Atlantic, developed between China, Hawaii, and the Northwest American Coast. The Russians held a monopoly over this lucrative trade until British Captain James Cook’s third voyage brought him to the Northwest American Coast in the late 1770s. There Cook’s crew discovered, like the Russians had decades earlier, that furs obtained from the natives could be sold in Canton, China for a 400% profit. ((James R. Gibson, Otter Skins, Boston Ships, and China Goods: The Maritime Fur Trade of the Northwest Coat, 1785-1841 (Quebec City: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1992), 23.)) The British ended the Russian monopoly on Northwest Coast fur trade. U.S. Americans dominated the maritime trade with China within a decade of its opening by the British. ((Gibson, Otter Skins, 35))

• Read John R. Bockstoce’s The Opening of the Maritime Fur Trade at Bering Strait online
  
• The Russian-American Company in Hawaii
  

The first U.S. ship to travel to China, the Empress of China, departed the new United States on February 22, 1784—the same day that the Edward sailed for England with the newly ratified Articles of Peace between the United States and Great Britain after the Revolutionary War. ((Yokota, Unbecoming British, 115.)) The trans-Pacific fur trade opened at an opportune moment for the fledgling United States: New England merchants needed to escape the economic depression that followed the Revolutionary War and replace their lost trading partners in the British Isles and West Indies. ((Gibson, Otter Skins, 36.)) The United States needed commerce to generate wealth after the war and had idle ships and sailors who could participate.

New U.S. Americans placed a great deal of symbolic value on the voyage of the Empress. Material goods represented independence. Under the Navigation Acts, the British American colonies received all goods through British trade and British ships. If the United States could trade with China independently, it would prove they no longer needed the British to provide Asian goods. ((Yokota, Unbecoming British, 116.)) The United States initially had trouble establishing a foothold in the Canton trade, but eventually found success trading ginseng and “soft gold”—sea otter fur. ((ibid, 149)) Before the nineteenth century, California’s sea otter population remained untapped. The sea otter industry boomed between 1803 and 1812 when the Russian-American Company’s contract labor system coordinated with U.S American traders. The two imperialist powers joined forces, enslaving skilled Aleut and Kodiak otter hunters from the Northwest Coast and sending them to California to provide the precious pelts. ((David Igler, The Great Ocean: Pacific Worlds from Captain Cook to the Gold Rush (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 108.))

A Pacific Approach to U.S. History

The United States citizens who were actively involved in Pacific trade disrupt the traditional narrative of United States history: a march from East to West as Anglo-Americans triumphantly conquered the continent. Manifest Destiny, the belief that the United States was destined to expand overland across the American continent, still looms large in the stories we tell about America’s past. The familiar story highlights the hopes of expansionists who dreamed that one day, when the United States expanded to the Pacific coast of the American continent, U.S. Americans would have access to the natural resources and trade opportunities in the Pacific Ocean. But, by the time the United States expanded to the Pacific Coast in the 1840s, U.S. citizens had been involved in Pacific trade for decades. ((Igler, The Great Ocean, 125.))

United States Possessions

In 1955, when Senator Mike Monroney opposed Hawaiian statehood, he based his argument on the idea that United States westward expansion happened overland, in wagons filled with frontiersmen and dedicated homesteaders. Historian John Whitehead notes, “the senator’s explanation of the normal pattern of migration included no mention of ships or boats. He seemed unaware that anyone had ever gone West by such craft, even to California.” ((John Whitehead, “Hawai’i: The First and Last Far West?” Western Historical Quarterly 23, no. 2 (May, 1992): 156.)) The distance across the American continent from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean on a map obscures the fact that the Pacific was much closer to the early United States than the majority of the western continent that remained divided from the early United States by the Rocky Mountains. When California became a U.S. state, it was “separated from the nearest other state, Texas or Iowa, depending on your routing, by some 1,500 miles of desert and mountains that were more difficult to traverse than the 2,500 miles of ocean between Hawai’i and the mainland.” ((Whitehead, “Hawai’i,” 155.)) Before railroads cut across the American continent, California was reached by way of the Pacific Ocean.

It’s a story we all think we know. Following World War II, the baby boomer generation was born. After living through the stifling conformity of the 1950s, American teenagers rebelled. It all started with Elvis, then the British Invasion and the hysteria known as “Beatlemania.” Teenagers got wrapped up in that no-good rock ’n’ roll and by the end of the 1960s they were painting their faces, taking hallucinogens, and singing kumbayah at “love-ins.” Or at least that’s how it looked to their parents, the so-called “greatest generation” who prided themselves on having fought in WWII to secure freedom for the United States and the world. The counterculture that emerged in opposition to the older generation in the 1960s was the defining moment of the emergence of adolescence as something markedly different from childhood or adulthood.

Or was it?

Not so, say Matt Wolf and Jon Savage. These two have recently teamed up to turn Jon Savage’s book Teenage into a documentary film. The film Teenage begins with some familiar images of post-WWII adolescent rebellion, then rewinds. The story that follows is one that begins at the end of the nineteenth century, when the end of child labor spawned a new stage of life: adolescence.

The film Teenage is, most simply, a collection of primary sources. It is a stream of footage and images overlaid with teenage voices that recreates an era previously lost to history. Before Elvis’ swinging hips, the Beatles’ shaking heads, and the defining moment of the 1960s counterculture, before they were “all wasted!” (thank you, Pete Townshend), teenagers existed. Teenage shows the lives of these early-twentieth-century teenagers, as they rebelled against the older generation and tried to shape the world they would one day inherit.

Teenage official trailer

What drew you to this project and did you have any previous interest in history or historical documentary filmmaking in particular?

Well, I’ve always been kind of obsessed with archival material and I’ve actually never made a film that takes place in the present. All of my films deal with biographies or cultural materials from the past. I had never done a project that was this broad in scope, but I was inspired by the book by Jon Savage. I knew Jon Savage through his book England’s Dreaming which is really the definitive history of punk rock. And so I was really excited to read Teenage when I heard about it because one of my obsessions is hidden histories or forgotten biographies and Teenage is just filled with those. I was just fascinated by all the youth groups I’d never heard of and the biographies of these forgotten teenage figures. I was also intrigued by this project of looking at things through the lens of a prehistory and doing a whole prehistory of a phenomenon that we all are familiar with and we all understand. I love the idea of doing a story that ends with the beginning. So, I got inspired to make a different kind of historical film, one that doesn’t take on the image of the Ken Burns, but that does something different. I felt like Jon’s book was infused with that punk rock sensibility and I wanted my filmmaking to be, too.

• Check out U.S. History Scene’s interview with documentary filmmaker Ken Burns

What about the book Teenage made it seem like it would translate well into a film?

All I wanted to do was see things that were being described in the book. I wanted to see the Wandervogel, I wanted to see images of the German swing kids that were being discussed in the book, and so it was basically that curiosity to see what these young people look like, to see their faces and their style.

How did the collaboration between you and Jon Savage get started?

We made a rule for ourselves early on that any story we told had to have a strong basis in actual archival footage. So, our whole process was grounded in archival research and we collaborated with a professional archival researcher. Our lead researcher was Rosemary Rotondi and she enlisted researchers at the National Archives in Washington, DC, a researcher in London, and also we worked with researchers and scholars in Germany as well. We would feed lists of topics to these researchers and they would give us footage and based on what we found we would develop our story and also seek more footage with more specific goals in mind. Early on we decided we didn’t want to have a central, authoritative expert telling the history. We wanted to tell it from the point of view of youth to really embody the kind of emotional experience and that spirit of rebellion that kind of comes out from the teenage experience. Jon’s book has tons and tons of first-person quotes from real teenagers from these periods and so he continued to source more of these quotes and we sourced a lot of them from a German author as well. Those became the fabric of the script that’s used for narration in the film.

So, it sounds like instead of starting with a story and finding evidence to fit that, you started with the sources and let them lead you to the story?

Yeah, we had a basic argument in mind, which is that there are these competing definitions of youth that start percolating after the end of child labor when this new second stage of life emerges. And we wanted to identify what those competing definitions were and what these different models were for dealing with youth: were they a problem, were they an opportunity, were they, kind of, heroes or were they villains? We decided that those themes and those competing attitudes played out most intensively in America, England, and Germany. So, we kind of telescoped our focus to those regions and to stories that played out these themes between adults trying to control youth because they represent the future and young people fighting back trying to create their own world. And that was the filter through which we looked at material and we tried to sketch out a path in which this emergent idea of the teenager was being created.

Could you say a little more about the extensive archival research? How much time did you spend and what kind of efforts went into that?

Yeah. We worked with over a hundred archives and the process unfolded over four years. We were really looking for stuff that didn’t feel like stock footage, that felt like real home movies, amateur films, or unedited rushes from a journalist’s camera. So that was the kind of material we were after. Every time we would approach an archive we would get a lot of stock footage, but there would be something in there that was different, that felt actually subjective and from the point of view of a real person. We would highlight and flag that material and ask the archivist if they had anything else like that. And then there were some more obscure topics, for instance the German Wandervogel, the German youth movements, the German swing kids, or the Bright Young People—really specific youth movements that we knew we wanted to portray. The kind of material on those movements is very scarce so we did more specialized and intensive digging as we searched for footage on those movements.

Can you tell me more about what I’ve heard you call the “living collage” approach and how this was different from other historical documentaries you’ve worked on or seen?

Yeah, I mean I think the conventional logic of historians or documentary filmmakers is to use primary sources to illustrate facts and to illustrate things that are being said. It’s about literal illustration. We took a different approach. We use archival material a little more expressionistically and lyrically, you could say. Like I said, I felt like Jon’s book really had this punk quality to the way that he looked at early twentieth century history and I wanted my filmmaking, too, to have that quality. So, we were talking early on in our process about punk, and Jon remembered that in the 1970s he saw these young punks wearing thrift clothes from previous youth cultures—like rocker suits and zoot suits—and they would cut them up and literally reassemble them with safety pins into something that was clearly contemporary and new. And that visual premise really inspired me. What if we take all of these fragments of youth from the past, these images from films and photographs, but also voices of youth from primary sources, and what if we collage them together to make a new work that deals in the past but is meant to resonate in the now and to help people reflect on the world of youth now, today? So in a sense we kind of felt like the film was a living collage, inspired by this thing Jon had observed with punks in the 1970s in England.

So once you decided on that approach, how did you go about deciding what to leave out of the film? What are some of the interesting things that got left on the cutting room floor that got left out from choosing to focus on the United States, England, and Germany?

One thing in particular I was really fascinated by were the French zazou. They were a movement that was really similar to the Hamburg swing kids, but it was in France and we found literally no footage of them so that was one thing we couldn’t cover. There were also just some moments in the genesis of teenagers as a market demographic. For instance, when The Wizard of Oz came out, Judy Garland released a dress line at Macy’s and there was pandemonium outside of Macy’s with young girls trying to buy the dress, but we couldn’t find anything on it! No images, not even any headlines. So there’s always kind of beats in this history that reinforce our ideas but there just wasn’t visual material for so we just couldn’t focus on that. But, there’s so much that we did find that it was easy to kind of focus on that stuff.

The film is centered around four main characters: Brenda Dean Paul, Melita Maschmann, Tommie Scheel, and Warren Wall. What was the motivation behind using these characters to frame your story and the decision to feature women’s voices and black voices?

Basically, I wanted to telescope into the experience of individuals. I knew this would be a panoramic cultural history, but I thought the film might need what I call beats, in which people have a moment to slow down, and really just experience the portrait of an individual. It’s something that’s in Jon’s book that I really loved. To me, it was important to create a certain kind of demographic diversity for the characters that we chose with one idea that they were all teenage rebels in an unconventional sense. I think Brenda Dean Paul appealed to me because she was like a proto-Lindsay Lohan type. The media and paparazzi were obsessed with her and loved to condemn her and she kind of fell apart publicly. But, she was kind of glamorously identified with being young. With Melita Maschmann, there’s so much hypnotic imagery with Hitler Youth in the masses, but it’s so rare to really focus on their experiences from the point of view of an individual. I think what’s not often really known is that young people who joined the Hitler Youth or the BDM (the girls’ division) were really rebelling against their parents’ generation and they were kind of coming at it from a place of desperation because Germany was in such economic and political turmoil. They were looking for a new model and a new path that was different from their parents and I think it was really important to, I wouldn’t say humanize, but to kind of show how teenage rebellion could go wrong in a way, but also could be a deeply political impulse. And then, Tommie Scheel is so important to me because he is this character where pop culture and politics collide. He’s doing what kids do, like listening to music, dressing up in cool clothes, and dancing but, the way that he’s doing it is actually an incredibly subversive form of rebellion. He and his friends were risking their lives. And it was super inspiring to me to see the political dimension of culture like that. And then Warren Wall was so important because there was such a dearth of material on African American teens from this period. They were completely excluded from the official records of the day. And we searched and searched for any young people of color and it was very challenging. But, in this sociological study called Negro Youth at the Crossroads, we found this extended interview with an African American boy scout from the 1940s. It was such a good portrait of a person at that time and I knew I wanted to bring to light that point of view. But I also saw Warren as an unlikely kind of rebel. He’s trying to advance in society and, more or less, he’s a kind of square hampered by the color of his skin and that breeds a kind of rebellious impulse as well. So I thought it was a really important contrast to a lot of the other more flamboyant characters that are profiled. And to me they all form this kind of composite portrait of the teenager that was about to be born.

They also seem like people that kids who watch the movie could relate to.

Totally and I think, you know, some people have asked what about the kids who were conformist, the kids who kind of sit in their bedroom just kind of toiling away. What I would say is that this film is not necessarily about typical youth, it’s about exceptional youth. All of those characters were exceptional youth. They weren’t only operating on the status quo, they were going to the extremes. And those were the types of characters and the types of youth that I was most inspired by.

Most of us have spent most of our teenage years taking history classes. After working on this film, what do you feel was missing from the history your were taught? What do you wish, when you were a teenager in the history classroom, would’ve been included in the story?

It’s so funny because I actually didn’t connect to history when I was in high school. It’s not a subject I really paid attention to or realized I was that interested in. I think that often the thing that’s missing is the subjectivity of people in the time. And I’m sure there’s curriculum and historians who really emphasize that but as a teenager myself, studying history, I don’t think I ever connected to the subjective experience of people who were living through those events. It was really an emphasis on the broad strokes. I think that was kind of my angle with this film, really making something that is comprehensive but highly subjective—something that’s told from the point of view of youth. I think it’s an entry point for people and comes from a place where we find universal sentiments that kind of cross different generations and eras as well.

How could you imagine a teacher using this film in the classroom?

I think it would be interesting for them to tell the story of an individual character, to talk about the experience of an individual as a way to look at broader history—looking at Melita to talk about the rise of Nazism and fascism in WWII. But I also think that what’s unique about this film, perhaps, is that it uses the past as a way for us to reflect on today. That’s really my goal, is for people to look at the past and see how the patterns and dynamics in youth culture and in history repeat themselves. So, I figure it could be a useful exercise to watch excerpts from the film maybe around the Great Depression and the crisis surrounding unemployment and to ask young people to reflect on how they see those things playing out today with the incredible unemployment of young people and the occupation movements that have exploded around the world.

Do you feel like there’s a message for American teenagers?

I guess my message is that rebellion is often disregarded as this emotional rite of passage and teenagers are often condemned by the older generation for not being creative, for being apolitical and apathetic, but I would argue through this film that there’s a great political and cultural substance to teenage rebellion and that it’s hard to identify the most meaningful strands of them as it’s happening. It takes time and retrospect to really understand those things. Teenagers should be looked at in a more thoughtful way. We should recognize that young people are always imagining the future and that their impulses are meaningful.

Do you feel like the film has a message for academic historians as well?

Well, I think the film would be controversial for academic historians. It uses recreations in a fairly seamless way. It uses primary sources in a way that doesn’t fully contextualize. It is a living collage and in that way the project might be perceived as controversial to a traditional historian or an academic. But, I’m coming at it from the perspective of a filmmaker, not as an academic and I’m inspired by these primary sources and interested in experimenting with them to paint a picture of a time and a place, to really explore something that feels very familiar but that is a story that we haven’t heard before.

If there are people interested in tracing some of the things that show up in the film, how would they do that?

I think the primary sources for our four main characters could be interesting. Melita Maschmann, the Hitler Youth girl’s story, was published in a book that Melita wrote called An Account Rendered, which is a really fascinating book that’s recently been republished. Brenda Dean Paul wrote a diary. It’s very rare and hard to come by, but it was called My First Life, by Brenda Dean Paul. Tommie Scheel’s story is a story of swing in Nazi Germany, was accounted in a book called Different Drummers. And then Warren Wall’s experiences and interview is in the sociological book called Negro Youth at the Crossroads. So I think those are four great places to start in terms of identifying these characters and to look further into their background.

• Melita Maschmann’s An Account Rendered: A Dossier on my Former Self
• Read Helen Epstein’s New Yorker piece on Melita: “I Was a Nazi, and Here’s Why”
• Read Lynda Maureen Willet’s M.A. Thesis: “Women Under National Socialism: The Case Study of Melita Maschmann”
• Read “Brenda Dean Paul: 1920s ‘society drug addict’” from the Writing Women’s History blog
• Preview Michael H. Kater’s Different Drummers: Jazz in the Culture of Nazi Germany

Do you think, after doing this project, that you’ll embark on another broad, historical project like this again?

I don’t know. I’m not currently working on one, but it was an incredible challenge to wrangle this much material and to deal with such a larger topic. I’m interested in continuing to work with archival material, to tell stories from the past that I think might resonate in the now.

For more on the history of teens, check out the Teenage film blog: http://www.teenagefilm.com/blog

On a standard map of the United States, Hawaii sits in the bottom left corner in a box next to Alaska. It would seem that the islands are as close to the Southwest as Cuba is to Florida. These maps obscure the fact that the distance between Los Angeles and Honolulu is roughly the same distance as L.A.to New York City. The sense of closeness modern American maps imply has been carefully created. Hawaii was once an independent kingdom in the Pacific, far from the reaches of the fledgling republic of the United States of America. Today, Hawaii is the 50^th state, as American as it is exotic. Our current president, Barack Obama, was born there. Today, the status of its statehood is rarely questioned by those in the continental United States, but it was a long, complex road that changed a Pacific kingdom into the Aloha State.

The Hawaiian Kingdom (1810-1893)

In January 1778, during the second year of the American Revolution, a British explorer, Captain James Cook, landed on the Pacific island of Kauai. The British Admiralty and the British Royal Society sponsored Cook’s exploration of the previously Spanish dominated Pacific. He famously probed the major islands of Australia and New Zealand, which later enabled the British settler societies to colonize the South Pacific. He named the contemporary Hawaiian islands the “Sandwich Islands,” after the Earl of Sandwich.

The islands were not empty. In fact, Cook encountered a well-developed society.

The present-day Hawaiian Island were first settled by Polynesian seafarers over a thousand years before Cook’s arrival. These Polynesian explorers first settled on the coasts, and then moved further inland as the population increased. When Cook arrived, it is estimated that somewhere between 200,000 and 1,000,000 people lived there—today Hawaii’s population is just 1,374,810.

Ancient Hawaiian society developed into a caste society, comparable to India’s. A land tenure system existed in the islands that looked much like the feudal system in Medieval Europe. Farming was integral to Hawaii. The people grew crops including sweet potatoes, yams, and bananas, and kept livestock. A complex legal system existed based on religious taboos, known as kapu. One of the most serious kapu was that men and women were not allowed to eat together. Breaking this law was punishable by death.

Captain Cook died on the island of Hawaii, just a year after his arrival. Cook attempted to take Kalaniopuu, the King of the island of Hawaii, hostage as collateral for a stolen boat. A Hawaiian chief killed Cook in retaliation.

European contact coincided with a fierce struggle for power in the islands. There were four dominant chiefdoms that vied for power over the islands: the Hawaii, Maui, Oahu, and Kauai. Chief Kamehameha managed to conquer all islands except for Niihau and Kauai. He gained control of the remaining islands through diplomacy by 1810.

Kamehameha (1810-1819) proclaimed himself king of the Hawaiian Islands, ending feudalistic chiefdoms. With his rule, Hawaii became a constitutional monarchy, modeled after Europe. Although he accepted many western customs, he maintained kapu, the religious laws that governed Hawaiian society.

The British Empire, which would battle to hold its imperial ties in North America during the War of 1812, considered the islands to be a British protectorate. As King Kamehameha was able to rule a united Hawaiian kingdom, the British crown recognized Kamehameha as the legitimate ruler with the hope that he would maintain order and allow the British to use the islands in their increasing Pacific trade networks with China.

• Learn more about ancient Hawaiian culture here
• Read The Hawaiian Kingdom by Ralph S. Kuykendall here
• Read the British Consul General in Hawaii’s “biography of a nation”: Manley Hopkins, Hawaii: The Past, Present, and Future of its Island Kingdom (London: Longman, Green, Longman, and Roberts, 1862)

In 1819, King Kamehameha died from an unknown illness. After his death, his son Liholiho, or King Kamehameha II (1819-1824) came to power. But, when Liholiho arrived to take power, he discovered that Kamehameha’s favorite wife, Queen Kaahumanu, had already done so herself. She boldly invited Liholiho to a feast in which men and women would dine together, violating kapu.

Shortly thereafter, Queen Kaahumanu and King Kamehameha II officially ended kapu. In doing so, they ended the old religion that had governed life in the islands, just months before the arrival of American protestant missionaries. Christianity allowed Kaahumanu to restore order in the islands in the midst of the chaos from the end of kapu. Throughout the remainder of the nineteenth century, missionaries radically changed Hawaii. The introduction of Christianity meant outlawing many tenets of Hawaiian culture including hula and traditional healing. The Hawaiian people had lost their faith, traditions, and quite literally themselves. Much like Native Americans on theU.S.mainland, the native population in Hawaii dwindled rapidly due to the introduction of new diseases such as smallpox. In the midst of this chaos, missionaries offered hope through Christianity and western civilization. Furthermore, they provided Hawaiians with written language and by the 1830’s,Hawaii held the highest literacy rate in the world.

By the time Queen Kaahumanu died in 1832, Hawaii was a Christian nation. Foreigners from Europe and the United States began to settle in the islands at a rapid rate. At a time of rapid territorial expansion, the islands were a hot commodity for these imperial powers. There were lucrative opportunities for trade in Hawaii from sandalwood to whaling. Foreign powers found it easy to influence the monarchy, weak from loss of population. In 1839, the French forced Kamehameha III to sign the Edict of Toleration, in which the Hawaiian government and allowed the establishment of a Hawaiian Catholic Church and ended the persecution of Catholics that had begun at the behest of Protestant missionaries.

In 1843, the British, under Captain Lord George Paulet, occupied the Hawaiian Islands for five months because of a land dispute involving a Briton, Richard Charlton. Hawaiian sovereignty was restored by Rear Admiral Richard Thomas five months later, who renounced the actions of Charlton and Paulet. In 1849, the French arrived in Honolulu with ten demands for the monarchy, including an end to continued persecution of Catholics and high tariffs on French goods. When these demands were not met in a timely fashion, the French invaded Honolulu and captured the city. They left one month later, after raiding government buildings and other property in Honolulu.

In the face of increasing European interest in the islands, Kamehameha III decided to solicit protection from the United States. On March 10, 1851, the King formally applied to the United States Congress to become a protectorate of the United States. Hawaii did not become a protectorate of the United States in 1851, but the seeds were sown for the relationship of dependence that would color the remaining years of the Hawaiian monarchy.

• Read the debate transcript from in the U.S. Senate about the Paulet Affair here
• Read “An Unpublished Chapter of Hawaiian History” Harper’s New Monthly Magazine 67, (1883): 511-520.

The Business of American Missionaries

Kamehameha III filled his cabinet with foreign-born ministers who advised him on how to rule the islands. In 1848, the Mahele divided Hawaiian lands into private property for the first time. In 1850, the Alien Land Ownership Act allowed for foreign ownership of Hawaiian lands. Because of Hawaiian unfamiliarity with private property, higher classes and foreigners were easily able to obtain much of the land in the islands, leaving many native Hawaiians landless. Much of the available land was bought up by Protestant missionaries and their descendants.

American missionary families, over the years, became extremely successful businessmen. While the whaling industry declined, these missionaries-turned-entrepreneurs found great success in the creation of vast sugar plantations in the islands. Soon, the need for labor surpassed the number of available workers. Immigrants from Japan,China, the Philippines,Korea,Portugal, and other nations came to Hawaii to labor on these booming plantations. This sparked the creation of an extremely diverse population inHawaii. Meanwhile, a new class of wealthy, white planters emerged in Hawaii alongside the growing immigrant population.

By the 1850’s, three-fourths of all business in Hawaii was controlled by American businessmen, and the primary export market was to America’s Pacific Coast. These missionary families acquired great wealth, and then great political power, even forming their own political party—the Missionary Party. With perceived instability on the part of the Hawaiian monarchy, these families began to push for annexation in order to ensure protection from the United States.

In 1854, the United States made its first attempt to annex the Hawaiian Islands.

The treaty was negotiated between U.S. Commissioner David L. Gregg and Hawaiian Minister of Foreign Affairs Robert Crichton Wyllie. For King Kamehameha III, annexation would further ensure Hawaii’s security, much like the protectorate had. Negotiations were underway when King Kamehameha III died in December of 1854. His heir, Kamehameha IV, ended all negotiations with Gregg, in effect killing any possible annexation treaty.

Read Hawaiian-born missionary descendant William De Witt Alexander’s take on the Uncompleted Treaty of Annexation of 1854, including text of the treaty in the appendix here

However, the Missionary Party continued to push for greater ties. During the Civil War, demand for sugar increased as a result of the blockade from the Confederate states that had provided it previously. American planters in Hawaii saw that they were perfectly poised to fill the market, but did not like the high tariff rates they encountered. The Reciprocity Treaty of 1875 allowed for duty-free importation of Hawaiian sugar. In exchange, the United States was granted land for a naval base, which eventually became Pearl Harbor.

The wealth gained from this new treaty was largely concentrated in the hands of a few of the corporations descended from missionary families, known as “The Big Five.” These corporations—Castle & Cooke, Alexander & Baldwin, C. Brewer & Co., American Factors, and Theo H. Davies & Co.—not only controlled the sugar industry, but had a hand in most of Hawaii’s economic matters. Furthermore, these elites enjoyed a close relationship with the Hawaiian monarchy—one they would betray when that relationship was no longer profitable.

• An early annexation debate in the New York Tribune: “Annexation of the Sandwich Islands,” New York Tribune (July 20, 1854), 4.
• Read instructions given to diplomatic representatives of the United States in the Hawaiian Islands (1881-1893)
• Read instructions given to naval officers of the United States with reference to affairs in the Hawaiian Islands (1881-1893)

The End of the Hawaiian Monarchy (1887-1893)

King Kalakaua (1874-1891) began his reign as a friend to the United States. He negotiated the aforementioned Reciprocity Treaty. In 1881, he became the first king to travel around the world, leaving his sister, Liliuokalani to rule as regent in his absence. During Kalakaua’s reign, he also built the iconic ‘Iolani Palace, which still stands today.

The Missionary Party was unhappy with Kalakaua’s rule, most importantly his spending. Those who favored annexation joined together in a group called the Hawaiian League. In 1887, the League forced Kalakaua at gunpoint to sign a new constitution that virtually stripped the monarchy of its power. Known as the “Bayonet Constitution” because of the manner in which King Kalakaua was forced to sign it, the new constitution further consolidated power in the hands of wealthy elites.

Queen Liliuokalani, the last monarch of the Hawaiian Kingdom, came to power in 1891 after her brother Kalakaua died of illness in San Francisco.

The situation in Hawaii worsened drastically towards the end of the nineteenth century due to the 1890 Tariff Act, also known as the McKinley Tariff. In 1891, just before the tariff went into effect, 274,982,295 pounds of sugar was transported from Hawaii to the United States while Hawaii exported only 285 pounds to the rest of the world. ¹ The new tariff effectively ended the advantageous position American sugar planters had enjoyed under the Reciprocity Treaty. The effect of this economic downturn was felt by all Hawaiian residents. In the face of this crisis, in 1893 Queen Liliuokalani attempted to promulgate a new constitution, one that would place more power with the monarchy instead of the American and European-dominated legislature.

In response, members of the Missionary Party formed the Committee of Safety, a group committed to the end of the Hawaiian monarchy and U.S.annexation (which would eliminate all tariffs on sugar exports to the continental United States). Their plan to overthrow the monarchy was set into action on January 17, 1893. Committee members enlisted the Honolulu Rifles, an armed regiment of non-Hawaiians, to depose the Queen. U.S. Government Minister John L. Stevens simultaneously solicited the U.S.government for further protection, claiming that American lives were in danger. U.S. Marines soon joined the coup, leading to Queen Liliuokalani’s surrender.

“I Liliuokalani, by the Grace of God and under the Constitution of the Hawaiian Kingdom, Queen, do hereby solemnly protest against any and all acts done against myself and the Constitutional Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom by certain persons claiming to have established a Provisional Government of and for this Kingdom…Now to avoid any collision of armed forces, and perhaps the loss of life, I do, under this protest and impelled by said force, yield my authority until such time as the Government of the United States shall, upon the facts being presented to it, undo the action of its representative and reinstate me in the authority which I claim as the constitutional Sovereign of the Hawaiian Islands.” ²

• Read Queen Liliuokalani’s Autobiography here
• Letter from Liliuokalani, Queen of Hawaii to U.S. House of Representatives protesting U.S. assertion of ownership of Hawaii, December 19, 1898
• Mary H. Krout, Hawaii and a Revolution: The Personal Experiences of a Correspondent in the Sandwich Islands During the Crisis of 1893 and Subsequently (New York: Dodd, Mead and Company, 1898)
• Read Lucien Young, The Real Hawaii: Its History and Present Condition, Including the True Story of the Revolution (New York: Doubleday & McClure Company, 1899.

Debating Annexation (1893-1898)

In the aftermath of the coup, a provisional government was established under President Sanford Dole.

 

The provisional government in Hawaii, though pleased with the end of the monarchy, still desired complete annexation to the United States. Then-President Benjamin Harrison was also a strong supporter of annexation. Less than a month after the coup, he sent a treaty to the Senate to annex the Hawaiian Islands. In a message to the Senate he stated:

“Only two courses are now open; one the establishment of a protectorate by the United States, and the other, annexation full and complete. I think the latter course, which has been adopted in the treaty, will be highly promotive of the best interests of the Hawaiian people, and is the only one that will adequately secure the interests of the United States. These interests are not wholly selfish. It is essential that none of the other great powers shall secure these islands. Such a possession would not consist with our safety and with the peace of the world.” ³

In February 1893, the New York Tribune wrote: “Nothing can be more certain than that the sentiment of our country is practically unanimous in favor of a prompt ratification of the treaty. The views of the American people have grown with their growing empire.” As Democrats in Congress stalled the treaty, the Tribune warned that “the dangers of delay are numerous and serious,” especially when President Grover Cleveland was set to take office in just a short time. “If, too, we are to have in Mr. Cleveland a Chief Magistrate who so little appreciates the opportunity presented to us in this treaty as to be willing to see it fail, the duty of the Senators who have a truer conception of what is due to our interest and our dignity becomes the more pressing.”

Much to their chagrin, the treaty was not passed in 1893. Upon assuming office, President Cleveland called for an investigation into the proceedings of the coup. The investigation produced the Blount Report.

The report concluded that “United States diplomacy and military representatives had abused their authority and were responsible for the change in government.”

President Grover Cleveland further denounced the coup in his 1893 State of the Union Address:

“…the constitutional Government of Hawaii had been subverted with the active aid of our representative to that Government and through the intimidation caused by the presence of an armed naval force of the United States, which was landed for that purpose at the instance of our minister. Upon the facts developed it seemed to me that the only honorable course for our Government to pursue was to undo the wrong that had been done by those representing us and to restore as far as practicable the status existing at the time of our forcible intervention.”

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee conducted their own investigation, resulting in the Morgan Report. This new report contradicted the Blount Report, claiming that U.S.intervention was necessary to ensure the safety of U.S.citizens in the islands during the chaos of the coup:

“There was not in Honolulu at the time any efficient executive power through which the rights of American citizens residing there could be protected…In a country where there is no power of the law to protect the citizens of the United States there can be no law of nations nor any rule of comity that can rightfully prevent our flag from giving shelter to them under the protection of our arms…”

On July 4, 1894 the Republic of Hawaii was created with Dole, again, as President. Officials in the new Hawaiian government still wanted annexation above all, largely because of a desire to avoid the tariffs the U.S.government levied on all foreign entities. Native Hawaiians continued to protest the annexation.

 

 

 

In 1897, William McKinley became president of the United States. He, unlike Cleveland, was much more open to annexation. In 1897 a new treaty was negotiated to allow for the annexation of the islands. The treaty was, however, never ratified by the Senate. In 1898, in the midst of the expansionist Spanish-American War, McKinley signed the Newlands Resolution, which officially annexed the Hawaiian Islands on July 7, 1898. On August 12, 1898 the flag of the Republic of Hawaii was ceremonially lowered and replaced with the United States flag at ‘Iolani Palace. On February 22, 1900 the Hawaiian Islands officially became a territory of the United States.

The Hawaiian Organic Act, enacted on April 30, 1900, provided a government for the new territory of Hawaii. President McKinley appointed former President Sanford Dole to serve as governor of the territory.

Teaching the History of Annexation? Explore our collection of primary sources and research guides:

• Read the proceedings in the Senate surrounding the treaty here
• The Library of Congress’ Guide to the Annexation of Hawaii
• Teachers’ Resources from the National Archives: The 1897 Petitions Against the Annexation of Hawaii
• Read the Blount Report here
• Read the Morgan Report here
• Read Harry Bingham’s pro-annexation The Annexation of Hawaii: A Right and a Duty
• “In Favor of Annexation,” New York Tribune, 30 January, 1893.
• “Objections to Annexation,” Omaha Daily Bee, 21 February 1893.
• “Why Hawaii Should Not Be Annexed,” The San Francisco Call, 30 January 1898
• “Rear Admiral Arrives at Hawaii to Hoist the Flag,” The San Francisco Call, 13 August 1898
• Noenoe K. Silva’s “The 1897 Petitions Protesting Annexation”
• Read an American’s travelogue of the new Hawaii territory: John R. Musick, Hawaii: Our New Possessions, (New York: Funk & Wagnalls Company, 1898)
• “History Turns the Page on Which Hawaii’s Name is Written,” The San Francisco Call, 23 August 1898

From Pacific Territory to Aloha State (1898-1959)

As early as 1903, the territorial legislature of Hawaii began petitioning Congress for statehood. View the document from the National Archives here

The territorial status o f Hawaii was ideal for the Big Five and the sugarcane industry. During these years, these corporations were able to consolidate their power so much that the territory effectively became an oligarchy. They were able to bypass tariffs for sugar export to the mainland while still importing cheap foreign labor (something prohibited for states in the Union). There were also concerns among Americans in the continental United States about annexing Hawaii. During the era of segregation at home, many Americans were uneasy about admitting such a racially diverse state into the union.

The question of Hawaii gained new importance on December 7, 1941 when Japanese planes attacked Pearl Harbor.

 

In response to the attack, martial law was established in Hawaii under the new military governor, Major General Thomas H. Green.

The military was able to impose martial law because of the Organic Act of 1900 which stated that the governor may, “in case of rebellion or invasion, or imminent danger thereof, when the public safety requires it, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, or place the Territory, or any part thereof, under martial law until communication can be had with the President and his decision thereon made known.”

Under martial law, the writ of habeas corpus was suspended and all criminal cases were tried in military tribunals. The military regime imposed strict curfews and blackout regulations on the populace while censoring the press and mail. In December, 1942 the Interior Department Solicitor wrote: “While fighting for democracy on a dozen fronts, we have dictatorship, quite needlessly—almost by accident, in one vital part of the United States of America.” ⁴

Martial law continued until October 1944, when it was lifted by a presidential order. Although Hawaii had been close enough to the United States to warrant attack by a belligerent power in World War II, it was not yet an actual state of the Union. In the aftermath of WWII, the idea of admitting a state with a large Japanese population was troubling to many Americans. But, many felt Hawaii had proved it’s loyalty to America during World War II and that it was only a matter of time before statehood became a reality.

 Further Reading about Hawaii Under Martial Law and the Growing Statehood Movement:

• Read the Papers of Major General Thomas H. Green here
• Archibald King, “The Legality of Martial Law in Hawaii,” California Law Review 30, no. 6 (September, 1942): 599-633.
• Garner Anthony, “Martial Law in Hawaii,” California Law Review 30, no. 4 (May, 1942): 371-396.
• Garner Anthony, “Martial Law, Military Government and the Writ of Habeas Corpus in Hawaii,” California Law Review 31, no. 5 (December, 1943): 477-514.
• Gavan Daws, Shoal of Time: A History of the Hawaiian Islands (New York: Macmillan, 1968).
• “Hawaii: 49th State” brochure c.1946, compiled by the Associated Students of the University of Hawaii to outline student support for Hawaiian statehood
• Letter from Honokaa High and Elementary School, Hawaii, to the Chairman of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs

The Democratic Revolution of 1954 ended the almost complete control the Republican Party had held in Hawaii since 1898. The Democratic Party represented new interests—mainly lower classes and immigrant populations. A shift began in Hawaii away from the interests of the Big Five as government began to consider the interests of the islanders at large. This included statehood, which would give every Hawaiian a voice in their government.

In 1959, Hawaiian residents voted on whether or not their territory would become a state.

 

The islanders voted for statehood by an overwhelming majority. In March 1959, President Dwight Eisenhower signed the Hawaii Admission Act into law, changing Hawaii’s status from “non-self-governing territory” to American state.

The Aloha State Today

The issue of annexation arose once again, one hundred years after the fact. In 1993, Congress passed United States Public Law 103-150, known as the Apology Resolution.

Bill Clinton signing the Apology Resolution into law http://www.hawaii-nation.org/publawsum.html

The law began, “To acknowledge the 100^th anniversary of the January 17, 1983 overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii, and to offer an apology to Native Hawaiians on behalf of the United States for the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii.” Although the law did not change the legal status of Hawaii or native Hawaiians, it has sparked new debate about the islands’ complicated history and the legality of the annexation of Hawaii.

Read the Telegraph’s “Queen of Hawaii demands independence from ‘US occupiers,’” detailing a 2008 protest against American occupation.

Today, Hawaii’s official tourism website entices visitors with the phrase, “The people of Hawaii would like to share their islands with you.” Tourism is Hawaii’s largest industry, as people flock to the islands to see experience the exotic without ever leaving the comfort of the United States. It has taken over a century to transform Hawaii from a distant group of islands into the Aloha state, situated comfortably at the bottom corner of the U.S. map. Yet even today, there are those who still protest what they see as the continued occupation of the islands by a foreign, imperial power.

For more information:

• Visit online timelines of Hawaii: Timeline of Hawaiian Islands, Pre-European Contact and Hawaii Timeline

---

The post Hawaii appeared first on US History Scene.

In 1773, Connecticut native John Ledyard dropped out of Dartmouth College to travel the world. From 1776 to 1780, he traversed the Pacific as a member of British explorer Captain James Cook’s crew. John Ledyard was the first United States citizen to reach the west coast of the American continent, the first to see the Hawaiian archipelago, and the first to witness maritime fur trade between the Northwest American coast and China – and he had no idea the United States even existed. Ledyard was unaware that he left England on Cook’s ship just before British American colonists signed the Declaration of Independence. ¹

Read historian Jared Sparks’ Memoirs of the Life and Travels of John Ledyard from his Journals and Correspondence (1828)

John Ledyard returned to New England in the 1780s to find several British American colonies newly minted as the United States. In the first decade of United States independence, he was a vocal advocate for U.S. involvement in the lucrative maritime fur trade he had witnessed on his voyage. While life in the new United States may have been provincial for most, and Atlantic for some, the Pacific was central to John Ledyard’s life. He saw an opportunity for the new United States, not to connect the Americas to the Pacific World, but to enter a world already connected for centuries.

The United States as a political body or geographic place did not exist until 1776. Early American histories that focus on the British colonies creates a shared past and a nation where one did not yet exist. The East-to-West narrative of United States history means certain regions only enter the story when Anglo-Americans begin to populate them or the United States annexes them. Like Spanish and French colonial America, Pacific stories are rarely included in U.S. history before the mid-eighteenth century. The United States acquired overseas territories in the Pacific from Alaska in 1867 to Hawai’i, the Philippines, and Guam in 1898, and the most recent—the Trust Territory of the Pacific after World War II. Like the thirteen British colonies that first formed the United States, these places also have a history that predates the formation and arrival of the United States. A completely different story emerges when we reorient early American history so that the western American continent becomes the Eastern Pacific.

One way that historians can paint a more accurate picture of early America is to trace connections that transcend present-day political boundaries. This short article does not attempt to encompass all aspects of the Pacific World. That effort has been undertaken by Dennis O. Flynn and Arturo Giráldez in The Pacific World: Lands, Peoples, and the History of the Pacific, 1500-1900 and has taken seventeen volumes to accomplish. ² Instead, we focus on two trans-Pacific trade routes in the sixteenth to nineteenth-centuries: the galleon trade between Manila and Acapulco and maritime fur trade between the Pacific Northwest and China. These trade routes moved goods, but also peoples, cultures, and ideas across and throughout the Pacific.

Manila Galleon Trade (1565-1815)

From the sixteenth to the early-nineteenth century, the Pacific Ocean was known as the Spanish Lake. In 1565, Spanish navigator Andrés de Urdaneta discovered a path from the Philippines to the Spanish Americas by sailing north from Manila to capture favorable winds in the North Pacific. This 1565 voyage marked the beginning of the Manila galleon trade that would persist into the nineteenth century. Two to three times per year, giant Spanish ships called galleons laden with prized goods from Asia goods traveled across the Pacific to New Spain by way of the Spanish colony in the Philippines. The galleons returned to Asia with silver mined in Spanish Latin America. Once goods arrived in Acapulco, they were transported across the American continent to Spanish ports in the Atlantic. In this manner, goods from Asia traversed first the Pacific to the Americas, then the Atlantic to Europe, creating the first truly global trade. ³

These galleon ships carried goods, but they also carried people and their cultures. The Spanish employed Filipino workers on galleon crews from the beginning of the trade in the sixteenth century. Filipinos built the galleon ships and many traveled to or settled in the Americas. ⁴ Because the ships moved slowly through the islands surrounding the Philippines, Micronesian islands, and American bays, the galleons connected and transformed cultures along the way. While trans-Pacific trade could mean hybridization and positive cultural interactions, it also involved environmental destruction, reckless slaughter, and indigenous slave labor. The same galleons carrying prized goods from China brought slaves from throughout Asia to work in the silver mines of Spanish Latin America. ⁵

The Spanish were not the only European imperialists in the Pacific Ocean. California became connected to the Pacific World because of interimperial competition. The Spanish had claimed California and first became interested in developing Alta California as a stopping place for weary galleon crews before they reached Acapulco, although they found its coast rocky, inhospitable, and unsuitable for development. No action was taken until necessitated by increased threats to galleon ships and their treasures from English pirates such as Francis Drake and Thomas Cavendish. ⁶ The Spanish first settled Alta California in 1769 as a strategic buffer against foreign aggression. ⁷ Spanish missionaries soon followed, setting up missions throughout California. Through its connections to the Manila galleon trade, California became a self-sufficient part of the Spanish Empire.

Video: History professors Alan Taylor, Clarence Walker, and Karen Ordahl Kupperman on Spanish Colonization of North America:

Video: 4^th Grade Lecture for elementary school children: Early European Exploration of California

Maritime Fur Trade

To the north, a new trade was emerging that could rival the Spanish position in the Pacific. In 1741, Russians made contact with Native Americans on the Northwest Coast of the American continent. That first expedition returned in 1742 with otter skins that sold well in China. Russians returned to establish a colony and contract native labor to procure the prized pelts. We might recognize this region as present-day Alaska, but until the Russian empire sold the land to the United States in 1867, it was known as Russian America.

Maritime fur trade brought furs from the Northwest Coast of America to China and brought Chinese goods back to America. The Hawaiian Islands became a way station on this journey, linking Hawaiians to the Pacific trade. A Pacific triangular trade network, much like the one that developed between Africa, Europe, and the Americas in the Atlantic, developed between China, Hawaii, and the Northwest American Coast. The Russians held a monopoly over this lucrative trade until British Captain James Cook’s third voyage brought him to the Northwest American Coast in the late 1770s. There Cook’s crew discovered, like the Russians had decades earlier, that furs obtained from the natives could be sold in Canton, China for a 400% profit. ⁸ The British ended the Russian monopoly on Northwest Coast fur trade. U.S. Americans dominated the maritime trade with China within a decade of its opening by the British. ⁹

• Read John R. Bockstoce’s The Opening of the Maritime Fur Trade at Bering Strait online
  
• The Russian-American Company in Hawaii
  

The first U.S. ship to travel to China, the Empress of China, departed the new United States on February 22, 1784—the same day that the Edward sailed for England with the newly ratified Articles of Peace between the United States and Great Britain after the Revolutionary War. ¹⁰ The trans-Pacific fur trade opened at an opportune moment for the fledgling United States: New England merchants needed to escape the economic depression that followed the Revolutionary War and replace their lost trading partners in the British Isles and West Indies. ¹¹ The United States needed commerce to generate wealth after the war and had idle ships and sailors who could participate.

New U.S. Americans placed a great deal of symbolic value on the voyage of the Empress. Material goods represented independence. Under the Navigation Acts, the British American colonies received all goods through British trade and British ships. If the United States could trade with China independently, it would prove they no longer needed the British to provide Asian goods. ¹² The United States initially had trouble establishing a foothold in the Canton trade, but eventually found success trading ginseng and “soft gold”—sea otter fur. ¹³ Before the nineteenth century, California’s sea otter population remained untapped. The sea otter industry boomed between 1803 and 1812 when the Russian-American Company’s contract labor system coordinated with U.S American traders. The two imperialist powers joined forces, enslaving skilled Aleut and Kodiak otter hunters from the Northwest Coast and sending them to California to provide the precious pelts. ¹⁴

A Pacific Approach to U.S. History

The United States citizens who were actively involved in Pacific trade disrupt the traditional narrative of United States history: a march from East to West as Anglo-Americans triumphantly conquered the continent. Manifest Destiny, the belief that the United States was destined to expand overland across the American continent, still looms large in the stories we tell about America’s past. The familiar story highlights the hopes of expansionists who dreamed that one day, when the United States expanded to the Pacific coast of the American continent, U.S. Americans would have access to the natural resources and trade opportunities in the Pacific Ocean. But, by the time the United States expanded to the Pacific Coast in the 1840s, U.S. citizens had been involved in Pacific trade for decades. ¹⁵

In 1955, when Senator Mike Monroney opposed Hawaiian statehood, he based his argument on the idea that United States westward expansion happened overland, in wagons filled with frontiersmen and dedicated homesteaders. Historian John Whitehead notes, “the senator’s explanation of the normal pattern of migration included no mention of ships or boats. He seemed unaware that anyone had ever gone West by such craft, even to California.” ¹⁶ The distance across the American continent from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean on a map obscures the fact that the Pacific was much closer to the early United States than the majority of the western continent that remained divided from the early United States by the Rocky Mountains. When California became a U.S. state, it was “separated from the nearest other state, Texas or Iowa, depending on your routing, by some 1,500 miles of desert and mountains that were more difficult to traverse than the 2,500 miles of ocean between Hawai’i and the mainland.” ¹⁷ Before railroads cut across the American continent, California was reached by way of the Pacific Ocean.

The post America appeared first on US History Scene.

On the eve of the Spanish-American War (1898), African Americans lived as second-class citizens. During the Jim Crow era, they lived separately from white Southerners, using facilities that were anything but equal. While war presented hardship, suffering, and strife, for African American men, it also presented an opportunity. Participating in one of America’s wars was an opportunity for African Americans to prove that they were just as patriotic as their white countrymen, and thus deserved the same rights. This line of reasoning was not new; similar motives had encouraged African American participation in the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, and the Civil War. However, these were domestic wars fought by Americans on American soil in order to defend the union. The Spanish-American War was fought by Americans on foreign soil in order to expand the union.

African American soldiers sought another goal aside from American victory in battle. In the army, all soldiers fought and died for their country—regardless of their color or creed. African American soldiers thought that while fighting against injustice abroad, they could also fight against injustice at home. This concept resurfaced yet again during World War II’s Double-V Campaign.

After the Spanish-American War, the courage and bravery displayed by African American soldiers was widely recognized—albeit begrudgingly by some. However, despite their best efforts, African Americans in the United States were not given their rights as a result of their exemplary performance in the war. Furthermore, their successes in the war helped to export the very racism they fought against to the far reaches of America’s fledgling empire.

Background: Race in late 19th century America 

In 1898, the wounds of the Civil War (1861-1865) were still fresh, and Reconstruction had only made those wounds deeper. The Spanish-American War was an opportunity for Americans to unite against a common enemy—Spain. Historian Amy Kaplan posits that in order to reunite North and South, “the Spanish-American War had to collapse and undo the thirty-year history separating the two conflicts by waging an ideological battle against Reconstruction.” ¹ That battle would include dismantling the progress made by African Americans since the abolition of slavery.

The late 1800’s were the heyday of “Scientific Racism”—a pseudoscience that allowed the aforementioned cycle of racism to continue unabated in the United States by offering supposed justification for the superiority of Caucasian peoples. This “science” was based on evidence such as phrenology—the study of head shape to determine intelligence. Images such as the one shown here suggested a close link between peoples of African descent and apes. This reinforced the idea that people with African ancestry were unintelligent, uncivilized, and essentially less human. These theories had justified slavery by suggesting that peoples of African descent needed to be looked after by whites, and could no less be left to their own devices in a civilized society than a chimpanzee. Even after the abolition of slavery, it helped to forge a paternalist discourse that whites were meant to dominate blacks since they could not take care of themselves—much like a father would take care of his son. This paternalist discourse was easily transferred to the new U.S. Empire after the Spanish-American war.

When the Spanish-American War began, many African Americans were only a generation removed from slavery. Most were granted their freedom by the Emancipation Proclamation (1863), and that freedom was maintained by a Union victory in the Civil War (1861-1865). But, the end of slavery did not mean the end of oppression.

Many whites still believed, with the help of Scientific Racism, that peoples of African descent were inherently inferior—even if new laws said otherwise.

The Fourteenth Amendment (1868) stated:

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

But, Jim Crow laws had created a segregated nation in which free black Americans were repeatedly and consistently disenfranchised. In 1896, just two years before the Spanish-American War, the famous Plessy v. Fergusondecision was handed down by the United States Supreme Court. The decision upheld Jim Crow laws that required segregation in the use of public facilities. In Plessy, the Supreme Court pronounced that separate facilities in and of themselves did not constitute a denial of Fourteenth Amendment rights. It upheld state laws that required segregation on the grounds that rights were not violated as long as facilities were separate, but equal. As most know, they were anything but.

African Americans were almost universally disenfranchised through property laws, grandfather clauses, and literacy tests. They were unable to obtain suitable education or employment. They were often unable to rent or purchase satisfactory housing. On top of this, there was the constant fear of attack by racist groups such as the Ku Klux Klan who were notorious for lynching. Ida B. Wells, an outspoken opponent of lynching, wrote, “The real purpose of these savage demonstrations is to teach the Negro that in the South he has no rights that the law will enforce.” ² In the United States, African Americans lived as second-class citizens if they were allowed to live at all.

• Frederick Tiedemann, “On the Brain of the Negro, compared with that of the European and the Orang-Outang,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 126, (1836): 497-527.
• Samuel Cartwright, “Diseases and Peculiarities of the Negro Race,” DeBow’s Review—Southern and Western States 11 (1851)
• The Emancipation Proclamation
• PBS: The Civil War
• PBS: The Rise and Fall of Jim Crow
• Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 157 (1896)

The Birth of the “Buffalo Soldiers”

Contrary to popular belief, not all free black American stayed in the South as sharecroppers. Many became soldiers and found that the army was an arena in which African Americans could operate on a more level playing field. After the Civil War, Congress passed an “Act to increase and fix the military peace establishment of the United States.” (1866). This act provided for the establishment of regiments of segregated, colored soldiers that would operate separately from the rest of the army.

Section 3 stated “that to the six regiments of cavalry now in service, there shall be added four regiments, two of which shall be composed of colored men.”—these became the Ninth and Tenth Cavalry.

Section 4 stated that forty-five regiments of infantry would be provided for by this act, “four regiments of which shall be composed of colored men.”—these became the Twenty-Fourth and Twenty-Fifth Infantry.

Since the Civil War, most African American soldiers had been relegated to fighting against Native Americans out West. This, in some ways, was a “win-win” situation for the United States. Fighting the fierce, painstakingly slow battle to subdue Native American populations in the harsh West was not a task that other soldiers envied. The African American soldiers that the government would never want representing the U.S. to European powers, for example, were perfectly suited to this task. The U.S. pitted the lowest segments of American society against one another—ensuring that white hegemony was not challenged by either population. African American soldiers’ service in these Indian Wars earned them the nickname “Buffalo Soldiers,” which soon extended to all African American soldiers.

 

Although they served out West, “in a climate more severe for troops than any in the United States,” the Buffalo Soldiers were extremely successful in their efforts to subdue the Native American population. ³ As their main source of protection, the soldiers had established a good rapport with the white pioneers out West. They were unprepared for the blatant racism they would encounter in the South when called upon to serve their country in the Spanish-American War.

• “Buffalo Soldiers & Indian Wars”

Debating Participation: Buffalo Soldiers Fighting for the U.S.

President McKinley sent the USS Maine to Havana in late 1897 in order to protect American citizens and interests in the face of rising unrest in Cuba. On February 15, 1898, the Maine exploded and sank in Havana harbor, resulting in the deaths of 266 Americans, including two African American men. The cause of the explosion was not known (nor is it known today), but it was not hard for the newspapers to sell it to the public as a Spanish attack. Although McKinley was reluctant, eventually he gave in to the repeated cries of the press: “Remember the Maine! To Hell with Spain!”

While whites wrote songs such as “The Darkey Volunteer” and “The Black K.P.’s” which praised “those brave black knights who are so bold” and “proud plumed darkies looking fine,” many in the black community were not so thrilled about African American participation in the Spanish-American War. The Washington Bee wrote “The negro has no reason to fight for Cuba’s independence. He is opposed at home.” The editors believed that African Americans should not fight for a country that denied their people rights every day.

Despite a strong anti-war contingency, many African American soldiers wanted to participate in the war. George Prioleau, U.S. Army Chaplain of the Ninth Cavalry said, “The men are anxious to go. The country will then hear and know of their bravery. The American Negro is always ready and willing to take up arms to fight and lay down his life in defense of his country’s honor.” ⁴ Another soldier said, “We left our homes, wives, mothers, sisters and friends to break down that infernal prejudice and to have a page in history ascribed to us.” ⁵ That page in history would presumably give African Americans the rights and respect they were not able to enjoy.

But, there was what the Richmond Dispatch called “A Burning Question”: whether black regiments would have black or white officers. ⁶The same paternalist thinking that had justified black enslavement informed military decisions concerning officers. Many felt that African American soldiers were just not capable of handling the responsibilities of an officer position. A regular army lieutenant said of African American soldiers, “They are all right physically, of course, most of them are illiterate and they know nothing about military tactics, but with good officers and careful training they ought to fight well.” ⁷ The Los Angeles Heraldpointed out that if African American soldiers were officers of African American regiments, then “the question of how the officers’ mess would be arranged when there were white and colored officers in the same regiment came up.” ⁸ Jim Crow dictated that blacks and whites shouldn’t eat together, and the army wasn’t sure if it was ready to end that practice. The Herald concluded that “The negro needs to be fed well, they say, to make a good fighter, and there is some doubt whether colored troops will follow one of their own race as well as they would a white officer.” ⁹

In response, many African Americans advocated a “No officers, no fight!” policy. The Washington Bee published an open letter to President McKinley decrying his administration’s policy that prohibited an African American soldier from holding a position higher than a lieutenant. The Bee stated: “Now, Mr. President, we are neither aggressive nor impudent, we have respectfully and firmly asked for recognition as citizens of a common country, nothing more. We want it.” They continued, “Call a halt now Mr. President, establish the practice of your departments upon the fine basis of equal and exact justice to all before it is too late or the day must come for unavailing regret.” ¹⁰ There would be political ramifications if McKinley, as a Republican president, did not keep his promises about being a friend to African Americans—even Southern Democrats were picking up on it. The largest error to come out of this policy, however, would be to reduce the number of African American volunteers: “Throw down the bars, open up the positions, and the Negro will flow into the army as a flood. Keep up the color line you have established and they will trickle in as now, only those driven by necessity to take a half loaf or be utterly without bread.” ¹¹The Army was an opportunity for completely disenfranchised blacks to gain more than they would at home, but as the Bee put it, soon the Army would only recruit those who cannot get a “half loaf.” Any who could get more would have no need for the Army.

Buffalo Soldiers in the South

When the 24^th Infantry left Salt Lake City, residents lined the streets to see the soldiers off. In Missoula, Montana the whole town came to bid the soldiers of the 10^th Cavalry farewell. On April 15, 1898, they arrived in Chickamauga, GA. At Chickamauga Park, they were greeted with surprise and wonder. According to Sergeant-Major Frank Pullen, thousands visited from nearby Chattanooga daily: “Many of them had never seen a colored soldier. The behavior of the men was such that even the most prejudiced could find no fault.” ¹²But, this peaceful interest did not last for long. Pullen and the other men found that others in the South did not welcome them with interest or curiosity: “But in Georgia, outside of the Park, it mattered not if we were soldiers of the United States, and going to fight for the honor of our country and the freedom of an oppressed and starving people, we were ‘niggers,’ as they called us, and treated us with contempt.” ¹³

Most Southern whites did not care about the service these men had given to the U.S. Army in the West, nor did they care about what they would do in Cuba. The local whites prohibited African American soldiers from eating, shopping, or intermingling in white society in any way. Indeed, the soldiers were not just barred from “white-only” establishments, they were victims of harassment and violence. It was so bad that one African American lieutenant said, “If I owned both Macon, Georgia, and hell, I would rent Macon and live in hell.” ¹⁴

Things were not much better for African American troops in Tampa, Florida, the staging point for the invasion. On June 6, 1898, drunken white Ohio volunteers seized a local African American child and held a cruel contest. The winner was the man who could shoot a bullet through the child’s sleeve. The child was unhurt, but the event enraged African American soldiers. They stormed Tampa, taking special care to cause damage to those establishments that had denied them service. After the fact, the Atlanta Constitution wrote, “There was no need to send Negro troops to Cuba. Now, to send them after this event is criminal.” ¹⁵

Deeds of Valor in Cuba 

In 1899, historian Edward A. Johnson wrote, “History records the Negro as the first man to fall in three wars of America—Crispus Attucks in the Boston Massacre, March 5, 1770; an unknown Negro in Baltimore when the Federal troops were mobbed in that city en route to the front, and Elijah B. Tunnell, of Accomac county, Virginia, who fell simultaneously with or a second before Ensign Bagley, of the torpedo boat Winslow, in the harbor of Cardenas May 11, 1898, in the Spanish-American War.” ¹⁶ Tunnell’s legs were blown off by a shell: “Turning to those about him he asked, “Did we win in the fight boys?’ The reply was, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘Then I die happy.’” ¹⁷ This was the first of many noble sacrifices made by African American soldiers in the Spanish American War.

 

Frank W. Pullen, Jr., a Sergeant-Major of the 25^th U.S. Infantry, recalled two instances of bravery on the part of African American soldiers in Cuba.

On the first day of the invasion of Cuba, the 25^th infantry led the march. The order in which troops marched was shuffled as regiments would halt for rest and then resume. Eventually Theodore Roosevelt’s famed Rough Riders led the march. They were the victims of a surprise attack that resulted in the Battle of Las Guasimas.

 

Pullen recalled: “They could not advance, and dare not retreat, having been caught in a sunken place in the road, with a barbed wire fence on one side and a precipitous hill on the other.” ¹⁸ Roosevelt’s Rough Riders were trapped until the 10^th Cavalry came to the rescue: “Little thought the Spaniards that these ‘smoked yankees’ were so formidable. Perhaps they thought to stop these black boys by their relentless fire, but those boys knew no stop.” ¹⁹ Pullen contended that the 10^th Cavalry gave the Rough Riders safe passage and defeated the Spanish in this skirmish.

Pullen was saddened by the fact that the noble actions of African American soldiers were not well-documented:

“The names of Captain A.M. Capron, Jr., and Sergeant Hamilton Fish, Jr., of the Rough Riders, who were killed in this battle, have been immortalized, while that of Corporal Brown, 10th Cavalry, who manned the Hotchkiss gun in this fight, without which the American loss in killed and wounded would no doubt have been counted by hundreds, and who was killed by the side of his gun, is unknown by the public.” ²⁰

After the war, a Southern man stated:

“If it had not been for the Negro Cavalry the Rough Riders would have been exterminated. I am not a Negro lover. My father fought with Mosby’s Rangers (43^rd Battalion, Virginia Cavalry, Confederate Army), and I was born in the South, but the Negroes saved that fight, and the day will come when General Shafter will give them credit for their bravery.” ²¹

Sergeant-Major Pullen’s second memory comes from El Caney. Other soldiers had warned Pullen and his men, the 25^th infantry, “Boys, there is no use to go up there, you cannot see a thing; they are slaughtering our men!” But, the 25^th infantry plowed ahead—without orders from their white officers. In response to the accusation that African American soldiers were incapable of being officers, Pullen wrote, “Brigadier Generals, Colonels, Lieutenant-Colonels, Majors, etc., were not needed at the time the 25th Infantry made the charge on El Caney, and those officers simply watched the battle from convenient points, as Lieutenants and enlisted men made the charge alone.” ²²

On the same day that the 25^th Infantry helped take El Caney, American troops charged San Juan Hill. History has portrayed this as the shining moment of glory for Roosevelt and his Rough Riders.

But, recent scholarship has challenged the “Teddy-centric view,” as military historian Frank N. Schubert called it in his article “Buffalo Soldiers at San Juan Hill.” But while he refuses to give Roosevelt all the credit, Schubert also warns against new claims that Buffalo Soldiers were entirely responsible for the victory. He concluded that the effort was a shared one, “with black and white regulars and Rough Riders fighting side by side and with one group sometimes indistinguishable from the others.” ²³

One African American soldier, however, did distinguish himself from the others. Sergeant George Berry was the color guard for the 10^th Cavalry. The History of the 10^th Cavalry reads, “About half way up the slope the colors of the Third were seen to stop and fall, the color bearer sinking to the ground, shot through the body; Sergeant George Berry, color bearer of the Tenth, dashed over to where the colors lay, raised them high, and waving both flags, planted them on the crest side by side.” ²⁴The writer posits that it “is no doubt the only instance in our military history where the colors of one regiment were carried to the final objective by a member of a rival regiment.” ²⁵

Cleveland Moffitt, a white man writing for Leslie’s Weekly described it as follows: “Some white man had left it there, many white men had let it stay there, but Berry, an African American man, saw it fluttering in shame and paused in his running long enough to catch it up and lift it high overhead beside his own banner.” He concluded, “There are some hundreds of little things like this that we might as well bear in mind, we white men, the next time we start to decry the Negro!” ²⁶

• “The Charge of the ‘Nigger Ninth on San Juan Hill,” by George E. Powell
• Frank N. Schubert, “Buffalo Soldiers at San Juan Hill”

Giving Credit Where Is Due

After the war, many African American soldiers were rewarded for their efforts and deeds of valor in Cuba. But, very soon after that, people began to rewrite history. ²⁷ Sergeant-Major Pullen denounced the 12^th Infantry for taking credit for the victory at El Caney: “Thus, by using the authority given him by his shoulder straps, this officer took for his regiment that which had been won by the hearts’ blood of some of the bravest, though black, soldiers of Shafter’s army.” ²⁸

Teddy Roosevelt was one of the main rewriters of the history of the Spanish-American War. He was willing to give some credit to the Buffalo Soldiers when he said, “I would be the last man to say anything against the Afro-American soldier, because I know of his bravery and his character. He saved my life at Santiago, and I have had occasion to say so in many articles and speeches. The Rough Riders were in a bad position when the Ninth and Tenth cavalry came rushing up the hill carrying everything before them.” ²⁹ But, beyond that he refused to give credit where credit was due. While other accounts claim that the 10^th Cavalry played an integral role in the capture of San Juan and Kettle hills (with Sergeant Berry triumphantly carrying the colors), Roosevelt claimed that the African American soldiers had tried to flee the battle, and were forced back by Teddy at gunpoint. ³⁰

Even the publicity photographs used reveal that history was already in the process of being rewritten.

 

This photograph, which was much more widely used, only shows Roosevelt and the Rough Riders atop San Juan Hill.

This photograph helped to write the history that Roosevelt and his men alone were responsible for the victory that day—and that they certainly were not helped by a regiment of African American soldiers. Roosevelt’s desire to underplay the role of African American soldiers was not only driven by a desire for personal glory. The idea of African American men in uniform, or “black in blue,” as Amy Kaplan calls it, was terrifying to many white Americans: “The specter of armed African American soldiers may threaten betrayal of the United States empire through the realignment with outside forces or may challenge the internal coherence of that empire by demanding participation and representation as equals.” ³¹ If credit were given to African American soldiers for their deeds, it would open the door to rewards such as equal rights, which would not only undermine the domestic racial order, but the entire basis of American empire. Kaplan writes, “Black in blue raises the white fear that the imperial war meant to heal the rifts of the Civil War may continue to heighten that conflict by recasting it as a global race war.” ³²

Sadly, the great deeds of African American soldiers, whether hidden or well-known, were not enough to eliminate the paternalist thinking in many. Roosevelt, despite his kind words about their service, still thought “colored soldiers were of no avail without white officers; that when the white commissioned officers are killed or disabled, colored non-commissioned officers could not be depended upon to keep up a charge already begun.” ³³ Sergeant Presley Holliday of the Tenth Cavalry begged to differ. In response to Roosevelt’s remarks, he posited that Roosevelt must have been unaware that of the four officers of the 10^th Cavalry, one was killed and another was seriously injured. He must not have known that in lieu of this, the African American first sergeants “led them triumphantly to the front.” Roosevelt must also have been unaware of the fact that at Las Guasimas and at San Juan Hill, most of troop B of the 10^th Cavalry “was separated from its commanding officer by accidents of battle and was led to the front by its first sergeant.” ³⁴

Holliday fiercely proclaimed:

“I will say that when our soldiers, who can and will write history, sever their connections with the Regular Army, and thus release themselves from their voluntary status of military lockjaw, and tell us what they saw, those who now preach that the Negro is not fit to exercise command over troops, and will go no further than he is led by white officers, will see in print held up for public gaze, much to their chagrin, tales of those Cuban battles that have never been told outside the tent and barrack room, tales that it will not be agreeable for some of them to hear. The public will then learn that not every troop or company of colored soldiers who took part in the assaults on San Juan Hill or El Caney was led or urged forward by its white officer.” ³⁵

General Thomas J. Morgan, a white man, did speak out in favor of African American officers. He claimed, rather simply, that “so long as we draw no race line of distinction as against Germans or Irishmen, and institute no test of religion, politics or culture, we ought not to erect any artificial barrier of color. If the Negroes are competent they should be commissioned. If they are incompetent they should not be trusted with the grave responsibilities attached to official position. I believe they are competent.” ³⁶

• “Competent to be Officers—the Verdict of General Thomas J. Morgan, After a Study of the Negro’s Quality as a Soldier”

Bringing Racism to the Empire

The justifications for the Spanish-American War (and thus the beginning of American Empire), were based on high and mighty ideals such as freedom, equality, democracy, and justice—concepts that African Americans scarcely encountered in their everyday lives in the United States. It seems counterintuitive that Americans could wage such a war without destabilizing the racial power structure within the borders of the United States. But, the justifications for empire did not undermine racism at home. On the contrary, the justifications for empire and the justifications for racism tended to reinforce each other as the United States began its colonial mission.

The paternalist discourse that justified white superiority in the United States began to emerge in new U.S. territories. Just as dark-skinned people in the United States needed whites to look after them, so did dark-skinned peoples in Cuba and the Philippines. But, paternalism (as the experience of African Americans in the United States had clearly demonstrated), was not all about the love and support a father gives. Paternalism allowed “an assertion of authority, superiority, and control expressed in the metaphor of a father’s relationship with his children”. In Taking Haiti, historian Mary Renda argues that paternalism was a “cultural vehicle” for violence, allowing Americans to act out not just “paternal care and guidance,” but also “paternal authority and discipline.” ³⁷ Supporters of slavery often felt that peoples of African descent needed to be disciplined and kept in their place by white masters. They believed that dark-skinned peoples were not responsible enough to be masters of their own bodies. It was not difficult for them to assume that dark-skinned peoples in the new U.S. Empire were not fit for self-rule and needed the same kind of discipline and guidance.

In the midst of all this, African American soldiers tried to negotiate a contradiction. Many believed that war presented an opportunity to prove their worth as Americans and as people. But, they found that their sacrifices in Cuba did not improve their condition. Furthermore, the situation changed drastically when Buffalo Soldiers were sent to the Philippines.The similarities between the ways African Americans and Filipinos were treated by white Americans was striking—white soldiers even used the word “nigger” freely to describe both African Americans and Filipinos. It did not take long for African American soldiers to see that the plight of the Filipinos was not unlike their own. Some, like David Fagen, even defected to the Filipino army.

• “African American Soldiers in the Philippine Revolution” by E. San Juan, Jr.
• “The Philippine War—A Conflict of Conscience for African Americans.”

African American soldiers had believed that stories of valor and bravery could improve their condition. Danish-American journalist Jacob A. Riis wrote in the Outlook: “It was one of the unexpected things in this campaign that seems destined to set so many things right that out of it should come the appreciation of the colored soldier as man and brother by those even who so lately fought to keep him a chattel.” ³⁸ But, did it work? Did American whites really see African Americans differently after the war? In a word—no. Jim Crow did not die out because of the courage and patriotism the Buffalo Soldiers displayed during the Spanish-American War. Not only did their participation not have the intended result, it had an unintended consequence. When people like Teddy Roosevelt rewrote the history of the Spanish-American War, they underplayed the role that African American soldiers played in the war, but they also allowed for racism to be established in the new empire. Amy Kaplan argues that “while confronting and subordinating African Americans within the national body, Roosevelt was simultaneously making a place for newly colonized subjects in the disembodied American empire” ³⁹ In the Spanish-American War, while fighting to prove themselves worthy of the same rights as whites in America, African American soldiers unknowingly helped to export the racism they had known all their lives to the territories of the new American empire.

For more information:

• Visit the U.S. History Scene reading lists for African-American History and the Gilded Age/Progressive Era

The post Race and the New Empire appeared first on US History Scene.

6:00 A.M., SEPTEMBER 28, 1901 BALANGIGA, SAMAR, PHILIPPINE ISLANDS

The bugler of Company C, Ninth Infantry, sounded the call for breakfast. American soldiers, unarmed, made their way to the mess hall. Outside, the Filipino Chief of Police, Valeriano Abanador, prepared Filipino prisoners for a day of forced labor. Suddenly, Abanador seized Private Adolph Gamlin’s rifle and shot him point blank. The bells of the local church rang—the signal to the men inside armed with traditional Filipino bolo knives to begin their attack. Abanador’s prisoners, now armed with bolos as well, charged from the other direction.

The bolomen maimed dozens of unarmed soldiers. Captain Thomas Connell and the two other officers of the company were killed. Several soldiers finally managed to obtain weapons and gunned down many, but could not overcome the Filipino attackers. In the end, only a few soldiers escaped to Basey where another company was stationed. They returned and killed hundreds of Filipinos that day. It did not end there. Over the next year, American soldiers exacted terrible revenge on all the inhabitants of Samar. They killed and imprisoned masses, burned towns, and turned the island into a wasteland. The events of September 28, 1901 have gone down in American history books as the “Balangiga Massacre,” but many believe the true massacre was the Samar campaign that followed.

Below, the curator of the South Carolina Confederate Relic Room and Military Museum provides an overview of bolo knife history:

THE “TRUE” STORY OF BALANGIGA

Those are the basic facts surrounding the Balangiga “Massacre.” Just about everything else is still disputed. There is no one “true” story of what happened, but history is not just about events that occurred in the past. History depends on its authors and how its events are remembered – and these memories can change over time. An event like the attack at Balangiga was important in America because it justified the war in the Philippines. At home, it read like a gruesome attack on a company of good, wholesome, American men trying to help their “little brown brothers,” as the Filipinos were often called. It was important to Filipinos because the attack was a successful show of resistance to an unwanted imperial power. Furthermore, the Samar campaign and the destruction it caused were a vicious show of the abuses of colonial power. So, who was the aggressor? Who inflicted the most pain? Did they deserve it? There are no clear answers to these questions, but there is merit in identifying what parts of the story are contested and what that means for those keeping the memory of Balangiga alive.

SPANISH AMERICAN WAR & PHILIPPINE AMERICAN WAR

In 1898, during William McKinley’s presidency, the United States went to war, cajoled by the echoing refrain, “Remember the Maine, to war with Spain!” The Spanish supposedly sank the Maine, a U.S. ship, in Cuba, and that Caribbean island provided the primary motivation for war. However, the United States doubled the harm inflicted on the Spanish by attacking their Pacific colony, the Philippine Islands. After a “splendid little war,” as Secretary of State John Hay described it, the United States acquired Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines.

American troops were sent to the Philippines to ensure their independence from Spain, but seized the opportunity to impose American rule when post-war negotiations made the Philippines an American colony The country that had once been a small republic (albeit an ever-expanding one) stepped onto the world stage as an imperial power in the Pacific. Emilio Aguinaldo, the Filipino leader of the rebellion against Spain, had been an ally during the Spanish-American War, but became an enemy when he established an independent Philippine republic. The Filipino people fought against American colonial rule during the Philippine-American War (1899-1902). 126,468 American soldiers were deployed to the Philippines—4,234 did not survive. An estimated 16,000 to 20,000 Filipino soldiers died, along with 200,000 civilians. ¹

Crucible of Empire: the Spanish-American War

“The Army in the Philippines,” San Francisco Call, January 19, 1902.

The Philippine-American War began in Manila in 1899. Americans were able to fight successfully in developed areas. But, they soon discovered the Spanish had never succeeded in conquering many of the southern islands. Samar was one such island.

Brigadier General Robert P. Hughesstated, “Samar never has been organized. The Spaniards had never subdued Samar. The Spaniards never risked going into the interior of that island.” ²

General Vicente Lukban proclaimed himself governor of Samar under Aguinaldo’s Philippine Republic. He demanded complete allegiance from his followers, and severely punished those who disobeyed. By the time American soldiers arrived in Samar, Lukban’s control was well-established. Soldiers set up in the coastal towns of the island, so Lukban retreated to the jungle interior with his followers, knowing it would be nearly impossible for American troops to reach him there. He had a well-established spy network and was constantly receiving information about occurrences around the island. Though Lukban was a harsh, cruel leader, he was fiercely committed to Philippine independence.

ARRIVAL OF THE NINTH INFANTRY

Company C arrived in Balangiga on the coast of Samar on August 11, 1901. ³ Their reason for being there is disputed. One story is that the mayor of Balangiga, Presidente Pedro Abayan, requested American troops to protect his town from dangerous Moro pirates. They complied, not knowing “such raids had become practically nonexistent over the past half-century.” ⁴ General Lukban, Abayan, and other officials lured American troops there under false pretenses in order execute a well-planned attack on their company. However, other sources report that American troops were stationed there to close Balangiga’s port and disrupt supply lines to Filipino revolutionary forces. This is supported by a letter from First Lieutenant Edward Bumpus of Company C, who wrote that Company C was “in Balangiga to prevent the use of the port to smuggle supplies to the Filipino guerrillas.” ⁵ In this story, there was no attack planned when the soldiers arrived at Balangiga.

General Hughes later testified before the Senate Committee on the Philippines that he handpicked Captain Thomas Connell to go to Samar. Connell was a devout Catholic and a young recent graduate of West Point, and he sincerely believed in benevolent assimilation in the Philippines. ⁶ Like many Americans, he believed Filipinos needed their help in order to become civilized. This idea, also known as the “white man’s burden,” was a frequent justification for colonialism. Unlike many soldiers, Connell was friendly to Filipinos, hoping to gain their trust so that they might accept and even embrace American colonialism. Hughes later lamented his decision to send someone so friendly to Filipinos to Samar: “The fact has since developed, which I did not know, that this officer had shown rather unusual confidence in the natives in Luzon. Of course I knew nothing of it at that time.” ⁷

“Plan of Buildings and Ground Occupied by Company C, Ninth Infantry at Balangiga, Samar” in Captain Fred R. Brown, History of the Ninth U.S. Infantry 1799-1909, (Chicago: R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co., 1909) 581.

Connell was filled with optimism when he arrived in Balangiga. But, he was immediately concerned about the cleanliness of the town. He may have been motivated by a desire for a more civilized way of life, but other accounts suggest he was under strict orders from a very angry inspector-general. ⁸ Connell asked Presidente Abayan to persuade the people to clean up their homes. This was unsuccessful.

Connell then set about moralizing Balangiga. He was most preoccupied with the men’s love for cockfighting and the young women’s attire (or lack thereof). The American soldiers in his company enjoyed both, much to his disappointment. Connell approached the local priest for help, but was rebuked. The priest took a more practical than pious approach. He told Connell cockfighting was well-established in their culture, and would not likely disappear anytime soon. As for the women, they could never afford petticoats Connell wanted and it was unrealistic in such a hot climate anyway. ⁹ This reaction troubled Connell, who was worried about his men attending cockfights and fraternizing with local women, but he took no further action.

The ways American soldiers interacted with local women have been contested. Some accounts claim that young girls were used as decoys for insurgents. They would lure a soldier into the jungle and then he would be killed. One historian wrote, “The men learned from this blunder and the next decoy was dragged under a hut and repeatedly raped.” ¹⁰ In other accounts, the soldiers simply took advantage of women on a relatively regular basis. Apparently Connell had no knowledge of this until three young girls approached him claiming his men raped them. He was infuriated and posted the following orders:

“I will construe any act of physically touching the body or limb of a native woman by a member of this command as rape and will recommend that the soldier be court-martialed and shot. Think of how this disgrace would sadden your mothers and loved ones at home.” ¹¹

He also banned cockfights and consumption of Filipino alcohol. ¹²

Connell wanted good relations between Americans and Filipinos, but he was in the minority among his fellow soldiers. It irritated them endlessly, but Connell forbid the use of words such as “nigger” or “gugu” to describe the Filipinos. In an attempt to solidify trust even further, Connell ordered his men not to carry their weapons when not on sentry duty. The soldiers began to refer to Connell as a “nigger lover” for his naïve confidence in the Filipinos.

On August 18, 1901 Captain H.L. Jackson of the First U.S. Infantry unexpectedly discovered General Lukban’s hideout. They found the following letter among his belongings:

 As a representative of this town of Balangiga I have the honor to let you know, after having conferred with the principals of the town about the policy to be pursued with the enemy in case they come in, we have agreed to have a fictitious policy with them, doing whatever they may like, and when the occasion comes the people will strategically rise against them.

This I communicate to you for your superior knowledge, begging of you to make known all the army your favorable approval of the same, if you think it convenient.

May God preserve you many years,
Balangiga, 30th of May, 1901

P. ABAYAN, Local President 

Because of slow, inefficient transfer of information amongst American troops in the Philippines, this letter and the information it contained never reached Company C in Balangiga. Connell continued to be friendly with Presidente Abayan and Abanador.

But, according to some sources, there was a direct impetus for the attack, and it was not General Lukban. Lukban, through his extensive spy network, was most definitely aware of what was going on at Balangiga. And Abayan’s letter seems to prove that they had contact. However, Professor Borrinaga’s research showed a different story. While cleaning up Balangiga, apparently the people were forced to cut down some “vegetation with food value,” which violated strict orders from Lukban regarding “food security.” On September 18, Lukban sent guerrillas to Balangiga to punish the Filipinos who violated his orders. This attack never occurred, but Lukban definitely no longer sided with the people of Balangiga.

 Company C with Valeriano Abanador

Events were set in motion on September 22, 1901 when two drunken American soldiers attempted to molest a Filipino girl. Her brothers came to her defense and mauled the two assailants. Some believe that this prompted Captain Connell’s order to detain all Balangiga’s male residents. However, officially, Connell arrested them in order to secure forced labor to hasten the clean-up of the town. Edwin Bookmiller’s testimony to the Senate Committee on the Philippines stated, “Captain Connell had collected 78 natives of the town and held most of them prisoners for police work.” ¹³ Almost 150 men were denied food while held overnight in cramped tents. Their homes were ransacked and American soldiers confiscated all bolos, which held cultural capital for Filipino men who lived in rural areas. The American soldiers even confiscated and destroyed their stored rice, “the fundamental symbol of their dignity.” ¹⁴ Connell soon brought in more prisoners from around the island, with the help of the Abanador and Presidente Abayan. What Connell did not know was that these “workmen” provided by Abayan were the best bolomen on the island of Samar. ¹⁵

Who planned the attack and why they planned it matters to the history of Balangiga. In the version that has been propounded in American history, the whole attack was planned by Lukban, who planned on killing the soldiers from the time Presidente Abayan requested their presence in Balangiga. In another account, the attack was not the result of lengthy sadistic scheming, but rather a response to the cruelty Filipinos experienced at the hands of American soldiers. The people had been shamed, disgraced, imprisoned, and mistreated by American soldiers and they planned to do something about it.

On September 27, 1901 Filipino women carried small coffins into the local church, claiming a cholera epidemic had killed many of the local children. The sentry on duty was suspicious, but did indeed find a child inside the coffin he inspected. Had he looked closer, he might have seen that the child was in fact playing dead, and underneath him, the coffin was filled with bolo knives. Because of Connell’s rules about touching Filipino women, the sentry was not at liberty to search them either. If he had, he would have found that they were in fact men, and underneath their dresses, they carried more bolo knives.

 RECOLLECTIONS OF THE ATTACK

That morning, the Filipinos attacked, leaving Company C almost completely annihilated.

“Survivors of Company C” from Captain Fred R. Brown, History of the Ninth U.S. Infantry 1799-1909, (Chicago: R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co., 1909), 579.

The party of survivors “consisted of 25 men, 22 of whom were wounded, and two bodies of men who had died en route.” They arrived at Basey at 4 a.m. the next morning, where Captain Edwin Bookmiller was stationed with Company G. Bookmiller was quite the opposite of Connell; he “despised Filipinos and trusted none of them.” ¹⁶ At 9 a.m. Bookmiller and fifty-five volunteers of Company G set out for Balangiga with eight survivors of Company C.

When they arrived, Bookmiller ordered the men to round up all Filipinos in the area. The survivors of Company C gunned them down while the rest set Balangiga ablaze. As the town burned, Bookmiller famously declared, “They have sown the wind and they shall reap the whirlwind.” ¹⁷ Although as many as fifty Americans perished, hundreds of Filipinos were killed that day as well, and thousands more died over the next year.

REACTIONS TO BALANGIGA

“Butchered with Bolos,” Minneapolis Journal, September 30, 1901.

“Killed by Rebels,” Washington Times, September 30, 1901; “Battle with Filipinos,” Saint Paul Globe, September 30, 1901; “Terrible Defeat at Hands of Filipinos,” Salt Lake Herald, September 30, 1901.

The American people were horrified when they heard that almost an entire company of men had been cut down by savage Filipino attackers. The Evening World claimed, “The slaughter is the most overwhelming defeat that American arms have encountered in the Orient.” They painted a gruesome picture: “so sudden and unexpected was the onslaught and so well hemmed in were they by the barbarians that the spot became a slaughter-pen for the little band of Americans.” It reignited support for war in the Philippines. The idea that Filipinos would hack a harmless company of men to death during breakfast reinforced the idea in the American consciousness that Filipinos were brutal, savage people. It reinforced the idea that Filipinos needed American colonialism in order to become civilized.

The attack sent shock waves through the U.S. Army. Everyone seemed to have an explanation. Many blamed Connell. General Hughes said, “There is no doubt whatever that the disaster was the result of overconfidence in the Presidente and chief of police.” ¹⁸ One officer was more direct: “I have all the time thought that we do not appreciate the fact that we are dealing with a class of people whose character is deceitful, who are absolutely hostile to the white race.” ¹⁹

Adna R. Chaffee, commander of American forces in the Philippines, had the following to say about the attack in the Annual Report of the War Department:

 “Born, raised, and educated in a country where peaceful conditions prevail and where all one’s neighbors can be trusted, where security for life and property is assured by peaceful processes and through civil means, I fear our soldiers, transplanted to a strange sphere of action, do not fully realize or appreciate the difference in their surroundings and naturally fall into the error of complaisant trustfulness in a seeming friendliness on the part of the native population.” ²⁰

Lukban (whether he planned the attack or not) was pleased with such a successful show of Filipino resistance. He sent out a telegram stating, “Providential events like these clearly demonstrate the justice of a God.” ²¹ He continued, “We desire you to attempt the same thing against the enemy, and with them demonstrate in sight of the nations our dignity, and with them bequeath to our successors fame and honesty, those successors whom we have made happy with their independence.” ²² Read the whole telegram here

THE “HOWLING WILDERNESS”

The Balangiga massacre gave officers the justification to pursue harsher methods. ²³ General Jacob H. Smith led the charge in Samar. He gave the following instructions: “I want no prisoners. I wish you to kill and burn, the more you kill and burn the better you will please me. I want all persons killed who are capable of bearing arms in actual hostilities against the United States.” Major Littleton Waller asked to know the age limit, and Smith replied “Ten years.” These orders were immortalized in a cartoonin the New York Journal whose caption read: “Kill Every One Over Ten: Criminals because they were born ten years before we took the Philippines.” Smith asked his men to turn Samar into a “howling wilderness,” and they obliged.

 “Kill Everyone Over Ten”

Over the next year, the US Army practiced a scorched earth policy on Samar. They trudged through dangerous jungles, burning towns, taking food, and either killing the people or taking them to coastal villages for internment. ²⁴ Thousands of Filipinos, mostly noncombatants, were killed during the Samar campaign. It became the most gruesome campaign of the entire Philippine-American War.

For the people who lived there, it was not the events of September 28, 1901, but what came after that was the true Balangiga “massacre.” Before leaving the island, American troops revisited Balangiga, where it all began. They took the church bells that signaled the attack on that day and sent them back to the United States as war trophies, where they still reside to this day.

THE BELLS OF BALANGIGA

Though this incident has been largely forgotten by most Americans (along with American colonialism in the Philippines), the scars remain to this day. Scholars still dispute the events surrounding the attack. ²⁵ Some, like Stuart Creighton Miller in Benevolent Assimilation paint a picture in which General Lukban and the people of Balangiga lured an American company to Samar and massacred them in cold blood. On the other hand, Kimberly Alidio characterizes the events differently: “The attack of the townspeople and the armed guerrillas led by General Vicente Lukban was a response to weeks of forced labor, mass imprisonments, and the seizure of food supplies under the military occupation” She claims the true brutality was afterwards, when “American forces waged a genocidal campaign, which produced thousands of civilian deaths on the island and the leveling of Balangiga.” ²⁶ Even the matter of what to call the incident is disputed. Sharon Delmendo claims that “it is the interpretation of the incident as a ‘massacre’ that engenders some of the anti-compromise Americans’ resentment over the incident even today, thus fueling their opposition to returning the bells.” The fact that five times more Filipinos than Americans died on that same day, for Delmendo, “provokes some meditation on the use of the term massacre.” ²⁷

The bells of Balangiga reside in Wyoming on the F.E. Warren Air Force Base. For decades, Filipinos have been trying to negotiate the return of the bells. For them, the bells symbolize their fight for independence and they want them returned to the Philippines so they can honor those who fought at Balangiga. But many American veterans and civilians believe that the bells should stay in the United States to commemorate the sacrifice made by the soldiers at Balangiga who defended American sovereignty in the Philippines. Alidio writes, “Several enlisted and civilian Americans expressed in interviews the fear that the U.S. soldier (or the memory of U.S. bravery against the ‘insurrecto’) would be greatly diminished by the view that the battle of Balangiga was an incident of imperial conquest.” ²⁸ Returning the bells to Balangiga would mean changing the memory of Balangiga. The way that we remember history is crucial. Although it is remembered differently, what happened at Balangiga should never be forgotten.

For more information: 

• Read an interview with Stanley Karnow, author of In Our Image: America’s Empire in the Philippines.
• Explore PBS’s A Conflicted Land: Rebellions, Wars, and Insurgencies in the Philippines, 1898-1933: America’s Colony
• Read first-hand accounts online: Captain Fred R. Brown’s History of the Ninth U.S. Infantry, 1799-1909, (Chicago: R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co., 1909); Company C survivors John D. Closson, George F. Markley, Arnold, Irish, Walter Bertholf, and Charles Marak in Captain Fred R. Brown, History of the Ninth U.S. Infantry 1799-1909, (Chicago: R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co., 1909), 583-591; and Major Ray’s Account, as he arrived there just hours after the massacre in “Noble Heroes of Samar,” Railroad Trainmen’s Journal 19, no. 4 (April 1902): 253-259.
• Read Army History’s piece by Thomas A Bruno, “The Violent End of Insurgency on Samar, 1901-1902”
• Use google to explore the US Archives and “The Massacre at Balangia,” Deeds of Valor from Records in the Archives of the United States Government: How American Heroes Won the Medal of Honor, ed. W.F. Beyer and O.F. Keydel (Detroit: The Perrien-Keydel Company, 1906), 470-474.

The post The “Massacre” and the Aftermath appeared first on US History Scene.

In the mid-nineteenth century, explorers headed out to sea, hoping to claim new islands for the United States. One seemed promising: “These islands are small, high and rocky, barren and uninviting to the last degree, yet out of them has come wealth to stagger the dreams of oriental imagination.” ¹ These islands held an extremely valuable resource. With high levels of both phosphorus and nitrogen, it was excellent for crops. In his 1850 State of the Union, President Millard Fillmore said this resource had “become so desirable an article to the agricultural interest of the United States that it is the duty of the Government to employ all the means properly in its power for the purpose of causing that article to be imported into the country at a reasonable price.” ² This article would enable American farmers to produce on a larger scale, at a time when farming was undergoing vast changes as a result of the Industrial Revolution. This prized new resource was guano.

That’s right. American explorers were looking for islands filled with bird poop. They were not the first to think of using guano as a fertilizer. Guano had been harvested and used for centuries. In fact, the word “guano” comes from the Quichua language of the Inca Empire. It is most commonly found in islands in the Caribbean. The conditions in the islands near present-day Peru were perfect for forming large deposits of guano. A large sea bird population meant there was plenty of excrement settling on the ground. What really made the islands perfect, however, was the extreme dry heat. This enabled the guano to dry out and solidify—making it perfect for harvesting. For the Incans, guano was a highly prized fertilizer. Disturbing sea birds (and thereby disrupting the process of making guano) was punishable by death.

When the Spanish first arrived in the Inca Empire in the 1500’s, they were aware that people used guano as fertilizer for their crops. As the Perrysburg Journal noted in 1855, “the Spaniards obtained this knowledge from them [the Inca], but were too indolent to apply it in practical life.” ³ Europeans and North Americans remained unfamiliar with the benefits of guano until the nineteenth century. From 1799 to 1804, Prussian explorer Alexander von Humboldt traveled around Latin America. In 1802, while in Peru, he investigated the fertilizing properties of guano. After hearing how effective it was, guano soon became highly prized on the world market. In 1840, the first Peruvian guano was shipped to Europe, arriving in London. Over the next two years, 182 tons were shipped to England. Just twenty years later, in 1862, that amount had risen to 435,000 tons. ⁴

GUANO ISLANDS ACT

By the 1850’s, news of this revolutionary fertilizer being imported by the British had reached the United States. Americans wanted a piece of the lucrative industry. One writer said, “The commercial enterprise of our country is seeking out and bringing the treasures of the waters to our farms and orchards, in the form of guano…Treasures, indeed—rich in the one needful thing, without which our labor would be in vain, our fertile soils a barren waste.” ⁵

The American Guano Company formed in New York City in September of 1855. The company already had an island in mind that they wished to mine. They reported that “excepting this one, no Guano Island hitherto discovered possesses the natural advantages of a good harbor, safe anchorage, and convenience to load a large number of ships at once.” ⁶ “From the past and present demand for Peruvian guano, now selling at fifty-five dollars per ton,” the company estimated that their profits would be $2,400,000 per annum. ⁷

American companies had seen the success associated with the guano industry and were eager to get involved. Congress facilitated this in an interesting way by enacting the “Guano Islands Act” on August 18, 1856. This new law allowed U.S. citizens to claim islands containing guano deposits for the United States:

That when any citizen or citizens of the United States may have discovered, or shall hereafter discover, a deposit of guano on any island, rock, or key not within the lawful jurisdiction of any other government, and not occupied by the citizens of any other government, and shall take peaceable possession thereof, and occupy the same, said island, rock, or key may, at the discretion of the President of the United States, be considered as appertaining to the United States.

The law further specified that when guano on any given island ran out, the United States would have no obligation to retain the territory:

“And be it further enacted, that nothing in this act contained shall be construed obligatory on the United States to retain possession of the islands, rocks, or keys, as aforesaid, after the guano shall have been removed from the same.”

The Guano Islands Act marked the beginning of insular, unincorporated territories of the United States. According to the U.S. Office of Insular Affairs, an insular territory is “a jurisdiction that is neither a part of one of the several States nor a Federal district.” ⁸ Thus far, territory acquired by the United States as part of westward expansion was intended for eventual statehood. The guano islands were not meant to be populated by Americans or entered into the union of the United States. The explicit purpose of holding the islands was to mine guano, an increasingly valuable resource for the United States.

Baker Island was the first island to become a part of the United States under the Guano Islands Act. Although it was first discovered by whalers in 1818, the U.S. took possession of it in 1857.

• Guano and the Industrial Revolution: Andrew Leonard, “When Guano Imperialists Ruled the Earth,” Salon, (Feb 29, 2008).
• Read testimonials from farmers about Imperial Guano in 1888
• Read about Guano Islands in Godfrey Thomas Vigne, Travels in Mexico, South America, etc. (London: WM H. Allen & Co, 1863).
•  “The Great Guano Deposits of Peru” in Bulletin of the International Union of the American Republics, (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1909), 884-891.
• Read the prospectus of the American Guano Company.

NAVASSA ISLAND & ISSUES WITH ANNEXATION

The acquisition of territory through the Guano Islands Act seemed relatively straightforward. However, this was the first time the United States attempted to annex overseas territories.

• Read the entire Guano Islands Act here. An Act to Authorize Protection to be Given to Citizens of the United States Who May Discover Deposits of Guano.
• Read an interview with Columbia University legal historian Cristina Duffy Burnett about the Guano Islands Act.

Although the Guano Islands Act specifically indicated that American explorers could only claim “any island, rock, or key not within the lawful jurisdiction of any other government, and not occupied by the citizens of any other government,” this did not prevent territorial disputes. In 1857 Peter Duncan and Edward Cooper of Maryland discovered that Navassa Island off the coast of Haiti held 1,000,000 tons of guano. The Haitian government felt that Navassa Island was definitely “within the lawful jurisdiction” of the Haitian government.

Regardless of Haiti’s claim, Duncan and Cooper claimed it for the United States under the Guano Islands Act. ⁹ President James Buchanan approved the annexation.

In 1918 the Ogden Standard said that Navassa Island had “long since proved to be the most troublesome, to the square mile, of any property this nation even came into possession of.” ¹⁰ The Americans, led by Edward Cooper and the newly formed Navassa Phosphate Company, immediately began mining guano once Navassa became a U.S. possession. The company brought in droves of slave labor, such that “the crack of the slavedriver’s whip was soon heard where only the scream of the seagull had broken the silence for centuries.” ¹¹

Haiti had not, however, given up its right to the island. In November or 1858, Mr. B.C. Clark, the commercial agent of Haiti in Boston, wrote that since the Haitian government “never ceded, sold, or leased either of these dependencies [including Navassa] to any nation, company, or individual,” the island remained a Haitian possession. The U.S. Assistant Secretary of State replied that the annexation of Navassa by the United States was lawful since “the island was derelict and abandoned, with guano of good quality.” ¹²

The Haitian government “sent two vessels of war and soldiers to the island and interrupted and prohibited Cooper and his men digging or taking away any of the rock.” ¹³ The U.S. Secretary of State, Lewis Cass, issued a letter to the Secretary of the Navy, Isaac Toucey, which read:

“The president being of the opinion that any claim of the Haitian Government to prevent citizens of the United States from removing guano from the Island of Navassa is unfounded…directs that you will cause a competent force to repair to that island, and will order the officer in command thereof to protect citizens of the United States in removing guano therefrom against any interference from authorities of the Government of Haiti, or of any other government.” ¹⁴

The Secretary of the Navy relayed the President’s message to the Haitian minister of foreign relations. This stern message, along with the arrival of “one of Uncle Sam’s most vicious looking war vessels,” quieted the conflict enough for Americans to continue mining.

The question of jurisdiction was never entirely resolved. But, the matter did not hold much importance for the U.S. government so long as the Navassa Phosphate Company could continue mining.

The issue of jurisdiction became paramount when Henry Jones murdered Thomas N. Foster in 1889. In 1889, there were 137 black laborers and 11 white officers on Navassa. On September 14, “a riot took place there, in which a large number of laborers were engaged against the officers, and the defendant killed Thomas N. Foster, one of the officers, under circumstances which the jury found amounted to murder.” ¹⁵

The defendant, Jones, was brought to Maryland for his murder trial. The jury there found him guilty and he was sentenced to death. He appealed his case to the United States Supreme Court, claiming that the District Court of Maryland had no authority to try him for crimes committed in Navassa Island. Originally, acquiring overseas territory through the Guano Islands Act was a commercial endeavor. Now, the United States was faced with establishing rule of law in far-flung territories. In order to try Jones for murder in the American judicial system, the United States had to prove that “Navassa Island was recognized and considered by the United States as appertaining to the United States, and in the possession of the United States under the provisions of the laws of the United States.” ¹⁶

In 1890, the United States Supreme Court found that “the Island of Navassa must be considered as appertaining to the United States; that the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Maryland had jurisdiction to try this indictment, and that there is no error in the proceedings.” ¹⁷

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE GUANO ISLANDS

American companies mined huge guano deposits on a number of islands in the Caribbean and Pacific. But, the more companies mined, the less sea birds visited the islands to renew the resource. In the long run, guano was not beneficial as a fertilizer.

 

The Ogden Standard wrote:

“There was a time when guano was in unusual demand in the United States. Farmers had found their soil was enriched by its use. But because the science of using commercial fertilizer was then crude, guano finally fell into smaller use. After three of four years treatment with guano, land failed to yield to its influence and the farmers found that in the long run the ground would have been better off if it had not been used.” ¹⁸

 

Eventually, the guano industry fell by the wayside, but the islands remain significant in American history. The Guano Islands set a precedent for insular and unincorporated territory. According to the U.S. Office of Insular Affairs, an unincorporated territory is “a United States insular area in which the United States Congress has determined that only selected parts of the United States Constitution apply.” ¹⁹ The Guano Islands were the first overseas territories acquired by the United States. The issues the government faced with incorporating the Guano Islands were were revisited in 1898, when the United States acquired its first peopled territories—not for commercial reasons, but for colonization. Although Navassa was “only a wind-swept and wave-battered rock rising out of the Caribbean Sea,” it and other Guano Islands were the beginning of U.S. overseas territorial expansion.

For more information:

• Read more about slavery in Navassa from the Library of Congress: “Freedom for a Slave,” Kansas City Journal (1899) and “The Navassa Riot,” Red Cloud Chief (1889)
• Use google books to access Eugene Guassoin’s The Island of Navassa (1866)
• Read the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Jones v. United States (1890)
• Visit the U.S. History Scene reading list for the Atlantic World

The post The Guano Islands appeared first on US History Scene.

Some people’s lives make for good stories. In the 1870’s, the notorious “Boss” Tweed stood trial for corruption in New York City. In 1898, Teddy Roosevelt led the Rough Riders in the Battle of San Juan Hill—a decisive battle of the Spanish-American War. Admiral Dewey famously landed in Manila Bay, bringing total victory to the United States against the Spanish fleet there. After WWI, Woodrow Wilson boldly proclaimed his Fourteen Points that would ensure peace and tranquility among nations. Although he was a part of each major historical event, a name rarely heard in all of these landmarks is Elihu Root.

Elihu Root’s Career

• United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York (1883-1885)
• Secretary of War (1899-1904)
• Secretary of State (1905-1909)
• U.S. Senator (1909-1915)
• Nobel Prize Winner (1912)
• Elder Statesman (1915-1937)

No doubt about it—Elihu Root’s résumé is impressive. Yet, despite this, he is not featured as a leading man in American history. In 1914 James B. Morrow, writing of Root’s life and accomplishments in the Washington Herald, echoed this sentiment when he wrote, “No anecdotes are told of Elihu Root.” Root is reported to have once said to a group of friends, “Let us take no action unless we are in earnest and are prepared to follow it to the end.” Morrow concluded: “Following it to the end, first being in earnest, may explain the influence and eminence of this tranquil man in Europe and America.” ¹ An earnest man who dutifully served without flourish or fame does not make for a grand tale. But, as the New York Times put it in 1899, “Any person meeting Elihu Root for the first time and on an occasion of no especial significance, would be likely to underestimate the aggressive vigor of the man’s character.” ²

New York Lawyer (1867-1899)

Root, a native of Clinton, NY, graduated from the New York University School of Law in 1867. The bread and butter of Root’s early private practice was corporate law. In this line of work, he “often represented railroads, banks, and some of the so-called ‘robber barons’ of American industrial expansion in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century.” ³ His clients included “railroad tycoons” such as Jay Gould and E.H. Harriman, future president Chester A. Arthur, and most famously, William “Boss” Tweed.

“Boss” Tweed was known for controlling Tammany Hall, “the democratic political machine that dominated New York politics.” ⁴ Tammany Hall, especially under Tweed’s leadership, was known for its corruption—one historian estimates that between 75 and 200 million dollars were “swindled from the City” from 1865 to 1871. ⁵ In 1873, Tweed stood trial for corruption charges. Elihu Root served as junior defense counsel—a role that would haunt his political career in later years.

Even with Boss Tweed’s controversial trial, Root was still regarded as a well-respected, trustworthy lawyer in New York. He ran in the highest circles; when President Garfield died in 1881, Root, one of Chester A. Arthur’s closest friends, was present as he was sworn in to the highest office of the United States. ⁶Almost immediately after Arthur took office, rumors began to swirl about a possible appointment for Root. Arthur initially squashed these rumors, but did give his friend an influential position a couple of years later. In 1883, Elihu Root was appointed United States Attorney for the southern district of New York—“the most prestigious federal prosecutor’s job outside Washington,” according to the New York Times. ⁷This esteemed position allowed Root to rub elbows with more important people, such as Teddy Roosevelt. When Tammany Hall attempted to keep Roosevelt from the New York governorship, Root came to his defense, allowing Roosevelt to be elected in 1898. ⁸

Secretary of War (1899-1904)

Though Root was well-known as a lawyer, he was not known as a political figure. Still, President McKinley entrusted Root with the office of Secretary of War in 1899. The United States was just emerging from the Spanish-American war, so it seemed strange that the President would choose a lawyer instead of a military man. For his part, Root was happy to serve what he called “the greatest of all our clients, the government of our country.” ⁹

The New York Times ran a story introducing America to the new Secretary of War. The lede read:

“Any person meeting Elihu Root for the first time and on an occasion of no special significance, would be likely to underestimate the aggressive vigor of the man’s character…There is nothing in his character to suggest the lawyer militant, much less the warrior militant. Yet there are many men who have felt his power in legal and political controversy who are willing to concede that the new Secretary of War has the essential qualities of a fighter.” ¹⁰

Root’s Nobel biography states, “Since the nation was just emerging from the Spanish-American War, it seemed an unlikely appointment. But President McKinley, with remarkable insight, said that he needed a lawyer in the post, not a military man.” ¹¹ The war in the Philippines was about territorial control, but it was also about rule of law. Military strength had given the United States the islands, but it would take a legal mind to figure out how to keep them. Only a lawyer could deftly determine how a constitutional republic that boasted a representative government could have colonies, rule subjects, and build an overseas empire without seeming to sacrifice its principles.

Root is largely responsible for reforming the War Department. The Spanish-American War revealed that the U.S. Army was more of a rag-tag bunch of militiamen than a sophisticated military force. Root made it his personal mission to bring order to the Army. He enlarged West Point, the nation’s foremost military academy. In November of 1901, he established the General Staff and the U.S. Army War College as a sort of military graduate school, in order to better train military officers.

As Secretary of War in the aftermath of the Spanish-American War, Root was also a key figure in administration of new U.S. territories. Elihu Root was the primary author of the Platt Amendment, which put significant limitations on Cuba’s newfound independence, including a provision that stated:

“That the government of Cuba consents that the United States may exercise the right to intervene for the preservation of Cuban independence, the maintenance of a government adequate for the protection of life, property, and individual liberty, and for discharging the obligations with respect to Cuba imposed by the treaty of Paris on the United States, now to be assumed and undertaken by the government of Cuba.”

Root staunchly supported American rule in the Philippines (read: “Secretary Root Defends Army in Philippines”), and was responsible for drafting a charter for governance in the islands.

In regards to Puerto Rico, Root managed to eliminate all tariffs on goods imported from the island to the mainland United States. Root’s stint as Secretary of War was so impressive that Henry L. Stimson, who would later hold that post himself, said “no such intelligent, constructive, and vital force had occupied that post in American history.” ¹²

• “The Platt Amendment, 1901,” Modern History Sourcebook
• Elihu Root Collection of United States Documents Relating to the Philippine Islands
• Address of the Secretary of War, 1903

Secretary of State (1905-1909)

Root returned to his private practice in 1904, but returned to Washington in 1905 when he received an appointment from his old friend Teddy Roosevelt to be Secretary of State.

The post “No anecdotes are told of Elihu Root” appeared first on US History Scene.

It’s a story we all think we know. Following World War II, the baby boomer generation was born. After living through the stifling conformity of the 1950s, American teenagers rebelled. It all started with Elvis, then the British Invasion and the hysteria known as “Beatlemania.” Teenagers got wrapped up in that no-good rock ’n’ roll and by the end of the 1960s they were painting their faces, taking hallucinogens, and singing kumbayah at “love-ins.” Or at least that’s how it looked to their parents, the so-called “greatest generation” who prided themselves on having fought in WWII to secure freedom for the United States and the world. The counterculture that emerged in opposition to the older generation in the 1960s was the defining moment of the emergence of adolescence as something markedly different from childhood or adulthood.

Or was it?

Not so, say Matt Wolf and Jon Savage. These two have recently teamed up to turn Jon Savage’s book Teenage into a documentary film. The film Teenage begins with some familiar images of post-WWII adolescent rebellion, then rewinds. The story that follows is one that begins at the end of the nineteenth century, when the end of child labor spawned a new stage of life: adolescence.

The film Teenage is, most simply, a collection of primary sources. It is a stream of footage and images overlaid with teenage voices that recreates an era previously lost to history. Before Elvis’ swinging hips, the Beatles’ shaking heads, and the defining moment of the 1960s counterculture, before they were “all wasted!” (thank you, Pete Townshend), teenagers existed. Teenage shows the lives of these early-twentieth-century teenagers, as they rebelled against the older generation and tried to shape the world they would one day inherit.

What drew you to this project and did you have any previous interest in history or historical documentary filmmaking in particular?

Well, I’ve always been kind of obsessed with archival material and I’ve actually never made a film that takes place in the present. All of my films deal with biographies or cultural materials from the past. I had never done a project that was this broad in scope, but I was inspired by the book by Jon Savage. I knew Jon Savage through his book England’s Dreaming which is really the definitive history of punk rock. And so I was really excited to read Teenage when I heard about it because one of my obsessions is hidden histories or forgotten biographies and Teenage is just filled with those. I was just fascinated by all the youth groups I’d never heard of and the biographies of these forgotten teenage figures. I was also intrigued by this project of looking at things through the lens of a prehistory and doing a whole prehistory of a phenomenon that we all are familiar with and we all understand. I love the idea of doing a story that ends with the beginning. So, I got inspired to make a different kind of historical film, one that doesn’t take on the image of the Ken Burns, but that does something different. I felt like Jon’s book was infused with that punk rock sensibility and I wanted my filmmaking to be, too.

• Check out U.S. History Scene’s interview with documentary filmmaker Ken Burns

What about the book Teenage made it seem like it would translate well into a film?

All I wanted to do was see things that were being described in the book. I wanted to see the Wandervogel, I wanted to see images of the German swing kids that were being discussed in the book, and so it was basically that curiosity to see what these young people look like, to see their faces and their style.

How did the collaboration between you and Jon Savage get started?

We made a rule for ourselves early on that any story we told had to have a strong basis in actual archival footage. So, our whole process was grounded in archival research and we collaborated with a professional archival researcher. Our lead researcher was Rosemary Rotondi and she enlisted researchers at the National Archives in Washington, DC, a researcher in London, and also we worked with researchers and scholars in Germany as well. We would feed lists of topics to these researchers and they would give us footage and based on what we found we would develop our story and also seek more footage with more specific goals in mind. Early on we decided we didn’t want to have a central, authoritative expert telling the history. We wanted to tell it from the point of view of youth to really embody the kind of emotional experience and that spirit of rebellion that kind of comes out from the teenage experience. Jon’s book has tons and tons of first-person quotes from real teenagers from these periods and so he continued to source more of these quotes and we sourced a lot of them from a German author as well. Those became the fabric of the script that’s used for narration in the film.

So, it sounds like instead of starting with a story and finding evidence to fit that, you started with the sources and let them lead you to the story?

Yeah, we had a basic argument in mind, which is that there are these competing definitions of youth that start percolating after the end of child labor when this new second stage of life emerges. And we wanted to identify what those competing definitions were and what these different models were for dealing with youth: were they a problem, were they an opportunity, were they, kind of, heroes or were they villains? We decided that those themes and those competing attitudes played out most intensively in America, England, and Germany. So, we kind of telescoped our focus to those regions and to stories that played out these themes between adults trying to control youth because they represent the future and young people fighting back trying to create their own world. And that was the filter through which we looked at material and we tried to sketch out a path in which this emergent idea of the teenager was being created.

Could you say a little more about the extensive archival research? How much time did you spend and what kind of efforts went into that?

Yeah. We worked with over a hundred archives and the process unfolded over four years. We were really looking for stuff that didn’t feel like stock footage, that felt like real home movies, amateur films, or unedited rushes from a journalist’s camera. So that was the kind of material we were after. Every time we would approach an archive we would get a lot of stock footage, but there would be something in there that was different, that felt actually subjective and from the point of view of a real person. We would highlight and flag that material and ask the archivist if they had anything else like that. And then there were some more obscure topics, for instance the German Wandervogel, the German youth movements, the German swing kids, or the Bright Young People—really specific youth movements that we knew we wanted to portray. The kind of material on those movements is very scarce so we did more specialized and intensive digging as we searched for footage on those movements.

Can you tell me more about what I’ve heard you call the “living collage” approach and how this was different from other historical documentaries you’ve worked on or seen?

Yeah, I mean I think the conventional logic of historians or documentary filmmakers is to use primary sources to illustrate facts and to illustrate things that are being said. It’s about literal illustration. We took a different approach. We use archival material a little more expressionistically and lyrically, you could say. Like I said, I felt like Jon’s book really had this punk quality to the way that he looked at early twentieth century history and I wanted my filmmaking, too, to have that quality. So, we were talking early on in our process about punk, and Jon remembered that in the 1970s he saw these young punks wearing thrift clothes from previous youth cultures—like rocker suits and zoot suits—and they would cut them up and literally reassemble them with safety pins into something that was clearly contemporary and new. And that visual premise really inspired me. What if we take all of these fragments of youth from the past, these images from films and photographs, but also voices of youth from primary sources, and what if we collage them together to make a new work that deals in the past but is meant to resonate in the now and to help people reflect on the world of youth now, today? So in a sense we kind of felt like the film was a living collage, inspired by this thing Jon had observed with punks in the 1970s in England.

So once you decided on that approach, how did you go about deciding what to leave out of the film? What are some of the interesting things that got left on the cutting room floor that got left out from choosing to focus on the United States, England, and Germany?

One thing in particular I was really fascinated by were the French zazou. They were a movement that was really similar to the Hamburg swing kids, but it was in France and we found literally no footage of them so that was one thing we couldn’t cover. There were also just some moments in the genesis of teenagers as a market demographic. For instance, when The Wizard of Oz came out, Judy Garland released a dress line at Macy’s and there was pandemonium outside of Macy’s with young girls trying to buy the dress, but we couldn’t find anything on it! No images, not even any headlines. So there’s always kind of beats in this history that reinforce our ideas but there just wasn’t visual material for so we just couldn’t focus on that. But, there’s so much that we did find that it was easy to kind of focus on that stuff.

The film is centered around four main characters: Brenda Dean Paul, Melita Maschmann, Tommie Scheel, and Warren Wall. What was the motivation behind using these characters to frame your story and the decision to feature women’s voices and black voices?

Basically, I wanted to telescope into the experience of individuals. I knew this would be a panoramic cultural history, but I thought the film might need what I call beats, in which people have a moment to slow down, and really just experience the portrait of an individual. It’s something that’s in Jon’s book that I really loved. To me, it was important to create a certain kind of demographic diversity for the characters that we chose with one idea that they were all teenage rebels in an unconventional sense. I think Brenda Dean Paul appealed to me because she was like a proto-Lindsay Lohan type. The media and paparazzi were obsessed with her and loved to condemn her and she kind of fell apart publicly. But, she was kind of glamorously identified with being young. With Melita Maschmann, there’s so much hypnotic imagery with Hitler Youth in the masses, but it’s so rare to really focus on their experiences from the point of view of an individual. I think what’s not often really known is that young people who joined the Hitler Youth or the BDM (the girls’ division) were really rebelling against their parents’ generation and they were kind of coming at it from a place of desperation because Germany was in such economic and political turmoil. They were looking for a new model and a new path that was different from their parents and I think it was really important to, I wouldn’t say humanize, but to kind of show how teenage rebellion could go wrong in a way, but also could be a deeply political impulse. And then, Tommie Scheel is so important to me because he is this character where pop culture and politics collide. He’s doing what kids do, like listening to music, dressing up in cool clothes, and dancing but, the way that he’s doing it is actually an incredibly subversive form of rebellion. He and his friends were risking their lives. And it was super inspiring to me to see the political dimension of culture like that. And then Warren Wall was so important because there was such a dearth of material on African American teens from this period. They were completely excluded from the official records of the day. And we searched and searched for any young people of color and it was very challenging. But, in this sociological study called Negro Youth at the Crossroads, we found this extended interview with an African American boy scout from the 1940s. It was such a good portrait of a person at that time and I knew I wanted to bring to light that point of view. But I also saw Warren as an unlikely kind of rebel. He’s trying to advance in society and, more or less, he’s a kind of square hampered by the color of his skin and that breeds a kind of rebellious impulse as well. So I thought it was a really important contrast to a lot of the other more flamboyant characters that are profiled. And to me they all form this kind of composite portrait of the teenager that was about to be born.

They also seem like people that kids who watch the movie could relate to.

Totally and I think, you know, some people have asked what about the kids who were conformist, the kids who kind of sit in their bedroom just kind of toiling away. What I would say is that this film is not necessarily about typical youth, it’s about exceptional youth. All of those characters were exceptional youth. They weren’t only operating on the status quo, they were going to the extremes. And those were the types of characters and the types of youth that I was most inspired by.

Most of us have spent most of our teenage years taking history classes. After working on this film, what do you feel was missing from the history your were taught? What do you wish, when you were a teenager in the history classroom, would’ve been included in the story?

It’s so funny because I actually didn’t connect to history when I was in high school. It’s not a subject I really paid attention to or realized I was that interested in. I think that often the thing that’s missing is the subjectivity of people in the time. And I’m sure there’s curriculum and historians who really emphasize that but as a teenager myself, studying history, I don’t think I ever connected to the subjective experience of people who were living through those events. It was really an emphasis on the broad strokes. I think that was kind of my angle with this film, really making something that is comprehensive but highly subjective—something that’s told from the point of view of youth. I think it’s an entry point for people and comes from a place where we find universal sentiments that kind of cross different generations and eras as well.

How could you imagine a teacher using this film in the classroom?

I think it would be interesting for them to tell the story of an individual character, to talk about the experience of an individual as a way to look at broader history—looking at Melita to talk about the rise of Nazism and fascism in WWII. But I also think that what’s unique about this film, perhaps, is that it uses the past as a way for us to reflect on today. That’s really my goal, is for people to look at the past and see how the patterns and dynamics in youth culture and in history repeat themselves. So, I figure it could be a useful exercise to watch excerpts from the film maybe around the Great Depression and the crisis surrounding unemployment and to ask young people to reflect on how they see those things playing out today with the incredible unemployment of young people and the occupation movements that have exploded around the world.

Do you feel like there’s a message for American teenagers?

I guess my message is that rebellion is often disregarded as this emotional rite of passage and teenagers are often condemned by the older generation for not being creative, for being apolitical and apathetic, but I would argue through this film that there’s a great political and cultural substance to teenage rebellion and that it’s hard to identify the most meaningful strands of them as it’s happening. It takes time and retrospect to really understand those things. Teenagers should be looked at in a more thoughtful way. We should recognize that young people are always imagining the future and that their impulses are meaningful.

Do you feel like the film has a message for academic historians as well?

Well, I think the film would be controversial for academic historians. It uses recreations in a fairly seamless way. It uses primary sources in a way that doesn’t fully contextualize. It is a living collage and in that way the project might be perceived as controversial to a traditional historian or an academic. But, I’m coming at it from the perspective of a filmmaker, not as an academic and I’m inspired by these primary sources and interested in experimenting with them to paint a picture of a time and a place, to really explore something that feels very familiar but that is a story that we haven’t heard before.

If there are people interested in tracing some of the things that show up in the film, how would they do that?

I think the primary sources for our four main characters could be interesting. Melita Maschmann, the Hitler Youth girl’s story, was published in a book that Melita wrote called An Account Rendered, which is a really fascinating book that’s recently been republished. Brenda Dean Paul wrote a diary. It’s very rare and hard to come by, but it was called My First Life, by Brenda Dean Paul. Tommie Scheel’s story is a story of swing in Nazi Germany, was accounted in a book called Different Drummers. And then Warren Wall’s experiences and interview is in the sociological book called Negro Youth at the Crossroads. So I think those are four great places to start in terms of identifying these characters and to look further into their background.

• Melita Maschmann’s An Account Rendered: A Dossier on my Former Self
• Read Helen Epstein’s New Yorker piece on Melita: “I Was a Nazi, and Here’s Why”
• Read Lynda Maureen Willet’s M.A. Thesis: “Women Under National Socialism: The Case Study of Melita Maschmann”
• Read “Brenda Dean Paul: 1920s ‘society drug addict’” from the Writing Women’s History blog
• Preview Michael H. Kater’s Different Drummers: Jazz in the Culture of Nazi Germany

Do you think, after doing this project, that you’ll embark on another broad, historical project like this again?

I don’t know. I’m not currently working on one, but it was an incredible challenge to wrangle this much material and to deal with such a larger topic. I’m interested in continuing to work with archival material, to tell stories from the past that I think might resonate in the now.

For more on the history of teens, check out the Teenage film blog: http://www.teenagefilm.com/blog

The post Teenage Wasteland? appeared first on US History Scene.

Last November, with all the hubbub surrounding the presidential election, you may have missed a historic moment for the little Caribbean island of Puerto Rico. For the first time, the majority of Puerto Ricans voted to become a U.S. State. This vote, although problematic in some ways (see Ben Fox’s article “Puerto Rico vote endorses statehood with asterisk”), could be an important step toward changing Puerto Rico’s current relationship with the United States. But what is Puerto Rico’s relationship with the United States? Well, it’s complicated.

Puerto Rico is currently a commonwealth of the United States. The Office of Insular Affairs defines a commonwealth as “an organized United States insular area, which has established with the Federal Government, a more highly developed relationship, usually embodied in a written mutual agreement.” This is not to be confused with an unincorporated territory: “a United States insular area in which the United States Congress has determined that only selected parts of the United States Constitution apply,” an organized territory: “a United States insular area for which the United States Congress has enacted an organic act,” or just plain occupied territory, in which the U.S. military forcibly claims sovereignty over people who would really rather they didn’t. Since 1898, Puerto Rico’s relationship with the United States has encompassed all of the aforementioned definitions, each with its own set of ever-changing rights and responsibilities.

Are we confused yet?

We’ll start at the beginning.

THE END OF SPANISH COLONIAL RULE

Spanish colonial rule in Puerto Rico was many things, but it was not complicated. Christopher Columbus discovered the island of Puerto Rico on November 19, 1493. The people who already lived there, the Taínos, (Columbus ‘discovered’ them, too) called the island Borikén. Their population dwindled rapidly from exposure to European diseases and the harshness of imposed slavery. Spanish settlers, left with no labor force, began importing African slaves to work on their plantations.

In 1873, the Spanish National Assembly abolished slavery in Puerto Rico, but the island’s plantation economy persisted.

• This GIF shows the different imperial powers who have owned parts of the Caribbean since 1700

Over the centuries, the French, Dutch, and British all tried to take Puerto Rico from Spain. Looking at a map, it’s not hard to see why. As the easternmost island of the Greater Antilles, Spain thought of Puerto Rico as the gateway to the Caribbean and the rest of its possessions in the Americas. But, Spain’s American imperium was surrounded by other colonial powers. Driven by the fear of losing their gateway to the Americas, the Spanish covered Puerto Rico in forts. By the end of the nineteenth century, Spain had lost all its colonies, save Puerto Rico, Cuba, the Philippines, Guam, and a few other Pacific islands.

During the nineteenth century, Puerto Ricans, inspired by Simón Bolivar and other independence movements in Latin America, pushed for independence from the weakened Spanish crown. Though unsuccessful, these sentiments eventually led to change towards the end of the century. In 1897, the Spanish agreed to the Carta Autonómica, making Puerto Rico an overseas province of Spain. This allowed for Puerto Rico’s first semi-autonomous government (the Spanish-appointed governor maintained the power to annul any legislative decisions).

• Read the Carta Autonómica: Translation: Constitution Establishing Self-Government in the Islands of Cuba and Porto Rico: Promulgated by Royal Decree of November 25, 1897 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1899).

Governor-General Manuel Macías, a Spanish general, inaugurated the new government in February, 1898. In March, general elections were held. Puerto Rico’s first autonomous government began to function on July 17, 1898—in the midst of the Spanish-American War.

THE SPANISH-AMERICAN WAR (1898)

• Chronology of Puerto Rico in the Spanish-American War

The importance of The Influence of Sea Power Upon History (1890), by Alfred Thayer Mahan, cannot be overstated. Captain Mahan was President of the U.S. Naval War College when he wrote this significant historical volume. His theories resonated with many leaders and strategists around the world, including President Theodore Roosevelt (read a letter from Roosevelt to Mahan that discusses Hawaii, an isthmian canal, and “big problems in the West Indies”). Mahan’s theories arrived in American consciousness at an interesting time. Frederick Jackson Turner’s “Frontier Thesis” (1893) posited that westward expansion and the frontier experience gave rise to American exceptionalism. Since that expansion ended when the United States reached the shores of the Pacific, Turner proposed that the period of American greatness might have ended with it. Mahan’s ideas gave the United States a way to be great again through expansion—overseas expansion. By the end of the nineteenth century, the United States had set its sights on world power. The first step, following Captain Mahan’s advice, was creating a large, powerful navy – and a large, powerful navy required coaling stations and naval bases. This is where the Caribbean featured. The ultimate goal of overseas expansionists was an isthmian canal (today, the Panama canal) that would facilitate sea travel between the Atlantic and the Pacific.

The idea of acquiring Puerto Rico did not spring up in 1898. In fact, William H. Seward (Secretary of State under Presidents Lincoln, Johnson, and Grant) proposed annexing the Dominican Republic and purchasing Puerto Rico and Cuba. ((“Biographies of the Secretaries of State: William Henry Seward,” Office of the Historian, http://history.state.gov/departmenthistory/people/seward-william-henry )) The U.S. Senate rejected the annexation proposal and Spain rejected the U.S. offer to purchase Puerto Rico and Cuba for $160 million. The U.S. Naval War College drafted plans for war with Spain as early as 1894. A more formal plan was drafted by Lieutenant William Kimball in 1896. His plan relied heavily on naval forces and first proposed a two-front war on Spain’s colonies in the Caribbean and the Pacific. ((John A.S. Grenville, “American Naval Preparations for War with Spain, 1896-1898,” Journal of American Studies 2, no. 1 (April 1968): 35.))

• Read more about U.S. Spanish-American War Plans.

No sooner had Puerto Rico been granted autonomy by Spain than the United States went to war with their former colonial masters (spoiler alert! Puerto Rico, although technically not a belligerent, loses).

The Spanish-American War began in April, 1898. The impetus for war was Cuba. Americans had become incensed by sensationalized stories of Spanish cruelty, which eventually culminated in the sinking of a U.S. naval ship, the Maine, in Havana harbor. Although the cause of the explosion remains unknown, it became the justification for the coming war with Spain. On July 17, the autonomous government began to function in Puerto Rico, led by Governor General Manual Macias; on July 25, the U.S. military invaded Puerto Rico.

OCCUPIED TERRITORY (1898-1899)

General Nelson A. Miles, Commanding General of the United States Army, led the U.S. forces that landed in Guanica in July 1898. General Miles assured the Puerto Rican people the U.S. military did not “come to make war upon the people of a country that for centuries has been oppressed, but, on the contrary, to bring you protection, not only to yourselves, but to your property, to promote your prosperity, and to bestow upon you the immunities and blessings of the liberal institutions of our Government.” Miles introduced the tenets benevolent rule that would come to characterize American empire: “This is not a war of devastation, but one to give to all within the control of its military and naval forces the advantages and blessings of enlightened civilization.” ((Annual Reports of the War Department for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1900. Part 13. Report of the Military Governor of Porto Rico on Civil Affairs, (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1902), 20.))

• Military Government in Puerto Rico
• Puerto Rico in 1898

On August 12^th, 1898, Spain and the United States agreed to terms of peace, which officially ceded Puerto Rico to the United States. After this peace protocol, General Miles was replaced by the new military governor Major General John R. Brooke. In December, U.S. Major General Guy V. Henry took up that post when General Brooke was recalled to the United States. Henry was “relieved upon his own request” in May 1899 and replaced by Brigadier General George W. Davis. ((ibid, 17)) During this time, the United States was, according to the War Department “a belligerent, who, under the laws of war, maintained hostile occupation, his army seeking by every means in its power to further the aims of its own government and to overcome by every lawful means the resistance and power of the armies of Spain.” ((ibid, 23))

This continued until the Treaty of Paris came into effect in April, 1899. In this new period, “The Army of the United States in Porto Rico was no longer a belligerent, for there was no public enemy, and there could no longer be a hostile occupation and control.” ((ibid, 24)) This assumed that the Spanish were the only ones opposed to American rule in Puerto Rico. Governor Davis proclaimed: “If all classes of the inhabitants, native and foreign, will work together for the common good Porto Rico should soon be the gem of the Antilles—the best governed, happiest, and most prosperous island in the West Indies.” ((ibid))

However, not all Puerto Ricans were pleased with the manner in which the United States assumed and maintained power in the island.  José Julio Henna and Manuel Zeno Gandia, Puerto Rican Commissioners, wrote several letters voicing their unhappiness at being “under the military control of the freest country in the world.” ((José Julio Henna and Manuel Zeno Gandia, The Case of Puerto Rico, (Washington DC: Press of W.F. Roberts, 1899), 7)) They lamented that in negotiations between the United States and Spain, “the voice of Puerto Rico was not heard” and “the island and its people were conveyed from one sovereign to another as a farm and its cattle are conveyed from a master to another.” ((ibid, 9)) Henna and Gandia exposed the hypocrisy of the United States’ new colonial venture by quoting the Declaration of Independence: “…that these governments only derive ‘their just powers FROM THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED.’ The Puerto Rican people, in asking from the people to whom they have been aggregated that these principles of the first enactment to be found in their statute books be applied to them, are not looking for favors. They are demanding justice.” ((ibid, 10))

Since the United States denied them independence, Henna and Gandia believed Puerto Ricans should at least enjoy all the rights of proper citizens of the United States. Military Governor Guy V. Henry, in October of 1898, stated, “the forty-five States represented by the stars emblazoned on the blue field of that flag unite in vouchsafing to you prosperity and protection as citizens of the American Union.” ((Frederick A. Ober, Puerto Rico and Its Resources, (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1899), 234)) But, Puerto Ricans were not citizens of the United States. History shows that Louisianans, Floridians, Mexicans, and Alaskans were all given citizenship rights when their territory became part of the United States. Puerto Ricans were no longer Spanish citizens, not yet American citizens, and could not be Puerto Rican citizens. ((Henna and Zeno Gandia, The Case of Puerto Rico, 24.)) For the Puerto Rican people, the outcome of the Spanish-American War was a far cry from the idealized justifications that led the United States to war in the first place. Henna and Gandia realized that the acquisition of Puerto Rico marked the beginning of the American imperium, one that would always be inherently contradictory.

UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY (1900-1917)

On April 12, 1900, President William McKinley signed the Organic Act of 1900. More commonly known as the Foraker Act for its sponsor, Ohio Senator Joseph B. Foraker, the main author of this legislation was Secretary of War Elihu Root. The Foraker Act established civil government in Puerto Rico. The U.S. President appointed a governor and executive council. Puerto Ricans elected their own 35-member House of Representatives and enjoyed a judicial system with a Supreme Court. A Resident Commissioner was to be sent to the U.S. Congress, to advise but not to vote. The Federal laws of the United States came into effect in Porto Rico. The act formally recognized Puerto Rican citizenship.

On May 1, 1900, the civil government began to function following the inauguration of Governor Charles H. Allen. Federico Degetau went to Washington D.C. to fulfill his duties as Puerto Rican Resident Commissioner. During this time, Americans on the mainland became more interested in their nation’s new island possession.

• Albert Gardner Robinson, The Porto Rico of To-day: Pen Pictures of the People and the Country (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1899)
• Charles H. Rector, The Story of Beautiful Porto Rico (Chicago: Laird & Lee Publishers, 1898)
• William Dinwiddie, Puerto Rico: Its Conditions and Possibilities (New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1899)
• Marian M. George, A Little Journey to Puerto Rico: For Intermediate and Upper Grades (Chicago: A. Flanagan Company, 1900)
• Frederick A. Ober, Puerto Rico and Its Resources, (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1899)

ORGANIZED, BUT UNINCORPORATED (1917-1952)

In 1917, President McKinley signed the Jones-Shafroth Act (more commonly known as the Jones Act) into law. The law amended the Foraker Act, and changed Puerto Rico’s status to an organized, but unincorporated, territory. One of the law’s most ardent supporters was Puerto Rican Resident Commissioner Luis Muñoz Rivera. Muñoz Rivera originally favored Puerto Rican independence, but eventually relented. He instead began to push for autonomy for Puerto Rico. In 1916, he stated his demands:

“Give us now the field of experiment which we ask of you, that we may show is it easy for us to constitute a stable republican government with all possibly guarantees for all possible interests. And afterward, when you acquire the certainty that you can find in Porto Rico a republic like that founded in Cuba and Panama, like the one that you will find at some future day in the Philippines, give us our independence and you will stand before humanity as the greatest of the great, that which neither Greece nor Rome nor England ever were, a great creator of new nationalities and a great liberator of oppressed peoples.” ((O. Nigel Bolland, The Birth of Caribbean Civilization, (Kingston: Ian Randle Publishers, 2004), 69))

Luis Muñoz Rivera asked the United States to be a new kind of empire, different from those of the old world. At this time, many Americans were still grappling with what their empire meant for them and for their nation. If Puerto Rico remained a colony with all the trappings of the Old World, the United States was no better than England, Greece, or Rome. But, as Muñoz Rivera pointed out, the United States had a chance to be extraordinary, even exceptional if it created a new empire. This fit in nicely with the rhetoric surrounding the new empire that spoke of benevolent uplift, spreading freedom and democracy, and helping the formerly oppressed by bringing all the benefits of American civilization. Muñoz Rivera argued, successfully, that autonomous government was one such benefit.

The Jones Act created a bill of rights, which extended many U.S. constitutional rights to Puerto Rico. Like much of the new empire, trial by jury was not included.  The bill also created a more autonomous government with three branches, much like that of the United States. The Governor, Attorney-General, and Commissioner of Education were appointed by the United States president. The governor appointed the remaining heads of executive departments (justice, finance, interior, agriculture, labor and health). The Puerto Ricans directly elected the members of a bicamerial legislature, although Puerto Rican women, like most women in the United States, were not allowed to vote. Perhaps most importantly, the Jones Act revoked Puerto Rican citizenship and stated that all Puerto Ricans, “are hereby declared, and shall be deemed and held to be, citizens of the United States.” ((The Statutes at Large of the United States of America from December 1915 to March 1917, (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1917): 953)) One immediate result of this was the extension of conscription—the Selective Service Act (1917) drafted 20,000 Puerto Rican soldiers into World War I.

The Great Depression severely affected Puerto Rico due to its dependence on the United States economy. Relief did not arrive in Puerto Rico until the appointment of Governor Rexford G. Tugwell in 1941. Governor Tugwell was an economics professor at Columbia University, and part of President Roosevelt’s “Brain Trust” of Columbia academics. He was dedicated to bringing economic growth to the struggling island. ((José Trías Monge, Puerto Rico: The Trials of the Oldest Colony in the World, (New Haven, Yale University Press, 1997), 101)) Tugwell first suggested the idea of a popularly elected Puerto Rican governor to President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1942. ((ibid, 102))

• Photo Gallery: Americans from the Great Depression to World War II: Puerto Rico

This was less than Puerto Ricans had hoped for. Luis Muñoz Marín, then leader of the Popular Democratic Party of Puerto Rico, wanted to end the debate over Puerto Rico’s status. He believed that a small concession such as popularly electing the governor would stall the more important conversation about amending the Jones Act and deciding Puerto Rico’s status. Muñoz Marín was inspired by the rhetoric surrounding World War II.

The third principle of the Atlantic Charter (prepared by President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Winston Churchill) read: “They respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live, and they wish to see sovereign rights of self-government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them.” On February 10, 1943, the Puerto Rican legislative assembly, under President of the Senate, Luis Muñoz Marín, unanimously adopted a concurrent resolution, “to lay before the President and the Congress of the United States of America the right of the people of Puerto Rico that the colonial system of government be ended and to decide democratically the permanent political status of Puerto Rico as expeditely as possible, immediately if feasible.” ((Tony Martin, The Economic Future of the Caribbean, (Dover: The Majority Press, 2004), 47-48))

In 1943, President Roosevelt formed a commission to evaluate the Jones Act; it included Governor Tugwell and Luis Muñoz Marín. ((Trías Monge, Puerto Rico, 103)) The Commission heard Muñoz Marín’s grievances, but did not recommend the vast changes Muñoz Marín had hoped for. The commission recommended that the Puerto Rican people must be consulted and agree to any further changes to the Foraker Act. They also endorsed Tugwell’s original recommendation—that the Governor of Puerto Rico be elected by the Puerto Rican people. ((ibid, 104)) The first formal change to the Jones Act came with the 1947 Elective Governor Act. In 1948 Luis Muñoz Marín became Puerto Rico’s first popularly elected Governor.

Muñoz Marín was still determined to redefine Puerto Rico’s status and relationship to the United States. He found a partner in U.S. Senator Millard E. Tydings (1927-1951). By 1945, Tydings was ready to file his third bill for Puerto Rican independence. On October 16, 1945, President Harry S. Truman sent a special message to Congress concerning the status of Puerto Rico calling for legislation that would become the Tydings-Piñero bill (named for Jesús T. Piñero, then governor of Puerto Rico).

The bill called for a referendum on Puerto Rico’s status. Puerto Ricans were to choose from three options: (1) independence, (2) statehood, or (3) an Associated State or dominion. ((ibid, 105)) The Tydings-Piñero bill died in committee, but it was an important moment in the history of U.S.-Puerto Rican relations. The provisions for an Associated State set the foundation for the eventual commonwealth status of present-day Puerto Rico. Furthermore, the referendum is essentially the same as those that would appear later, and again in 2012.

The Philippines (along with India and many other western colonies) gained independence after World War II. Puerto Rico did not. However, on July 3, 1950 President Truman signed Public Law 81-600, which allowed Puerto Ricans to write their own constitution. The Constitution of Puerto Rico (1952) officially established the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Following amendment and ratification by the United States Congress, Governor Luis Muñoz Marín enacted the constitution on July 25, 1952.

COMMONWEALTH (1952-PRESENT)

Today, Puerto Rico remains a commonwealth of the United States—a territory under the territorial clause in the United States Constitution. But, Puerto Rico’s relationship to the United States remains hotly debated. Puerto Ricans voted on their status in 1967, 1991, 1993, and 1998. In 1967, 60% of Puerto Ricans voted to maintain their commonwealth status, while 39% voted for statehood and 1% for independence. In 1991, Puerto Ricans voted not to review their commonwealth status. The 1993 vote yielded the following support for each option: 48.6% for commonwealth, 46.3% for statehood, and 4.4% for independence. In 1998, 46.49% of Puerto Ricans voted for statehood while 2.54% wanted independence, 0.29% voted for a “free association” with the United States, and just 0.06% voted to maintain the commonwealth. The problem with the 1998 vote was the 50% of the population that voted “none of the above.”

With no clear picture of the Puerto Rican people’s wishes, President Clinton issued Executive Order 13183, creating a Task Force on Puerto Rico’s Status. The purpose of this task force was to make recommendations for “the Commonwealth’s future status; to discuss such proposals with representatives of the people of Puerto Rico and the Congress; to work with leaders of the Commonwealth and the Congress to clarify the options to enable Puerto Ricans to determine their preference among options for the islands’ future status that are not incompatible with the Constitution and basic laws and policies of the United States; and to implement such an option if chosen by a majority, including helping Puerto Ricans obtain a governing arrangement under which they would vote for national government officials, if they choose such a status.”

The first Report by the President’s Task Force on Puerto Rico’s Status was published in December, 2005 (the recommendations of the Task Force can be found on page 10). The Task Force determined that Puerto Ricans had three choices for their future: remain a territorial commonwealth, become a state, or become an independent, sovereign state. The Task Force recommended two plebiscites, or referendums. The first would determine whether the Puerto Rican people wanted to remain a U.S. territory. The second, depending on the first, would either provide for Puerto Rico’s statehood or independence, or make arrangements to regularly consult Puerto Ricans as to their territorial status. The 2007 Task Force Report reiterates these same points.

• From the Congressional Research Service: R. Sam Garrett, “Political Status of Puerto Rico: Options for Congress,” June 7, 2011 & R. Sam Garrett, “Puerto Rico’s Political Status and the 2012 Plebiscite: Background and Key Questions,” October 2, 2012.

The 2011 Task Force Report recommended that Puerto Ricans express their “will about status options” by the end of 2012. President Obama supported the new plebiscite. In the 2012 election, Puerto Ricans once again voted on their status. For the first time, Puerto Ricans were asked about their wishes in two parts, as recommended by the Task Force. 54% voted against continuing as a territorial commonwealth. Puerto Ricans were given three choices: statehood, independence, or “sovereign free association”—which would give Puerto Ricans more autonomy. 6% voted for independence, 33% for the sovereign free association, and 61% for statehood. For some, this vote yielded the first decisive result. Many still see problems with the vote, however. First of all, a plebiscite is not a means to statehood. The path to statehood requires a joint resolution from the United States Congress, signed by the President.

So where does that leave Puerto Rico? Still in limbo—for now. There are still many Puerto Ricans and Americans on either side of the debate. Many Puerto Ricans favor statehood because independence would certainly mean failure as a state—Puerto Rico’s economy is too fragile and its politicians too corrupt to function without the help of the United States. However, some fear that statehood would result in a loss of Puerto Rican identity and culture. Still others are tired of existing as American citizens denied their citizenship rights—it is a curious case that Puerto Ricans cannot vote for the President, have no voting representatives in Congress, and yet are U.S. citizens that can be conscripted. Some Republicans in the United States fear that admitting Puerto Rico as a state would equate the addition of new democratic senators and representatives, despite Puerto Rico’s traditional Catholic values. Many are worried about admitting a state with a majority Spanish-speaking population. Still others believe adding a 51^st state, especially one that the U.S. government already supports economically, would not be a burden to the United States.

Puerto Rico may soon end its 115-year run as a colony of the United States. It remains to be seen whether the U.S. Congress will act on this most recent plebiscite. Barack Obama has pledged to fulfill the wishes of the Puerto Rican people, but must wait for a joint resolution from Congress.

For current debates about Puerto Rican statehood see:

• President Obama in Puerto Rico, June 2011
• Art Fennell Reports—Puerto Rico: The 51^st State?
• Sold Principles Radio Show: United States Plus One-The Prospect of Puerto Rico as the 51^st State
• Glenn Beck, Puerto Rico: the 51^st State
• Preview: Puerto Rico: The Time Has Come
• Source Fed: Puerto Rico 51^st State?!

For Teachers:

• Classroom Activity: Debate the Status of Puerto Rico
  • Have students take a position on Puerto Rico’s imminent future: should the island become the 51^st state, remain a commonwealth, gain independence, or have some other association with the United States?
  • Stage debates at crucial points in Puerto Rico’s history (1898, 1900, 1917, 1952, or in the future)
  • Students may argue as themselves, or assume the identity of an important historical figure in U.S.-Puerto Rican relations. If drawing on others’ ideas, make sure students still craft their own arguments using their own words.
• Discuss famous Puerto Ricans and their contributions to American culture and society, e.g. Joaquin Phoenix, Benicio del Toro, Jennifer Lopez, Ricky Martin, Elizabeth Vargas, and Geraldo Rivera
• Check out the Curriculum Unit “The Heritage and Culture of Puerto Ricans” at the New Haven Teachers Institute

For more information:

• Visit the U.S. History Scene reading lists for the Atlantic World and Imperialism & Colonialism

The post Puerto Rico’s Relationship with the United States? appeared first on US History Scene.

“Who is James K. Polk?” jeered Whig presidential candidate Henry Clay in 1844 when the Democratic nomination went to the relatively-unknown Tennessean.  Former President Martin Van Buren (1837-1841) had been considered the front-runner going into the Democratic National Convention, but Polk, a former Speaker of the House and Governor of Tennessee, emerged as the “dark horse” candidate.

It’s difficult to imagine a president like James K. Polk today.  Polk set just four explicit goals for his administration. Furthermore, he pledged not to seek reelection.  As shown here, he narrowly defeated Henry Clay to secure the presidency.  Over the next four years, he fulfilled each of his promises and true to his word, stepped down after just one term.

Polk called the goals of his presidency the “four great measures”:  ((Aubrey J. Sher, Presidential Hopefuls (1788-2008): Who Won, Who Lost, and Why (Bloomington:  Authorhouse, 2008), 97))

1.  End the dispute with Great Britain over the Oregon Territory
2.  Reduce tariffs
3.  Establish an Independent Treasury
4.  Acquire California from Mexico

TEXAS & OREGON TERRITORY

The post “Who is James K. Polk?:” appeared first on US History Scene.

On a standard map of the United States, Hawaii sits in the bottom left corner in a box next to Alaska. It would seem that the islands are as close to the Southwest as Cuba is to Florida. These maps obscure the fact that the distance between Los Angeles and Honolulu is roughly the same distance as L.A.to New York City. The sense of closeness modern American maps imply has been carefully created. Hawaii was once an independent kingdom in the Pacific, far from the reaches of the fledgling republic of the United States of America. Today, Hawaii is the 50^th state, as American as it is exotic. Our current president, Barack Obama, was born there. Today, the status of its statehood is rarely questioned by those in the continental United States, but it was a long, complex road that changed a Pacific kingdom into the Aloha State.

The Hawaiian Kingdom (1810-1893)

In January 1778, during the second year of the American Revolution, a British explorer, Captain James Cook, landed on the Pacific island of Kauai. The British Admiralty and the British Royal Society sponsored Cook’s exploration of the previously Spanish dominated Pacific. He famously probed the major islands of Australia and New Zealand, which later enabled the British settler societies to colonize the South Pacific. He named the contemporary Hawaiian islands the “Sandwich Islands,” after the Earl of Sandwich.

The islands were not empty. In fact, Cook encountered a well-developed society.

The present-day Hawaiian Island were first settled by Polynesian seafarers over a thousand years before Cook’s arrival. These Polynesian explorers first settled on the coasts, and then moved further inland as the population increased. When Cook arrived, it is estimated that somewhere between 200,000 and 1,000,000 people lived there—today Hawaii’s population is just 1,374,810.

Ancient Hawaiian society developed into a caste society, comparable to India’s. A land tenure system existed in the islands that looked much like the feudal system in Medieval Europe. Farming was integral to Hawaii. The people grew crops including sweet potatoes, yams, and bananas, and kept livestock. A complex legal system existed based on religious taboos, known as kapu. One of the most serious kapu was that men and women were not allowed to eat together. Breaking this law was punishable by death.

Captain Cook died on the island of Hawaii, just a year after his arrival. Cook attempted to take Kalaniopuu, the King of the island of Hawaii, hostage as collateral for a stolen boat. A Hawaiian chief killed Cook in retaliation.

European contact coincided with a fierce struggle for power in the islands. There were four dominant chiefdoms that vied for power over the islands: the Hawaii, Maui, Oahu, and Kauai. Chief Kamehameha managed to conquer all islands except for Niihau and Kauai. He gained control of the remaining islands through diplomacy by 1810.

Kamehameha (1810-1819) proclaimed himself king of the Hawaiian Islands, ending feudalistic chiefdoms. With his rule, Hawaii became a constitutional monarchy, modeled after Europe. Although he accepted many western customs, he maintained kapu, the religious laws that governed Hawaiian society.

The British Empire, which would battle to hold its imperial ties in North America during the War of 1812, considered the islands to be a British protectorate. As King Kamehameha was able to rule a united Hawaiian kingdom, the British crown recognized Kamehameha as the legitimate ruler with the hope that he would maintain order and allow the British to use the islands in their increasing Pacific trade networks with China.

• Learn more about ancient Hawaiian culture here
• Read The Hawaiian Kingdom by Ralph S. Kuykendall here
• Read the British Consul General in Hawaii’s “biography of a nation”: Manley Hopkins, Hawaii: The Past, Present, and Future of its Island Kingdom (London: Longman, Green, Longman, and Roberts, 1862)

In 1819, King Kamehameha died from an unknown illness. After his death, his son Liholiho, or King Kamehameha II (1819-1824) came to power. But, when Liholiho arrived to take power, he discovered that Kamehameha’s favorite wife, Queen Kaahumanu, had already done so herself. She boldly invited Liholiho to a feast in which men and women would dine together, violating kapu.

Shortly thereafter, Queen Kaahumanu and King Kamehameha II officially ended kapu. In doing so, they ended the old religion that had governed life in the islands, just months before the arrival of American protestant missionaries. Christianity allowed Kaahumanu to restore order in the islands in the midst of the chaos from the end of kapu. Throughout the remainder of the nineteenth century, missionaries radically changed Hawaii. The introduction of Christianity meant outlawing many tenets of Hawaiian culture including hula and traditional healing. The Hawaiian people had lost their faith, traditions, and quite literally themselves. Much like Native Americans on theU.S.mainland, the native population in Hawaii dwindled rapidly due to the introduction of new diseases such as smallpox. In the midst of this chaos, missionaries offered hope through Christianity and western civilization. Furthermore, they provided Hawaiians with written language and by the 1830’s,Hawaii held the highest literacy rate in the world.

By the time Queen Kaahumanu died in 1832, Hawaii was a Christian nation. Foreigners from Europe and the United States began to settle in the islands at a rapid rate. At a time of rapid territorial expansion, the islands were a hot commodity for these imperial powers. There were lucrative opportunities for trade in Hawaii from sandalwood to whaling. Foreign powers found it easy to influence the monarchy, weak from loss of population. In 1839, the French forced Kamehameha III to sign the Edict of Toleration, in which the Hawaiian government and allowed the establishment of a Hawaiian Catholic Church and ended the persecution of Catholics that had begun at the behest of Protestant missionaries.

In 1843, the British, under Captain Lord George Paulet, occupied the Hawaiian Islands for five months because of a land dispute involving a Briton, Richard Charlton. Hawaiian sovereignty was restored by Rear Admiral Richard Thomas five months later, who renounced the actions of Charlton and Paulet. In 1849, the French arrived in Honolulu with ten demands for the monarchy, including an end to continued persecution of Catholics and high tariffs on French goods. When these demands were not met in a timely fashion, the French invaded Honolulu and captured the city. They left one month later, after raiding government buildings and other property in Honolulu.

In the face of increasing European interest in the islands, Kamehameha III decided to solicit protection from the United States. On March 10, 1851, the King formally applied to the United States Congress to become a protectorate of the United States. Hawaii did not become a protectorate of the United States in 1851, but the seeds were sown for the relationship of dependence that would color the remaining years of the Hawaiian monarchy.

• Read the debate transcript from in the U.S. Senate about the Paulet Affair here
• Read “An Unpublished Chapter of Hawaiian History” Harper’s New Monthly Magazine 67, (1883): 511-520.

The Business of American Missionaries

Kamehameha III filled his cabinet with foreign-born ministers who advised him on how to rule the islands. In 1848, the Mahele divided Hawaiian lands into private property for the first time. In 1850, the Alien Land Ownership Act allowed for foreign ownership of Hawaiian lands. Because of Hawaiian unfamiliarity with private property, higher classes and foreigners were easily able to obtain much of the land in the islands, leaving many native Hawaiians landless. Much of the available land was bought up by Protestant missionaries and their descendants.

American missionary families, over the years, became extremely successful businessmen. While the whaling industry declined, these missionaries-turned-entrepreneurs found great success in the creation of vast sugar plantations in the islands. Soon, the need for labor surpassed the number of available workers. Immigrants from Japan,China, the Philippines,Korea,Portugal, and other nations came to Hawaii to labor on these booming plantations. This sparked the creation of an extremely diverse population inHawaii. Meanwhile, a new class of wealthy, white planters emerged in Hawaii alongside the growing immigrant population.

By the 1850’s, three-fourths of all business in Hawaii was controlled by American businessmen, and the primary export market was to America’s Pacific Coast. These missionary families acquired great wealth, and then great political power, even forming their own political party—the Missionary Party. With perceived instability on the part of the Hawaiian monarchy, these families began to push for annexation in order to ensure protection from the United States.

In 1854, the United States made its first attempt to annex the Hawaiian Islands.

The treaty was negotiated between U.S. Commissioner David L. Gregg and Hawaiian Minister of Foreign Affairs Robert Crichton Wyllie. For King Kamehameha III, annexation would further ensure Hawaii’s security, much like the protectorate had. Negotiations were underway when King Kamehameha III died in December of 1854. His heir, Kamehameha IV, ended all negotiations with Gregg, in effect killing any possible annexation treaty.

Read Hawaiian-born missionary descendant William De Witt Alexander’s take on the Uncompleted Treaty of Annexation of 1854, including text of the treaty in the appendix here

However, the Missionary Party continued to push for greater ties. During the Civil War, demand for sugar increased as a result of the blockade from the Confederate states that had provided it previously. American planters in Hawaii saw that they were perfectly poised to fill the market, but did not like the high tariff rates they encountered. The Reciprocity Treaty of 1875 allowed for duty-free importation of Hawaiian sugar. In exchange, the United States was granted land for a naval base, which eventually became Pearl Harbor.

The wealth gained from this new treaty was largely concentrated in the hands of a few of the corporations descended from missionary families, known as “The Big Five.” These corporations—Castle & Cooke, Alexander & Baldwin, C. Brewer & Co., American Factors, and Theo H. Davies & Co.—not only controlled the sugar industry, but had a hand in most of Hawaii’s economic matters. Furthermore, these elites enjoyed a close relationship with the Hawaiian monarchy—one they would betray when that relationship was no longer profitable.

• An early annexation debate in the New York Tribune: “Annexation of the Sandwich Islands,” New York Tribune (July 20, 1854), 4.
• Read instructions given to diplomatic representatives of the United States in the Hawaiian Islands (1881-1893)
• Read instructions given to naval officers of the United States with reference to affairs in the Hawaiian Islands (1881-1893)

The End of the Hawaiian Monarchy (1887-1893)

King Kalakaua (1874-1891) began his reign as a friend to the United States. He negotiated the aforementioned Reciprocity Treaty. In 1881, he became the first king to travel around the world, leaving his sister, Liliuokalani to rule as regent in his absence. During Kalakaua’s reign, he also built the iconic ‘Iolani Palace, which still stands today.

The Missionary Party was unhappy with Kalakaua’s rule, most importantly his spending. Those who favored annexation joined together in a group called the Hawaiian League. In 1887, the League forced Kalakaua at gunpoint to sign a new constitution that virtually stripped the monarchy of its power. Known as the “Bayonet Constitution” because of the manner in which King Kalakaua was forced to sign it, the new constitution further consolidated power in the hands of wealthy elites.

Queen Liliuokalani, the last monarch of the Hawaiian Kingdom, came to power in 1891 after her brother Kalakaua died of illness in San Francisco.

The situation in Hawaii worsened drastically towards the end of the nineteenth century due to the 1890 Tariff Act, also known as the McKinley Tariff. In 1891, just before the tariff went into effect, 274,982,295 pounds of sugar was transported from Hawaii to the United States while Hawaii exported only 285 pounds to the rest of the world. ¹ The new tariff effectively ended the advantageous position American sugar planters had enjoyed under the Reciprocity Treaty. The effect of this economic downturn was felt by all Hawaiian residents. In the face of this crisis, in 1893 Queen Liliuokalani attempted to promulgate a new constitution, one that would place more power with the monarchy instead of the American and European-dominated legislature.

In response, members of the Missionary Party formed the Committee of Safety, a group committed to the end of the Hawaiian monarchy and U.S.annexation (which would eliminate all tariffs on sugar exports to the continental United States). Their plan to overthrow the monarchy was set into action on January 17, 1893. Committee members enlisted the Honolulu Rifles, an armed regiment of non-Hawaiians, to depose the Queen. U.S. Government Minister John L. Stevens simultaneously solicited the U.S.government for further protection, claiming that American lives were in danger. U.S. Marines soon joined the coup, leading to Queen Liliuokalani’s surrender.

“I Liliuokalani, by the Grace of God and under the Constitution of the Hawaiian Kingdom, Queen, do hereby solemnly protest against any and all acts done against myself and the Constitutional Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom by certain persons claiming to have established a Provisional Government of and for this Kingdom…Now to avoid any collision of armed forces, and perhaps the loss of life, I do, under this protest and impelled by said force, yield my authority until such time as the Government of the United States shall, upon the facts being presented to it, undo the action of its representative and reinstate me in the authority which I claim as the constitutional Sovereign of the Hawaiian Islands.” ²

• Read Queen Liliuokalani’s Autobiography here
• Letter from Liliuokalani, Queen of Hawaii to U.S. House of Representatives protesting U.S. assertion of ownership of Hawaii, December 19, 1898
• Mary H. Krout, Hawaii and a Revolution: The Personal Experiences of a Correspondent in the Sandwich Islands During the Crisis of 1893 and Subsequently (New York: Dodd, Mead and Company, 1898)
• Read Lucien Young, The Real Hawaii: Its History and Present Condition, Including the True Story of the Revolution (New York: Doubleday & McClure Company, 1899.

Debating Annexation (1893-1898)

In the aftermath of the coup, a provisional government was established under President Sanford Dole.

 

The provisional government in Hawaii, though pleased with the end of the monarchy, still desired complete annexation to the United States. Then-President Benjamin Harrison was also a strong supporter of annexation. Less than a month after the coup, he sent a treaty to the Senate to annex the Hawaiian Islands. In a message to the Senate he stated:

“Only two courses are now open; one the establishment of a protectorate by the United States, and the other, annexation full and complete. I think the latter course, which has been adopted in the treaty, will be highly promotive of the best interests of the Hawaiian people, and is the only one that will adequately secure the interests of the United States. These interests are not wholly selfish. It is essential that none of the other great powers shall secure these islands. Such a possession would not consist with our safety and with the peace of the world.” ³

In February 1893, the New York Tribune wrote: “Nothing can be more certain than that the sentiment of our country is practically unanimous in favor of a prompt ratification of the treaty. The views of the American people have grown with their growing empire.” As Democrats in Congress stalled the treaty, the Tribune warned that “the dangers of delay are numerous and serious,” especially when President Grover Cleveland was set to take office in just a short time. “If, too, we are to have in Mr. Cleveland a Chief Magistrate who so little appreciates the opportunity presented to us in this treaty as to be willing to see it fail, the duty of the Senators who have a truer conception of what is due to our interest and our dignity becomes the more pressing.”

Much to their chagrin, the treaty was not passed in 1893. Upon assuming office, President Cleveland called for an investigation into the proceedings of the coup. The investigation produced the Blount Report.

The report concluded that “United States diplomacy and military representatives had abused their authority and were responsible for the change in government.”

President Grover Cleveland further denounced the coup in his 1893 State of the Union Address:

“…the constitutional Government of Hawaii had been subverted with the active aid of our representative to that Government and through the intimidation caused by the presence of an armed naval force of the United States, which was landed for that purpose at the instance of our minister. Upon the facts developed it seemed to me that the only honorable course for our Government to pursue was to undo the wrong that had been done by those representing us and to restore as far as practicable the status existing at the time of our forcible intervention.”

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee conducted their own investigation, resulting in the Morgan Report. This new report contradicted the Blount Report, claiming that U.S.intervention was necessary to ensure the safety of U.S.citizens in the islands during the chaos of the coup:

“There was not in Honolulu at the time any efficient executive power through which the rights of American citizens residing there could be protected…In a country where there is no power of the law to protect the citizens of the United States there can be no law of nations nor any rule of comity that can rightfully prevent our flag from giving shelter to them under the protection of our arms…”

On July 4, 1894 the Republic of Hawaii was created with Dole, again, as President. Officials in the new Hawaiian government still wanted annexation above all, largely because of a desire to avoid the tariffs the U.S.government levied on all foreign entities. Native Hawaiians continued to protest the annexation.

 

 

 

In 1897, William McKinley became president of the United States. He, unlike Cleveland, was much more open to annexation. In 1897 a new treaty was negotiated to allow for the annexation of the islands. The treaty was, however, never ratified by the Senate. In 1898, in the midst of the expansionist Spanish-American War, McKinley signed the Newlands Resolution, which officially annexed the Hawaiian Islands on July 7, 1898. On August 12, 1898 the flag of the Republic of Hawaii was ceremonially lowered and replaced with the United States flag at ‘Iolani Palace. On February 22, 1900 the Hawaiian Islands officially became a territory of the United States.

The Hawaiian Organic Act, enacted on April 30, 1900, provided a government for the new territory of Hawaii. President McKinley appointed former President Sanford Dole to serve as governor of the territory.

Teaching the History of Annexation? Explore our collection of primary sources and research guides:

• Read the proceedings in the Senate surrounding the treaty here
• The Library of Congress’ Guide to the Annexation of Hawaii
• Teachers’ Resources from the National Archives: The 1897 Petitions Against the Annexation of Hawaii
• Read the Blount Report here
• Read the Morgan Report here
• Read Harry Bingham’s pro-annexation The Annexation of Hawaii: A Right and a Duty
• “In Favor of Annexation,” New York Tribune, 30 January, 1893.
• “Objections to Annexation,” Omaha Daily Bee, 21 February 1893.
• “Why Hawaii Should Not Be Annexed,” The San Francisco Call, 30 January 1898
• “Rear Admiral Arrives at Hawaii to Hoist the Flag,” The San Francisco Call, 13 August 1898
• Noenoe K. Silva’s “The 1897 Petitions Protesting Annexation”
• Read an American’s travelogue of the new Hawaii territory: John R. Musick, Hawaii: Our New Possessions, (New York: Funk & Wagnalls Company, 1898)
• “History Turns the Page on Which Hawaii’s Name is Written,” The San Francisco Call, 23 August 1898

From Pacific Territory to Aloha State (1898-1959)

As early as 1903, the territorial legislature of Hawaii began petitioning Congress for statehood. View the document from the National Archives here

The territorial status o f Hawaii was ideal for the Big Five and the sugarcane industry. During these years, these corporations were able to consolidate their power so much that the territory effectively became an oligarchy. They were able to bypass tariffs for sugar export to the mainland while still importing cheap foreign labor (something prohibited for states in the Union). There were also concerns among Americans in the continental United States about annexing Hawaii. During the era of segregation at home, many Americans were uneasy about admitting such a racially diverse state into the union.

The question of Hawaii gained new importance on December 7, 1941 when Japanese planes attacked Pearl Harbor.

 

In response to the attack, martial law was established in Hawaii under the new military governor, Major General Thomas H. Green.

The military was able to impose martial law because of the Organic Act of 1900 which stated that the governor may, “in case of rebellion or invasion, or imminent danger thereof, when the public safety requires it, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, or place the Territory, or any part thereof, under martial law until communication can be had with the President and his decision thereon made known.”

Under martial law, the writ of habeas corpus was suspended and all criminal cases were tried in military tribunals. The military regime imposed strict curfews and blackout regulations on the populace while censoring the press and mail. In December, 1942 the Interior Department Solicitor wrote: “While fighting for democracy on a dozen fronts, we have dictatorship, quite needlessly—almost by accident, in one vital part of the United States of America.” ⁴

Martial law continued until October 1944, when it was lifted by a presidential order. Although Hawaii had been close enough to the United States to warrant attack by a belligerent power in World War II, it was not yet an actual state of the Union. In the aftermath of WWII, the idea of admitting a state with a large Japanese population was troubling to many Americans. But, many felt Hawaii had proved it’s loyalty to America during World War II and that it was only a matter of time before statehood became a reality.

 Further Reading about Hawaii Under Martial Law and the Growing Statehood Movement:

• Read the Papers of Major General Thomas H. Green here
• Archibald King, “The Legality of Martial Law in Hawaii,” California Law Review 30, no. 6 (September, 1942): 599-633.
• Garner Anthony, “Martial Law in Hawaii,” California Law Review 30, no. 4 (May, 1942): 371-396.
• Garner Anthony, “Martial Law, Military Government and the Writ of Habeas Corpus in Hawaii,” California Law Review 31, no. 5 (December, 1943): 477-514.
• Gavan Daws, Shoal of Time: A History of the Hawaiian Islands (New York: Macmillan, 1968).
• “Hawaii: 49th State” brochure c.1946, compiled by the Associated Students of the University of Hawaii to outline student support for Hawaiian statehood
• Letter from Honokaa High and Elementary School, Hawaii, to the Chairman of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs

The Democratic Revolution of 1954 ended the almost complete control the Republican Party had held in Hawaii since 1898. The Democratic Party represented new interests—mainly lower classes and immigrant populations. A shift began in Hawaii away from the interests of the Big Five as government began to consider the interests of the islanders at large. This included statehood, which would give every Hawaiian a voice in their government.

In 1959, Hawaiian residents voted on whether or not their territory would become a state.

 

The islanders voted for statehood by an overwhelming majority. In March 1959, President Dwight Eisenhower signed the Hawaii Admission Act into law, changing Hawaii’s status from “non-self-governing territory” to American state.

The Aloha State Today

The issue of annexation arose once again, one hundred years after the fact. In 1993, Congress passed United States Public Law 103-150, known as the Apology Resolution.

Bill Clinton signing the Apology Resolution into law http://www.hawaii-nation.org/publawsum.html

The law began, “To acknowledge the 100^th anniversary of the January 17, 1983 overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii, and to offer an apology to Native Hawaiians on behalf of the United States for the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii.” Although the law did not change the legal status of Hawaii or native Hawaiians, it has sparked new debate about the islands’ complicated history and the legality of the annexation of Hawaii.

Read the Telegraph’s “Queen of Hawaii demands independence from ‘US occupiers,’” detailing a 2008 protest against American occupation.

Today, Hawaii’s official tourism website entices visitors with the phrase, “The people of Hawaii would like to share their islands with you.” Tourism is Hawaii’s largest industry, as people flock to the islands to see experience the exotic without ever leaving the comfort of the United States. It has taken over a century to transform Hawaii from a distant group of islands into the Aloha state, situated comfortably at the bottom corner of the U.S. map. Yet even today, there are those who still protest what they see as the continued occupation of the islands by a foreign, imperial power.

For more information:

• Visit online timelines of Hawaii: Timeline of Hawaiian Islands, Pre-European Contact and Hawaii Timeline

---

The post Hawaii appeared first on US History Scene.

In 1773, Connecticut native John Ledyard dropped out of Dartmouth College to travel the world. From 1776 to 1780, he traversed the Pacific as a member of British explorer Captain James Cook’s crew. John Ledyard was the first United States citizen to reach the west coast of the American continent, the first to see the Hawaiian archipelago and the first to witness maritime fur trade between the Northwest American coast and China – and he had no idea the United States even existed. Ledyard was unaware that he left England on Cook’s ship just before British American colonists signed the Declaration of Independence. ¹

Read historian Jared Sparks’ Memoirs of the Life and Travels of John Ledyard from his Journals and Correspondence (1828)

John Ledyard returned to New England in the 1780s to find several British American colonies newly minted as the United States. In the first decade of United States independence, he was a vocal advocate for U.S. involvement in the lucrative maritime fur trade he had witnessed on his voyage. While life in the new United States may have been provincial for most, and Atlantic for some, the Pacific was central to John Ledyard’s life. He saw an opportunity for the new United States, not to connect the Americas to the Pacific World, but to enter a world already connected for centuries.

The United States as a political body or geographic place did not exist until 1776. Early American histories that focus on the British colonies create a shared past and a nation where one did not yet exist. The East-to-West narrative of United States history means certain regions only enter the story when Anglo-Americans begin to populate them or the United States annexes them. Like Spanish and French colonial America, Pacific stories are rarely included in U.S. history before the mid-eighteenth century. The United States acquired overseas territories in the Pacific from Alaska in 1867 to Hawai’i, the Philippines, and Guam in 1898, and the most recent—the Trust Territory of the Pacific after World War II. Like the thirteen British colonies that first formed the United States, these places also have a history that predates the formation and arrival of the United States. A completely different story emerges when we reorient early American history so that the western American continent becomes the Eastern Pacific.

One way that historians can paint a more accurate picture of early America is to trace connections that transcend present-day political boundaries. This short article does not attempt to encompass all aspects of the Pacific World. That effort has been undertaken by Dennis O. Flynn and Arturo Giráldez in The Pacific World: Lands, Peoples, and the History of the Pacific, 1500-1900 and has taken seventeen volumes to accomplish. ² Instead, we focus on two trans-Pacific trade routes in the sixteenth to nineteenth centuries: the galleon trade between Manila and Acapulco and maritime fur trade between the Pacific Northwest and China. These trade routes moved goods, but also peoples, cultures, and ideas across and throughout the Pacific.

Manila Galleon Trade (1565-1815)

From the sixteenth to the early nineteenth century, the Pacific Ocean was known as the Spanish Lake. In 1565, Spanish navigator Andrés de Urdaneta discovered a path from the Philippines to the Spanish Americas by sailing north from Manila to capture favorable winds in the North Pacific. This 1565 voyage marked the beginning of the Manila galleon trade that would persist into the nineteenth century. Two to three times per year, giant Spanish ships called galleons laden with prized goods from Asia goods traveled across the Pacific to New Spain by way of the Spanish colony in the Philippines. The galleons returned to Asia with silver mined in Spanish Latin America. Once goods arrived in Acapulco, they were transported across the American continent to Spanish ports in the Atlantic. In this manner, goods from Asia traversed first the Pacific to the Americas, then the Atlantic to Europe, creating the first truly global trade. ³

These galleon ships carried goods, but they also carried people and their cultures. The Spanish employed Filipino workers on galleon crews from the beginning of the trade in the sixteenth century. Filipinos built the galleon ships and many traveled to or settled in the Americas. ⁴ Because the ships moved slowly through the islands surrounding the Philippines, Micronesian islands, and American bays, the galleons connected and transformed cultures along the way. While trans-Pacific trade could mean hybridization and positive cultural interactions, it also involved environmental destruction, reckless slaughter, and indigenous slave labor. The same galleons carrying prized goods from China brought slaves from throughout Asia to work in the silver mines of Spanish Latin America. ⁵

The Spanish were not the only European imperialists in the Pacific Ocean. California became connected to the Pacific World because of inter-imperial competition. The Spanish had claimed California and first became interested in developing Alta California as a stopping place for weary galleon crews before they reached Acapulco, although they found its coast rocky, inhospitable, and unsuitable for development. No action was taken until necessitated by increased threats to galleon ships and their treasures from English pirates such as Francis Drake and Thomas Cavendish. ⁶ The Spanish first settled Alta California in 1769 as a strategic buffer against foreign aggression. ⁷ Spanish missionaries soon followed, setting up missions throughout California. Through its connections to the Manila galleon trade, California became a self-sufficient part of the Spanish Empire.

Maritime Fur Trade

To the north, a new trade was emerging that could rival the Spanish position in the Pacific. In 1741, Russians made contact with Native Americans on the Northwest Coast of the American continent. That first expedition returned in 1742 with otter skins that sold well in China. Russians returned to establish a colony and contract native labor to procure the prized pelts. We might recognize this region as present-day Alaska, but until the Russian empire sold the land to the United States in 1867, it was known as Russian America.

The maritime fur trade brought furs from the Northwest Coast of America to China and brought Chinese goods back to America. The Hawaiian Islands became a way station on this journey, linking Hawaiians to the Pacific trade. A Pacific triangular trade network, much like the one that developed between Africa, Europe, and the Americas in the Atlantic, developed between China, Hawaii, and the Northwest American Coast. The Russians held a monopoly over this lucrative trade until British Captain James Cook’s third voyage brought him to the Northwest American Coast in the late 1770s. There Cook’s crew discovered, like the Russians had decades earlier, that furs obtained from the natives could be sold in Canton, China for a 400% profit. ⁸ The British ended the Russian monopoly on the Northwest Coast fur trade. U.S. Americans dominated the maritime trade with China within a decade of its opening by the British. ⁹

• Read John R. Bockstoce’s The Opening of the Maritime Fur Trade at Bering Strait online
  
• The Russian-American Company in Hawaii
  

The first U.S. ship to travel to China, the Empress of China, departed the new United States on February 22, 1784—the same day that the Edward sailed for England with the newly ratified Articles of Peace between the United States and Great Britain after the Revolutionary War. ¹⁰ The trans-Pacific fur trade opened at an opportune moment for the fledgling United States: New England merchants needed to escape the economic depression that followed the Revolutionary War and replace their lost trading partners in the British Isles and West Indies. ¹¹ The United States needed commerce to generate wealth after the war and had idle ships and sailors who could participate.

New U.S. Americans placed a great deal of symbolic value on the voyage of the Empress. Material goods represented independence. Under the Navigation Acts, the British American colonies received all goods through British trade and British ships. If the United States could trade with China independently, it would prove they no longer needed the British to provide Asian goods. ¹² The United States initially had trouble establishing a foothold in the Canton trade, but eventually found success trading ginseng and “soft gold”—sea otter fur. ¹³ Before the nineteenth century, California’s sea otter population remained untapped. The sea otter industry boomed between 1803 and 1812 when the Russian-American Company’s contract labor system coordinated with U.S American traders. The two imperialist powers joined forces, enslaving skilled Aleut and Kodiak otter hunters from the Northwest Coast and sending them to California to provide the precious pelts. ¹⁴

A Pacific Approach to U.S. History

The United States citizens who were actively involved in Pacific trade disrupt the traditional narrative of United States history: a march from East to West as Anglo-Americans triumphantly conquered the continent. Manifest Destiny, the belief that the United States was destined to expand overland across the American continent, still looms large in the stories we tell about America’s past. The familiar story highlights the hopes of expansionists who dreamed that one day, when the United States expanded to the Pacific coast of the American continent, U.S. Americans would have access to the natural resources and trade opportunities in the Pacific Ocean. But, by the time the United States expanded to the Pacific Coast in the 1840s, U.S. citizens had been involved in the Pacific trade for decades. ¹⁵

In 1955, when Senator Mike Monroney opposed Hawaiian statehood, he based his argument on the idea that United States westward expansion happened overland, in wagons filled with frontiersmen and dedicated homesteaders. Historian John Whitehead notes, “the senator’s explanation of the normal pattern of migration included no mention of ships or boats. He seemed unaware that anyone had ever gone West by such craft, even to California.” ¹⁶ The distance across the American continent from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean on a map obscures the fact that the Pacific was much closer to the early United States than the majority of the western continent that remained divided from the early United States by the Rocky Mountains. When California became a U.S. state, it was “separated from the nearest other state, Texas or Iowa, depending on your routing, by some 1,500 miles of desert and mountains that were more difficult to traverse than the 2,500 miles of ocean between Hawai’i and the mainland.” ¹⁷ Before railroads cut across the American continent, California was reached by way of the Pacific Ocean.

The post America appeared first on US History Scene.

On the eve of the Spanish-American War (1898), African Americans lived as second-class citizens. During the Jim Crow era, they lived separately from white Southerners, using facilities that were anything but equal. While war presented hardship, suffering, and strife, for African American men, it also presented an opportunity. Participating in one of America’s wars was an opportunity for African Americans to prove that they were just as patriotic as their white countrymen, and thus deserved the same rights. This line of reasoning was not new; similar motives had encouraged African American participation in the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, and the Civil War. However, these were domestic wars fought by Americans on American soil in order to defend the union. The Spanish-American War was fought by Americans on foreign soil in order to expand the union.

African American soldiers sought another goal aside from American victory in battle. In the army, all soldiers fought and died for their country—regardless of their color or creed. African American soldiers thought that while fighting against injustice abroad, they could also fight against injustice at home. This concept resurfaced yet again during World War II’s Double-V Campaign.

After the Spanish-American War, the courage and bravery displayed by African American soldiers was widely recognized—albeit begrudgingly by some. However, despite their best efforts, African Americans in the United States were not given their rights as a result of their exemplary performance in the war. Furthermore, their successes in the war helped to export the very racism they fought against to the far reaches of America’s fledgling empire.

Background: Race in late 19th century America 

In 1898, the wounds of the Civil War (1861-1865) were still fresh, and Reconstruction had only made those wounds deeper. The Spanish-American War was an opportunity for Americans to unite against a common enemy—Spain. Historian Amy Kaplan posits that in order to reunite North and South, “the Spanish-American War had to collapse and undo the thirty-year history separating the two conflicts by waging an ideological battle against Reconstruction.” ¹ That battle would include dismantling the progress made by African Americans since the abolition of slavery.

The late 1800’s were the heyday of “Scientific Racism”—a pseudoscience that allowed the aforementioned cycle of racism to continue unabated in the United States by offering supposed justification for the superiority of Caucasian peoples. This “science” was based on evidence such as phrenology—the study of head shape to determine intelligence. Images such as the one shown here suggested a close link between peoples of African descent and apes. This reinforced the idea that people with African ancestry were unintelligent, uncivilized, and essentially less human. These theories had justified slavery by suggesting that peoples of African descent needed to be looked after by whites, and could no less be left to their own devices in a civilized society than a chimpanzee. Even after the abolition of slavery, it helped to forge a paternalist discourse that whites were meant to dominate blacks since they could not take care of themselves—much like a father would take care of his son. This paternalist discourse was easily transferred to the new U.S. Empire after the Spanish-American war.

When the Spanish-American War began, many African Americans were only a generation removed from slavery. Most were granted their freedom by the Emancipation Proclamation (1863), and that freedom was maintained by a Union victory in the Civil War (1861-1865). But, the end of slavery did not mean the end of oppression.

Many whites still believed, with the help of Scientific Racism, that peoples of African descent were inherently inferior—even if new laws said otherwise.

The Fourteenth Amendment (1868) stated:

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

But, Jim Crow laws had created a segregated nation in which free black Americans were repeatedly and consistently disenfranchised. In 1896, just two years before the Spanish-American War, the famous Plessy v. Fergusondecision was handed down by the United States Supreme Court. The decision upheld Jim Crow laws that required segregation in the use of public facilities. In Plessy, the Supreme Court pronounced that separate facilities in and of themselves did not constitute a denial of Fourteenth Amendment rights. It upheld state laws that required segregation on the grounds that rights were not violated as long as facilities were separate, but equal. As most know, they were anything but.

African Americans were almost universally disenfranchised through property laws, grandfather clauses, and literacy tests. They were unable to obtain suitable education or employment. They were often unable to rent or purchase satisfactory housing. On top of this, there was the constant fear of attack by racist groups such as the Ku Klux Klan who were notorious for lynching. Ida B. Wells, an outspoken opponent of lynching, wrote, “The real purpose of these savage demonstrations is to teach the Negro that in the South he has no rights that the law will enforce.” ² In the United States, African Americans lived as second-class citizens if they were allowed to live at all.

• Frederick Tiedemann, “On the Brain of the Negro, compared with that of the European and the Orang-Outang,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 126, (1836): 497-527.
• Samuel Cartwright, “Diseases and Peculiarities of the Negro Race,” DeBow’s Review—Southern and Western States 11 (1851)
• The Emancipation Proclamation
• PBS: The Civil War
• PBS: The Rise and Fall of Jim Crow
• Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 157 (1896)

The Birth of the “Buffalo Soldiers”

Contrary to popular belief, not all free black American stayed in the South as sharecroppers. Many became soldiers and found that the army was an arena in which African Americans could operate on a more level playing field. After the Civil War, Congress passed an “Act to increase and fix the military peace establishment of the United States.” (1866). This act provided for the establishment of regiments of segregated, colored soldiers that would operate separately from the rest of the army.

Section 3 stated “that to the six regiments of cavalry now in service, there shall be added four regiments, two of which shall be composed of colored men.”—these became the Ninth and Tenth Cavalry.

Section 4 stated that forty-five regiments of infantry would be provided for by this act, “four regiments of which shall be composed of colored men.”—these became the Twenty-Fourth and Twenty-Fifth Infantry.

Since the Civil War, most African American soldiers had been relegated to fighting against Native Americans out West. This, in some ways, was a “win-win” situation for the United States. Fighting the fierce, painstakingly slow battle to subdue Native American populations in the harsh West was not a task that other soldiers envied. The African American soldiers that the government would never want representing the U.S. to European powers, for example, were perfectly suited to this task. The U.S. pitted the lowest segments of American society against one another—ensuring that white hegemony was not challenged by either population. African American soldiers’ service in these Indian Wars earned them the nickname “Buffalo Soldiers,” which soon extended to all African American soldiers.

 

Although they served out West, “in a climate more severe for troops than any in the United States,” the Buffalo Soldiers were extremely successful in their efforts to subdue the Native American population. ³ As their main source of protection, the soldiers had established a good rapport with the white pioneers out West. They were unprepared for the blatant racism they would encounter in the South when called upon to serve their country in the Spanish-American War.

• “Buffalo Soldiers & Indian Wars”

Debating Participation: Buffalo Soldiers Fighting for the U.S.

President McKinley sent the USS Maine to Havana in late 1897 in order to protect American citizens and interests in the face of rising unrest in Cuba. On February 15, 1898, the Maine exploded and sank in Havana harbor, resulting in the deaths of 266 Americans, including two African American men. The cause of the explosion was not known (nor is it known today), but it was not hard for the newspapers to sell it to the public as a Spanish attack. Although McKinley was reluctant, eventually he gave in to the repeated cries of the press: “Remember the Maine! To Hell with Spain!”

While whites wrote songs such as “The Darkey Volunteer” and “The Black K.P.’s” which praised “those brave black knights who are so bold” and “proud plumed darkies looking fine,” many in the black community were not so thrilled about African American participation in the Spanish-American War. The Washington Bee wrote “The negro has no reason to fight for Cuba’s independence. He is opposed at home.” The editors believed that African Americans should not fight for a country that denied their people rights every day.

Despite a strong anti-war contingency, many African American soldiers wanted to participate in the war. George Prioleau, U.S. Army Chaplain of the Ninth Cavalry said, “The men are anxious to go. The country will then hear and know of their bravery. The American Negro is always ready and willing to take up arms to fight and lay down his life in defense of his country’s honor.” ⁴ Another soldier said, “We left our homes, wives, mothers, sisters and friends to break down that infernal prejudice and to have a page in history ascribed to us.” ⁵ That page in history would presumably give African Americans the rights and respect they were not able to enjoy.

But, there was what the Richmond Dispatch called “A Burning Question”: whether black regiments would have black or white officers. ⁶The same paternalist thinking that had justified black enslavement informed military decisions concerning officers. Many felt that African American soldiers were just not capable of handling the responsibilities of an officer position. A regular army lieutenant said of African American soldiers, “They are all right physically, of course, most of them are illiterate and they know nothing about military tactics, but with good officers and careful training they ought to fight well.” ⁷ The Los Angeles Heraldpointed out that if African American soldiers were officers of African American regiments, then “the question of how the officers’ mess would be arranged when there were white and colored officers in the same regiment came up.” ⁸ Jim Crow dictated that blacks and whites shouldn’t eat together, and the army wasn’t sure if it was ready to end that practice. The Herald concluded that “The negro needs to be fed well, they say, to make a good fighter, and there is some doubt whether colored troops will follow one of their own race as well as they would a white officer.” ⁹

In response, many African Americans advocated a “No officers, no fight!” policy. The Washington Bee published an open letter to President McKinley decrying his administration’s policy that prohibited an African American soldier from holding a position higher than a lieutenant. The Bee stated: “Now, Mr. President, we are neither aggressive nor impudent, we have respectfully and firmly asked for recognition as citizens of a common country, nothing more. We want it.” They continued, “Call a halt now Mr. President, establish the practice of your departments upon the fine basis of equal and exact justice to all before it is too late or the day must come for unavailing regret.” ¹⁰ There would be political ramifications if McKinley, as a Republican president, did not keep his promises about being a friend to African Americans—even Southern Democrats were picking up on it. The largest error to come out of this policy, however, would be to reduce the number of African American volunteers: “Throw down the bars, open up the positions, and the Negro will flow into the army as a flood. Keep up the color line you have established and they will trickle in as now, only those driven by necessity to take a half loaf or be utterly without bread.” ¹¹The Army was an opportunity for completely disenfranchised blacks to gain more than they would at home, but as the Bee put it, soon the Army would only recruit those who cannot get a “half loaf.” Any who could get more would have no need for the Army.

Buffalo Soldiers in the South

When the 24^th Infantry left Salt Lake City, residents lined the streets to see the soldiers off. In Missoula, Montana the whole town came to bid the soldiers of the 10^th Cavalry farewell. On April 15, 1898, they arrived in Chickamauga, GA. At Chickamauga Park, they were greeted with surprise and wonder. According to Sergeant-Major Frank Pullen, thousands visited from nearby Chattanooga daily: “Many of them had never seen a colored soldier. The behavior of the men was such that even the most prejudiced could find no fault.” ¹²But, this peaceful interest did not last for long. Pullen and the other men found that others in the South did not welcome them with interest or curiosity: “But in Georgia, outside of the Park, it mattered not if we were soldiers of the United States, and going to fight for the honor of our country and the freedom of an oppressed and starving people, we were ‘niggers,’ as they called us, and treated us with contempt.” ¹³

Most Southern whites did not care about the service these men had given to the U.S. Army in the West, nor did they care about what they would do in Cuba. The local whites prohibited African American soldiers from eating, shopping, or intermingling in white society in any way. Indeed, the soldiers were not just barred from “white-only” establishments, they were victims of harassment and violence. It was so bad that one African American lieutenant said, “If I owned both Macon, Georgia, and hell, I would rent Macon and live in hell.” ¹⁴

Things were not much better for African American troops in Tampa, Florida, the staging point for the invasion. On June 6, 1898, drunken white Ohio volunteers seized a local African American child and held a cruel contest. The winner was the man who could shoot a bullet through the child’s sleeve. The child was unhurt, but the event enraged African American soldiers. They stormed Tampa, taking special care to cause damage to those establishments that had denied them service. After the fact, the Atlanta Constitution wrote, “There was no need to send Negro troops to Cuba. Now, to send them after this event is criminal.” ¹⁵

Deeds of Valor in Cuba 

In 1899, historian Edward A. Johnson wrote, “History records the Negro as the first man to fall in three wars of America—Crispus Attucks in the Boston Massacre, March 5, 1770; an unknown Negro in Baltimore when the Federal troops were mobbed in that city en route to the front, and Elijah B. Tunnell, of Accomac county, Virginia, who fell simultaneously with or a second before Ensign Bagley, of the torpedo boat Winslow, in the harbor of Cardenas May 11, 1898, in the Spanish-American War.” ¹⁶ Tunnell’s legs were blown off by a shell: “Turning to those about him he asked, “Did we win in the fight boys?’ The reply was, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘Then I die happy.’” ¹⁷ This was the first of many noble sacrifices made by African American soldiers in the Spanish American War.

 

Frank W. Pullen, Jr., a Sergeant-Major of the 25^th U.S. Infantry, recalled two instances of bravery on the part of African American soldiers in Cuba.

On the first day of the invasion of Cuba, the 25^th infantry led the march. The order in which troops marched was shuffled as regiments would halt for rest and then resume. Eventually Theodore Roosevelt’s famed Rough Riders led the march. They were the victims of a surprise attack that resulted in the Battle of Las Guasimas.

 

Pullen recalled: “They could not advance, and dare not retreat, having been caught in a sunken place in the road, with a barbed wire fence on one side and a precipitous hill on the other.” ¹⁸ Roosevelt’s Rough Riders were trapped until the 10^th Cavalry came to the rescue: “Little thought the Spaniards that these ‘smoked yankees’ were so formidable. Perhaps they thought to stop these black boys by their relentless fire, but those boys knew no stop.” ¹⁹ Pullen contended that the 10^th Cavalry gave the Rough Riders safe passage and defeated the Spanish in this skirmish.

Pullen was saddened by the fact that the noble actions of African American soldiers were not well-documented:

“The names of Captain A.M. Capron, Jr., and Sergeant Hamilton Fish, Jr., of the Rough Riders, who were killed in this battle, have been immortalized, while that of Corporal Brown, 10th Cavalry, who manned the Hotchkiss gun in this fight, without which the American loss in killed and wounded would no doubt have been counted by hundreds, and who was killed by the side of his gun, is unknown by the public.” ²⁰

After the war, a Southern man stated:

“If it had not been for the Negro Cavalry the Rough Riders would have been exterminated. I am not a Negro lover. My father fought with Mosby’s Rangers (43^rd Battalion, Virginia Cavalry, Confederate Army), and I was born in the South, but the Negroes saved that fight, and the day will come when General Shafter will give them credit for their bravery.” ²¹

Sergeant-Major Pullen’s second memory comes from El Caney. Other soldiers had warned Pullen and his men, the 25^th infantry, “Boys, there is no use to go up there, you cannot see a thing; they are slaughtering our men!” But, the 25^th infantry plowed ahead—without orders from their white officers. In response to the accusation that African American soldiers were incapable of being officers, Pullen wrote, “Brigadier Generals, Colonels, Lieutenant-Colonels, Majors, etc., were not needed at the time the 25th Infantry made the charge on El Caney, and those officers simply watched the battle from convenient points, as Lieutenants and enlisted men made the charge alone.” ²²

On the same day that the 25^th Infantry helped take El Caney, American troops charged San Juan Hill. History has portrayed this as the shining moment of glory for Roosevelt and his Rough Riders.

But, recent scholarship has challenged the “Teddy-centric view,” as military historian Frank N. Schubert called it in his article “Buffalo Soldiers at San Juan Hill.” But while he refuses to give Roosevelt all the credit, Schubert also warns against new claims that Buffalo Soldiers were entirely responsible for the victory. He concluded that the effort was a shared one, “with black and white regulars and Rough Riders fighting side by side and with one group sometimes indistinguishable from the others.” ²³

One African American soldier, however, did distinguish himself from the others. Sergeant George Berry was the color guard for the 10^th Cavalry. The History of the 10^th Cavalry reads, “About half way up the slope the colors of the Third were seen to stop and fall, the color bearer sinking to the ground, shot through the body; Sergeant George Berry, color bearer of the Tenth, dashed over to where the colors lay, raised them high, and waving both flags, planted them on the crest side by side.” ²⁴The writer posits that it “is no doubt the only instance in our military history where the colors of one regiment were carried to the final objective by a member of a rival regiment.” ²⁵

Cleveland Moffitt, a white man writing for Leslie’s Weekly described it as follows: “Some white man had left it there, many white men had let it stay there, but Berry, an African American man, saw it fluttering in shame and paused in his running long enough to catch it up and lift it high overhead beside his own banner.” He concluded, “There are some hundreds of little things like this that we might as well bear in mind, we white men, the next time we start to decry the Negro!” ²⁶

• “The Charge of the ‘Nigger Ninth on San Juan Hill,” by George E. Powell
• Frank N. Schubert, “Buffalo Soldiers at San Juan Hill”

Giving Credit Where Is Due

After the war, many African American soldiers were rewarded for their efforts and deeds of valor in Cuba. But, very soon after that, people began to rewrite history. ²⁷ Sergeant-Major Pullen denounced the 12^th Infantry for taking credit for the victory at El Caney: “Thus, by using the authority given him by his shoulder straps, this officer took for his regiment that which had been won by the hearts’ blood of some of the bravest, though black, soldiers of Shafter’s army.” ²⁸

Teddy Roosevelt was one of the main rewriters of the history of the Spanish-American War. He was willing to give some credit to the Buffalo Soldiers when he said, “I would be the last man to say anything against the Afro-American soldier, because I know of his bravery and his character. He saved my life at Santiago, and I have had occasion to say so in many articles and speeches. The Rough Riders were in a bad position when the Ninth and Tenth cavalry came rushing up the hill carrying everything before them.” ²⁹ But, beyond that he refused to give credit where credit was due. While other accounts claim that the 10^th Cavalry played an integral role in the capture of San Juan and Kettle hills (with Sergeant Berry triumphantly carrying the colors), Roosevelt claimed that the African American soldiers had tried to flee the battle, and were forced back by Teddy at gunpoint. ³⁰

Even the publicity photographs used reveal that history was already in the process of being rewritten.

 

This photograph, which was much more widely used, only shows Roosevelt and the Rough Riders atop San Juan Hill.

This photograph helped to write the history that Roosevelt and his men alone were responsible for the victory that day—and that they certainly were not helped by a regiment of African American soldiers. Roosevelt’s desire to underplay the role of African American soldiers was not only driven by a desire for personal glory. The idea of African American men in uniform, or “black in blue,” as Amy Kaplan calls it, was terrifying to many white Americans: “The specter of armed African American soldiers may threaten betrayal of the United States empire through the realignment with outside forces or may challenge the internal coherence of that empire by demanding participation and representation as equals.” ³¹ If credit were given to African American soldiers for their deeds, it would open the door to rewards such as equal rights, which would not only undermine the domestic racial order, but the entire basis of American empire. Kaplan writes, “Black in blue raises the white fear that the imperial war meant to heal the rifts of the Civil War may continue to heighten that conflict by recasting it as a global race war.” ³²

Sadly, the great deeds of African American soldiers, whether hidden or well-known, were not enough to eliminate the paternalist thinking in many. Roosevelt, despite his kind words about their service, still thought “colored soldiers were of no avail without white officers; that when the white commissioned officers are killed or disabled, colored non-commissioned officers could not be depended upon to keep up a charge already begun.” ³³ Sergeant Presley Holliday of the Tenth Cavalry begged to differ. In response to Roosevelt’s remarks, he posited that Roosevelt must have been unaware that of the four officers of the 10^th Cavalry, one was killed and another was seriously injured. He must not have known that in lieu of this, the African American first sergeants “led them triumphantly to the front.” Roosevelt must also have been unaware of the fact that at Las Guasimas and at San Juan Hill, most of troop B of the 10^th Cavalry “was separated from its commanding officer by accidents of battle and was led to the front by its first sergeant.” ³⁴

Holliday fiercely proclaimed:

“I will say that when our soldiers, who can and will write history, sever their connections with the Regular Army, and thus release themselves from their voluntary status of military lockjaw, and tell us what they saw, those who now preach that the Negro is not fit to exercise command over troops, and will go no further than he is led by white officers, will see in print held up for public gaze, much to their chagrin, tales of those Cuban battles that have never been told outside the tent and barrack room, tales that it will not be agreeable for some of them to hear. The public will then learn that not every troop or company of colored soldiers who took part in the assaults on San Juan Hill or El Caney was led or urged forward by its white officer.” ³⁵

General Thomas J. Morgan, a white man, did speak out in favor of African American officers. He claimed, rather simply, that “so long as we draw no race line of distinction as against Germans or Irishmen, and institute no test of religion, politics or culture, we ought not to erect any artificial barrier of color. If the Negroes are competent they should be commissioned. If they are incompetent they should not be trusted with the grave responsibilities attached to official position. I believe they are competent.” ³⁶

• “Competent to be Officers—the Verdict of General Thomas J. Morgan, After a Study of the Negro’s Quality as a Soldier”

Bringing Racism to the Empire

The justifications for the Spanish-American War (and thus the beginning of American Empire), were based on high and mighty ideals such as freedom, equality, democracy, and justice—concepts that African Americans scarcely encountered in their everyday lives in the United States. It seems counterintuitive that Americans could wage such a war without destabilizing the racial power structure within the borders of the United States. But, the justifications for empire did not undermine racism at home. On the contrary, the justifications for empire and the justifications for racism tended to reinforce each other as the United States began its colonial mission.

The paternalist discourse that justified white superiority in the United States began to emerge in new U.S. territories. Just as dark-skinned people in the United States needed whites to look after them, so did dark-skinned peoples in Cuba and the Philippines. But, paternalism (as the experience of African Americans in the United States had clearly demonstrated), was not all about the love and support a father gives. Paternalism allowed “an assertion of authority, superiority, and control expressed in the metaphor of a father’s relationship with his children”. In Taking Haiti, historian Mary Renda argues that paternalism was a “cultural vehicle” for violence, allowing Americans to act out not just “paternal care and guidance,” but also “paternal authority and discipline.” ³⁷ Supporters of slavery often felt that peoples of African descent needed to be disciplined and kept in their place by white masters. They believed that dark-skinned peoples were not responsible enough to be masters of their own bodies. It was not difficult for them to assume that dark-skinned peoples in the new U.S. Empire were not fit for self-rule and needed the same kind of discipline and guidance.

In the midst of all this, African American soldiers tried to negotiate a contradiction. Many believed that war presented an opportunity to prove their worth as Americans and as people. But, they found that their sacrifices in Cuba did not improve their condition. Furthermore, the situation changed drastically when Buffalo Soldiers were sent to the Philippines.The similarities between the ways African Americans and Filipinos were treated by white Americans was striking—white soldiers even used the word “nigger” freely to describe both African Americans and Filipinos. It did not take long for African American soldiers to see that the plight of the Filipinos was not unlike their own. Some, like David Fagen, even defected to the Filipino army.

• “African American Soldiers in the Philippine Revolution” by E. San Juan, Jr.
• “The Philippine War—A Conflict of Conscience for African Americans.”

African American soldiers had believed that stories of valor and bravery could improve their condition. Danish-American journalist Jacob A. Riis wrote in the Outlook: “It was one of the unexpected things in this campaign that seems destined to set so many things right that out of it should come the appreciation of the colored soldier as man and brother by those even who so lately fought to keep him a chattel.” ³⁸ But, did it work? Did American whites really see African Americans differently after the war? In a word—no. Jim Crow did not die out because of the courage and patriotism the Buffalo Soldiers displayed during the Spanish-American War. Not only did their participation not have the intended result, it had an unintended consequence. When people like Teddy Roosevelt rewrote the history of the Spanish-American War, they underplayed the role that African American soldiers played in the war, but they also allowed for racism to be established in the new empire. Amy Kaplan argues that “while confronting and subordinating African Americans within the national body, Roosevelt was simultaneously making a place for newly colonized subjects in the disembodied American empire” ³⁹ In the Spanish-American War, while fighting to prove themselves worthy of the same rights as whites in America, African American soldiers unknowingly helped to export the racism they had known all their lives to the territories of the new American empire.

For more information:

• Visit the U.S. History Scene reading lists for African-American History and the Gilded Age/Progressive Era

The post Race and the New Empire appeared first on US History Scene.

6:00 A.M., SEPTEMBER 28, 1901 BALANGIGA, SAMAR, PHILIPPINE ISLANDS

The bugler of Company C, Ninth Infantry, sounded the call for breakfast. American soldiers, unarmed, made their way to the mess hall. Outside, the Filipino Chief of Police, Valeriano Abanador, prepared Filipino prisoners for a day of forced labor. Suddenly, Abanador seized Private Adolph Gamlin’s rifle and shot him point blank. The bells of the local church rang—the signal to the men inside armed with traditional Filipino bolo knives to begin their attack. Abanador’s prisoners, now armed with bolos as well, charged from the other direction.

The bolomen maimed dozens of unarmed soldiers. Captain Thomas Connell and the two other officers of the company were killed. Several soldiers finally managed to obtain weapons and gunned down many, but could not overcome the Filipino attackers. In the end, only a few soldiers escaped to Basey where another company was stationed. They returned and killed hundreds of Filipinos that day. It did not end there. Over the next year, American soldiers exacted terrible revenge on all the inhabitants of Samar. They killed and imprisoned masses, burned towns, and turned the island into a wasteland. The events of September 28, 1901 have gone down in American history books as the “Balangiga Massacre,” but many believe the true massacre was the Samar campaign that followed.

Below, the curator of the South Carolina Confederate Relic Room and Military Museum provides an overview of bolo knife history:

THE “TRUE” STORY OF BALANGIGA

Those are the basic facts surrounding the Balangiga “Massacre.” Just about everything else is still disputed. There is no one “true” story of what happened, but history is not just about events that occurred in the past. History depends on its authors and how its events are remembered – and these memories can change over time. An event like the attack at Balangiga was important in America because it justified the war in the Philippines. At home, it read like a gruesome attack on a company of good, wholesome, American men trying to help their “little brown brothers,” as the Filipinos were often called. It was important to Filipinos because the attack was a successful show of resistance to an unwanted imperial power. Furthermore, the Samar campaign and the destruction it caused were a vicious show of the abuses of colonial power. So, who was the aggressor? Who inflicted the most pain? Did they deserve it? There are no clear answers to these questions, but there is merit in identifying what parts of the story are contested and what that means for those keeping the memory of Balangiga alive.

SPANISH AMERICAN WAR & PHILIPPINE AMERICAN WAR

In 1898, during William McKinley’s presidency, the United States went to war, cajoled by the echoing refrain, “Remember the Maine, to war with Spain!” The Spanish supposedly sank the Maine, a U.S. ship, in Cuba, and that Caribbean island provided the primary motivation for war. However, the United States doubled the harm inflicted on the Spanish by attacking their Pacific colony, the Philippine Islands. After a “splendid little war,” as Secretary of State John Hay described it, the United States acquired Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines.

American troops were sent to the Philippines to ensure their independence from Spain, but seized the opportunity to impose American rule when post-war negotiations made the Philippines an American colony The country that had once been a small republic (albeit an ever-expanding one) stepped onto the world stage as an imperial power in the Pacific. Emilio Aguinaldo, the Filipino leader of the rebellion against Spain, had been an ally during the Spanish-American War, but became an enemy when he established an independent Philippine republic. The Filipino people fought against American colonial rule during the Philippine-American War (1899-1902). 126,468 American soldiers were deployed to the Philippines—4,234 did not survive. An estimated 16,000 to 20,000 Filipino soldiers died, along with 200,000 civilians. ¹

Crucible of Empire: the Spanish-American War

“The Army in the Philippines,” San Francisco Call, January 19, 1902.

The Philippine-American War began in Manila in 1899. Americans were able to fight successfully in developed areas. But, they soon discovered the Spanish had never succeeded in conquering many of the southern islands. Samar was one such island.

Brigadier General Robert P. Hughesstated, “Samar never has been organized. The Spaniards had never subdued Samar. The Spaniards never risked going into the interior of that island.” ²

General Vicente Lukban proclaimed himself governor of Samar under Aguinaldo’s Philippine Republic. He demanded complete allegiance from his followers, and severely punished those who disobeyed. By the time American soldiers arrived in Samar, Lukban’s control was well-established. Soldiers set up in the coastal towns of the island, so Lukban retreated to the jungle interior with his followers, knowing it would be nearly impossible for American troops to reach him there. He had a well-established spy network and was constantly receiving information about occurrences around the island. Though Lukban was a harsh, cruel leader, he was fiercely committed to Philippine independence.

ARRIVAL OF THE NINTH INFANTRY

Company C arrived in Balangiga on the coast of Samar on August 11, 1901. ³ Their reason for being there is disputed. One story is that the mayor of Balangiga, Presidente Pedro Abayan, requested American troops to protect his town from dangerous Moro pirates. They complied, not knowing “such raids had become practically nonexistent over the past half-century.” ⁴ General Lukban, Abayan, and other officials lured American troops there under false pretenses in order execute a well-planned attack on their company. However, other sources report that American troops were stationed there to close Balangiga’s port and disrupt supply lines to Filipino revolutionary forces. This is supported by a letter from First Lieutenant Edward Bumpus of Company C, who wrote that Company C was “in Balangiga to prevent the use of the port to smuggle supplies to the Filipino guerrillas.” ⁵ In this story, there was no attack planned when the soldiers arrived at Balangiga.

General Hughes later testified before the Senate Committee on the Philippines that he handpicked Captain Thomas Connell to go to Samar. Connell was a devout Catholic and a young recent graduate of West Point, and he sincerely believed in benevolent assimilation in the Philippines. ⁶ Like many Americans, he believed Filipinos needed their help in order to become civilized. This idea, also known as the “white man’s burden,” was a frequent justification for colonialism. Unlike many soldiers, Connell was friendly to Filipinos, hoping to gain their trust so that they might accept and even embrace American colonialism. Hughes later lamented his decision to send someone so friendly to Filipinos to Samar: “The fact has since developed, which I did not know, that this officer had shown rather unusual confidence in the natives in Luzon. Of course I knew nothing of it at that time.” ⁷

“Plan of Buildings and Ground Occupied by Company C, Ninth Infantry at Balangiga, Samar” in Captain Fred R. Brown, History of the Ninth U.S. Infantry 1799-1909, (Chicago: R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co., 1909) 581.

Connell was filled with optimism when he arrived in Balangiga. But, he was immediately concerned about the cleanliness of the town. He may have been motivated by a desire for a more civilized way of life, but other accounts suggest he was under strict orders from a very angry inspector-general. ⁸ Connell asked Presidente Abayan to persuade the people to clean up their homes. This was unsuccessful.

Connell then set about moralizing Balangiga. He was most preoccupied with the men’s love for cockfighting and the young women’s attire (or lack thereof). The American soldiers in his company enjoyed both, much to his disappointment. Connell approached the local priest for help, but was rebuked. The priest took a more practical than pious approach. He told Connell cockfighting was well-established in their culture, and would not likely disappear anytime soon. As for the women, they could never afford petticoats Connell wanted and it was unrealistic in such a hot climate anyway. ⁹ This reaction troubled Connell, who was worried about his men attending cockfights and fraternizing with local women, but he took no further action.

The ways American soldiers interacted with local women have been contested. Some accounts claim that young girls were used as decoys for insurgents. They would lure a soldier into the jungle and then he would be killed. One historian wrote, “The men learned from this blunder and the next decoy was dragged under a hut and repeatedly raped.” ¹⁰ In other accounts, the soldiers simply took advantage of women on a relatively regular basis. Apparently Connell had no knowledge of this until three young girls approached him claiming his men raped them. He was infuriated and posted the following orders:

“I will construe any act of physically touching the body or limb of a native woman by a member of this command as rape and will recommend that the soldier be court-martialed and shot. Think of how this disgrace would sadden your mothers and loved ones at home.” ¹¹

He also banned cockfights and consumption of Filipino alcohol. ¹²

Connell wanted good relations between Americans and Filipinos, but he was in the minority among his fellow soldiers. It irritated them endlessly, but Connell forbid the use of words such as “nigger” or “gugu” to describe the Filipinos. In an attempt to solidify trust even further, Connell ordered his men not to carry their weapons when not on sentry duty. The soldiers began to refer to Connell as a “nigger lover” for his naïve confidence in the Filipinos.

On August 18, 1901 Captain H.L. Jackson of the First U.S. Infantry unexpectedly discovered General Lukban’s hideout. They found the following letter among his belongings:

 As a representative of this town of Balangiga I have the honor to let you know, after having conferred with the principals of the town about the policy to be pursued with the enemy in case they come in, we have agreed to have a fictitious policy with them, doing whatever they may like, and when the occasion comes the people will strategically rise against them.

This I communicate to you for your superior knowledge, begging of you to make known all the army your favorable approval of the same, if you think it convenient.

May God preserve you many years,
Balangiga, 30th of May, 1901

P. ABAYAN, Local President 

Because of slow, inefficient transfer of information amongst American troops in the Philippines, this letter and the information it contained never reached Company C in Balangiga. Connell continued to be friendly with Presidente Abayan and Abanador.

But, according to some sources, there was a direct impetus for the attack, and it was not General Lukban. Lukban, through his extensive spy network, was most definitely aware of what was going on at Balangiga. And Abayan’s letter seems to prove that they had contact. However, Professor Borrinaga’s research showed a different story. While cleaning up Balangiga, apparently the people were forced to cut down some “vegetation with food value,” which violated strict orders from Lukban regarding “food security.” On September 18, Lukban sent guerrillas to Balangiga to punish the Filipinos who violated his orders. This attack never occurred, but Lukban definitely no longer sided with the people of Balangiga.

 Company C with Valeriano Abanador

Events were set in motion on September 22, 1901 when two drunken American soldiers attempted to molest a Filipino girl. Her brothers came to her defense and mauled the two assailants. Some believe that this prompted Captain Connell’s order to detain all Balangiga’s male residents. However, officially, Connell arrested them in order to secure forced labor to hasten the clean-up of the town. Edwin Bookmiller’s testimony to the Senate Committee on the Philippines stated, “Captain Connell had collected 78 natives of the town and held most of them prisoners for police work.” ¹³ Almost 150 men were denied food while held overnight in cramped tents. Their homes were ransacked and American soldiers confiscated all bolos, which held cultural capital for Filipino men who lived in rural areas. The American soldiers even confiscated and destroyed their stored rice, “the fundamental symbol of their dignity.” ¹⁴ Connell soon brought in more prisoners from around the island, with the help of the Abanador and Presidente Abayan. What Connell did not know was that these “workmen” provided by Abayan were the best bolomen on the island of Samar. ¹⁵

Who planned the attack and why they planned it matters to the history of Balangiga. In the version that has been propounded in American history, the whole attack was planned by Lukban, who planned on killing the soldiers from the time Presidente Abayan requested their presence in Balangiga. In another account, the attack was not the result of lengthy sadistic scheming, but rather a response to the cruelty Filipinos experienced at the hands of American soldiers. The people had been shamed, disgraced, imprisoned, and mistreated by American soldiers and they planned to do something about it.

On September 27, 1901 Filipino women carried small coffins into the local church, claiming a cholera epidemic had killed many of the local children. The sentry on duty was suspicious, but did indeed find a child inside the coffin he inspected. Had he looked closer, he might have seen that the child was in fact playing dead, and underneath him, the coffin was filled with bolo knives. Because of Connell’s rules about touching Filipino women, the sentry was not at liberty to search them either. If he had, he would have found that they were in fact men, and underneath their dresses, they carried more bolo knives.

 RECOLLECTIONS OF THE ATTACK

That morning, the Filipinos attacked, leaving Company C almost completely annihilated.

“Survivors of Company C” from Captain Fred R. Brown, History of the Ninth U.S. Infantry 1799-1909, (Chicago: R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co., 1909), 579.

The party of survivors “consisted of 25 men, 22 of whom were wounded, and two bodies of men who had died en route.” They arrived at Basey at 4 a.m. the next morning, where Captain Edwin Bookmiller was stationed with Company G. Bookmiller was quite the opposite of Connell; he “despised Filipinos and trusted none of them.” ¹⁶ At 9 a.m. Bookmiller and fifty-five volunteers of Company G set out for Balangiga with eight survivors of Company C.

When they arrived, Bookmiller ordered the men to round up all Filipinos in the area. The survivors of Company C gunned them down while the rest set Balangiga ablaze. As the town burned, Bookmiller famously declared, “They have sown the wind and they shall reap the whirlwind.” ¹⁷ Although as many as fifty Americans perished, hundreds of Filipinos were killed that day as well, and thousands more died over the next year.

REACTIONS TO BALANGIGA

“Butchered with Bolos,” Minneapolis Journal, September 30, 1901.

“Killed by Rebels,” Washington Times, September 30, 1901; “Battle with Filipinos,” Saint Paul Globe, September 30, 1901; “Terrible Defeat at Hands of Filipinos,” Salt Lake Herald, September 30, 1901.

The American people were horrified when they heard that almost an entire company of men had been cut down by savage Filipino attackers. The Evening World claimed, “The slaughter is the most overwhelming defeat that American arms have encountered in the Orient.” They painted a gruesome picture: “so sudden and unexpected was the onslaught and so well hemmed in were they by the barbarians that the spot became a slaughter-pen for the little band of Americans.” It reignited support for war in the Philippines. The idea that Filipinos would hack a harmless company of men to death during breakfast reinforced the idea in the American consciousness that Filipinos were brutal, savage people. It reinforced the idea that Filipinos needed American colonialism in order to become civilized.

The attack sent shock waves through the U.S. Army. Everyone seemed to have an explanation. Many blamed Connell. General Hughes said, “There is no doubt whatever that the disaster was the result of overconfidence in the Presidente and chief of police.” ¹⁸ One officer was more direct: “I have all the time thought that we do not appreciate the fact that we are dealing with a class of people whose character is deceitful, who are absolutely hostile to the white race.” ¹⁹

Adna R. Chaffee, commander of American forces in the Philippines, had the following to say about the attack in the Annual Report of the War Department:

 “Born, raised, and educated in a country where peaceful conditions prevail and where all one’s neighbors can be trusted, where security for life and property is assured by peaceful processes and through civil means, I fear our soldiers, transplanted to a strange sphere of action, do not fully realize or appreciate the difference in their surroundings and naturally fall into the error of complaisant trustfulness in a seeming friendliness on the part of the native population.” ²⁰

Lukban (whether he planned the attack or not) was pleased with such a successful show of Filipino resistance. He sent out a telegram stating, “Providential events like these clearly demonstrate the justice of a God.” ²¹ He continued, “We desire you to attempt the same thing against the enemy, and with them demonstrate in sight of the nations our dignity, and with them bequeath to our successors fame and honesty, those successors whom we have made happy with their independence.” ²² Read the whole telegram here

THE “HOWLING WILDERNESS”

The Balangiga massacre gave officers the justification to pursue harsher methods. ²³ General Jacob H. Smith led the charge in Samar. He gave the following instructions: “I want no prisoners. I wish you to kill and burn, the more you kill and burn the better you will please me. I want all persons killed who are capable of bearing arms in actual hostilities against the United States.” Major Littleton Waller asked to know the age limit, and Smith replied “Ten years.” These orders were immortalized in a cartoonin the New York Journal whose caption read: “Kill Every One Over Ten: Criminals because they were born ten years before we took the Philippines.” Smith asked his men to turn Samar into a “howling wilderness,” and they obliged.

 “Kill Everyone Over Ten”

Over the next year, the US Army practiced a scorched earth policy on Samar. They trudged through dangerous jungles, burning towns, taking food, and either killing the people or taking them to coastal villages for internment. ²⁴ Thousands of Filipinos, mostly noncombatants, were killed during the Samar campaign. It became the most gruesome campaign of the entire Philippine-American War.

For the people who lived there, it was not the events of September 28, 1901, but what came after that was the true Balangiga “massacre.” Before leaving the island, American troops revisited Balangiga, where it all began. They took the church bells that signaled the attack on that day and sent them back to the United States as war trophies, where they still reside to this day.

THE BELLS OF BALANGIGA

Though this incident has been largely forgotten by most Americans (along with American colonialism in the Philippines), the scars remain to this day. Scholars still dispute the events surrounding the attack. ²⁵ Some, like Stuart Creighton Miller in Benevolent Assimilation paint a picture in which General Lukban and the people of Balangiga lured an American company to Samar and massacred them in cold blood. On the other hand, Kimberly Alidio characterizes the events differently: “The attack of the townspeople and the armed guerrillas led by General Vicente Lukban was a response to weeks of forced labor, mass imprisonments, and the seizure of food supplies under the military occupation” She claims the true brutality was afterwards, when “American forces waged a genocidal campaign, which produced thousands of civilian deaths on the island and the leveling of Balangiga.” ²⁶ Even the matter of what to call the incident is disputed. Sharon Delmendo claims that “it is the interpretation of the incident as a ‘massacre’ that engenders some of the anti-compromise Americans’ resentment over the incident even today, thus fueling their opposition to returning the bells.” The fact that five times more Filipinos than Americans died on that same day, for Delmendo, “provokes some meditation on the use of the term massacre.” ²⁷

The bells of Balangiga reside in Wyoming on the F.E. Warren Air Force Base. For decades, Filipinos have been trying to negotiate the return of the bells. For them, the bells symbolize their fight for independence and they want them returned to the Philippines so they can honor those who fought at Balangiga. But many American veterans and civilians believe that the bells should stay in the United States to commemorate the sacrifice made by the soldiers at Balangiga who defended American sovereignty in the Philippines. Alidio writes, “Several enlisted and civilian Americans expressed in interviews the fear that the U.S. soldier (or the memory of U.S. bravery against the ‘insurrecto’) would be greatly diminished by the view that the battle of Balangiga was an incident of imperial conquest.” ²⁸ Returning the bells to Balangiga would mean changing the memory of Balangiga. The way that we remember history is crucial. Although it is remembered differently, what happened at Balangiga should never be forgotten.

For more information: 

• Read an interview with Stanley Karnow, author of In Our Image: America’s Empire in the Philippines.
• Explore PBS’s A Conflicted Land: Rebellions, Wars, and Insurgencies in the Philippines, 1898-1933: America’s Colony
• Read first-hand accounts online: Captain Fred R. Brown’s History of the Ninth U.S. Infantry, 1799-1909, (Chicago: R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co., 1909); Company C survivors John D. Closson, George F. Markley, Arnold, Irish, Walter Bertholf, and Charles Marak in Captain Fred R. Brown, History of the Ninth U.S. Infantry 1799-1909, (Chicago: R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co., 1909), 583-591; and Major Ray’s Account, as he arrived there just hours after the massacre in “Noble Heroes of Samar,” Railroad Trainmen’s Journal 19, no. 4 (April 1902): 253-259.
• Read Army History’s piece by Thomas A Bruno, “The Violent End of Insurgency on Samar, 1901-1902”
• Use google to explore the US Archives and “The Massacre at Balangia,” Deeds of Valor from Records in the Archives of the United States Government: How American Heroes Won the Medal of Honor, ed. W.F. Beyer and O.F. Keydel (Detroit: The Perrien-Keydel Company, 1906), 470-474.

The post The “Massacre” and the Aftermath appeared first on US History Scene.

In the mid-nineteenth century, explorers headed out to sea, hoping to claim new islands for the United States. One seemed promising: “These islands are small, high and rocky, barren and uninviting to the last degree, yet out of them has come wealth to stagger the dreams of oriental imagination.” ¹ These islands held an extremely valuable resource. With high levels of both phosphorus and nitrogen, it was excellent for crops. In his 1850 State of the Union, President Millard Fillmore said this resource had “become so desirable an article to the agricultural interest of the United States that it is the duty of the Government to employ all the means properly in its power for the purpose of causing that article to be imported into the country at a reasonable price.” ² This article would enable American farmers to produce on a larger scale, at a time when farming was undergoing vast changes as a result of the Industrial Revolution. This prized new resource was guano.

That’s right. American explorers were looking for islands filled with bird poop. They were not the first to think of using guano as a fertilizer. Guano had been harvested and used for centuries. In fact, the word “guano” comes from the Quichua language of the Inca Empire. It is most commonly found in islands in the Caribbean. The conditions in the islands near present-day Peru were perfect for forming large deposits of guano. A large sea bird population meant there was plenty of excrement settling on the ground. What really made the islands perfect, however, was the extreme dry heat. This enabled the guano to dry out and solidify—making it perfect for harvesting. For the Incans, guano was a highly prized fertilizer. Disturbing sea birds (and thereby disrupting the process of making guano) was punishable by death.

When the Spanish first arrived in the Inca Empire in the 1500’s, they were aware that people used guano as fertilizer for their crops. As the Perrysburg Journal noted in 1855, “the Spaniards obtained this knowledge from them [the Inca], but were too indolent to apply it in practical life.” ³ Europeans and North Americans remained unfamiliar with the benefits of guano until the nineteenth century. From 1799 to 1804, Prussian explorer Alexander von Humboldt traveled around Latin America. In 1802, while in Peru, he investigated the fertilizing properties of guano. After hearing how effective it was, guano soon became highly prized on the world market. In 1840, the first Peruvian guano was shipped to Europe, arriving in London. Over the next two years, 182 tons were shipped to England. Just twenty years later, in 1862, that amount had risen to 435,000 tons. ⁴

GUANO ISLANDS ACT

By the 1850’s, news of this revolutionary fertilizer being imported by the British had reached the United States. Americans wanted a piece of the lucrative industry. One writer said, “The commercial enterprise of our country is seeking out and bringing the treasures of the waters to our farms and orchards, in the form of guano…Treasures, indeed—rich in the one needful thing, without which our labor would be in vain, our fertile soils a barren waste.” ⁵

The American Guano Company formed in New York City in September of 1855. The company already had an island in mind that they wished to mine. They reported that “excepting this one, no Guano Island hitherto discovered possesses the natural advantages of a good harbor, safe anchorage, and convenience to load a large number of ships at once.” ⁶ “From the past and present demand for Peruvian guano, now selling at fifty-five dollars per ton,” the company estimated that their profits would be $2,400,000 per annum. ⁷

American companies had seen the success associated with the guano industry and were eager to get involved. Congress facilitated this in an interesting way by enacting the “Guano Islands Act” on August 18, 1856. This new law allowed U.S. citizens to claim islands containing guano deposits for the United States:

That when any citizen or citizens of the United States may have discovered, or shall hereafter discover, a deposit of guano on any island, rock, or key not within the lawful jurisdiction of any other government, and not occupied by the citizens of any other government, and shall take peaceable possession thereof, and occupy the same, said island, rock, or key may, at the discretion of the President of the United States, be considered as appertaining to the United States.

The law further specified that when guano on any given island ran out, the United States would have no obligation to retain the territory:

“And be it further enacted, that nothing in this act contained shall be construed obligatory on the United States to retain possession of the islands, rocks, or keys, as aforesaid, after the guano shall have been removed from the same.”

The Guano Islands Act marked the beginning of insular, unincorporated territories of the United States. According to the U.S. Office of Insular Affairs, an insular territory is “a jurisdiction that is neither a part of one of the several States nor a Federal district.” ⁸ Thus far, territory acquired by the United States as part of westward expansion was intended for eventual statehood. The guano islands were not meant to be populated by Americans or entered into the union of the United States. The explicit purpose of holding the islands was to mine guano, an increasingly valuable resource for the United States.

Baker Island was the first island to become a part of the United States under the Guano Islands Act. Although it was first discovered by whalers in 1818, the U.S. took possession of it in 1857.

• Guano and the Industrial Revolution: Andrew Leonard, “When Guano Imperialists Ruled the Earth,” Salon, (Feb 29, 2008).
• Read testimonials from farmers about Imperial Guano in 1888
• Read about Guano Islands in Godfrey Thomas Vigne, Travels in Mexico, South America, etc. (London: WM H. Allen & Co, 1863).
•  “The Great Guano Deposits of Peru” in Bulletin of the International Union of the American Republics, (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1909), 884-891.
• Read the prospectus of the American Guano Company.

NAVASSA ISLAND & ISSUES WITH ANNEXATION

The acquisition of territory through the Guano Islands Act seemed relatively straightforward. However, this was the first time the United States attempted to annex overseas territories.

• Read the entire Guano Islands Act here. An Act to Authorize Protection to be Given to Citizens of the United States Who May Discover Deposits of Guano.
• Read an interview with Columbia University legal historian Cristina Duffy Burnett about the Guano Islands Act.

Although the Guano Islands Act specifically indicated that American explorers could only claim “any island, rock, or key not within the lawful jurisdiction of any other government, and not occupied by the citizens of any other government,” this did not prevent territorial disputes. In 1857 Peter Duncan and Edward Cooper of Maryland discovered that Navassa Island off the coast of Haiti held 1,000,000 tons of guano. The Haitian government felt that Navassa Island was definitely “within the lawful jurisdiction” of the Haitian government.

Regardless of Haiti’s claim, Duncan and Cooper claimed it for the United States under the Guano Islands Act. ⁹ President James Buchanan approved the annexation.

In 1918 the Ogden Standard said that Navassa Island had “long since proved to be the most troublesome, to the square mile, of any property this nation even came into possession of.” ¹⁰ The Americans, led by Edward Cooper and the newly formed Navassa Phosphate Company, immediately began mining guano once Navassa became a U.S. possession. The company brought in droves of slave labor, such that “the crack of the slavedriver’s whip was soon heard where only the scream of the seagull had broken the silence for centuries.” ¹¹

Haiti had not, however, given up its right to the island. In November or 1858, Mr. B.C. Clark, the commercial agent of Haiti in Boston, wrote that since the Haitian government “never ceded, sold, or leased either of these dependencies [including Navassa] to any nation, company, or individual,” the island remained a Haitian possession. The U.S. Assistant Secretary of State replied that the annexation of Navassa by the United States was lawful since “the island was derelict and abandoned, with guano of good quality.” ¹²

The Haitian government “sent two vessels of war and soldiers to the island and interrupted and prohibited Cooper and his men digging or taking away any of the rock.” ¹³ The U.S. Secretary of State, Lewis Cass, issued a letter to the Secretary of the Navy, Isaac Toucey, which read:

“The president being of the opinion that any claim of the Haitian Government to prevent citizens of the United States from removing guano from the Island of Navassa is unfounded…directs that you will cause a competent force to repair to that island, and will order the officer in command thereof to protect citizens of the United States in removing guano therefrom against any interference from authorities of the Government of Haiti, or of any other government.” ¹⁴

The Secretary of the Navy relayed the President’s message to the Haitian minister of foreign relations. This stern message, along with the arrival of “one of Uncle Sam’s most vicious looking war vessels,” quieted the conflict enough for Americans to continue mining.

The question of jurisdiction was never entirely resolved. But, the matter did not hold much importance for the U.S. government so long as the Navassa Phosphate Company could continue mining.

The issue of jurisdiction became paramount when Henry Jones murdered Thomas N. Foster in 1889. In 1889, there were 137 black laborers and 11 white officers on Navassa. On September 14, “a riot took place there, in which a large number of laborers were engaged against the officers, and the defendant killed Thomas N. Foster, one of the officers, under circumstances which the jury found amounted to murder.” ¹⁵

The defendant, Jones, was brought to Maryland for his murder trial. The jury there found him guilty and he was sentenced to death. He appealed his case to the United States Supreme Court, claiming that the District Court of Maryland had no authority to try him for crimes committed in Navassa Island. Originally, acquiring overseas territory through the Guano Islands Act was a commercial endeavor. Now, the United States was faced with establishing rule of law in far-flung territories. In order to try Jones for murder in the American judicial system, the United States had to prove that “Navassa Island was recognized and considered by the United States as appertaining to the United States, and in the possession of the United States under the provisions of the laws of the United States.” ¹⁶

In 1890, the United States Supreme Court found that “the Island of Navassa must be considered as appertaining to the United States; that the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Maryland had jurisdiction to try this indictment, and that there is no error in the proceedings.” ¹⁷

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE GUANO ISLANDS

American companies mined huge guano deposits on a number of islands in the Caribbean and Pacific. But, the more companies mined, the less sea birds visited the islands to renew the resource. In the long run, guano was not beneficial as a fertilizer.

 

The Ogden Standard wrote:

“There was a time when guano was in unusual demand in the United States. Farmers had found their soil was enriched by its use. But because the science of using commercial fertilizer was then crude, guano finally fell into smaller use. After three of four years treatment with guano, land failed to yield to its influence and the farmers found that in the long run the ground would have been better off if it had not been used.” ¹⁸

 

Eventually, the guano industry fell by the wayside, but the islands remain significant in American history. The Guano Islands set a precedent for insular and unincorporated territory. According to the U.S. Office of Insular Affairs, an unincorporated territory is “a United States insular area in which the United States Congress has determined that only selected parts of the United States Constitution apply.” ¹⁹ The Guano Islands were the first overseas territories acquired by the United States. The issues the government faced with incorporating the Guano Islands were were revisited in 1898, when the United States acquired its first peopled territories—not for commercial reasons, but for colonization. Although Navassa was “only a wind-swept and wave-battered rock rising out of the Caribbean Sea,” it and other Guano Islands were the beginning of U.S. overseas territorial expansion.

For more information:

• Read more about slavery in Navassa from the Library of Congress: “Freedom for a Slave,” Kansas City Journal (1899) and “The Navassa Riot,” Red Cloud Chief (1889)
• Use google books to access Eugene Guassoin’s The Island of Navassa (1866)
• Read the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Jones v. United States (1890)
• Visit the U.S. History Scene reading list for the Atlantic World

The post The Guano Islands appeared first on US History Scene.