Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 10-04-2017, 12:13 PM
 
11,610 posts, read 10,282,114 times
Reputation: 7213

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa View Post
Sans the personal attacks I think we're all missing something crucial. There was much talk of building a canal across Central America. Available alternatives were Nicaragua and the northern part of Columbia, now Panama. Cuba and Puerto Rico as Spanish colonies weres giant obstacle to such construction. Similarly, the Philippines posed an obstacle to Western access to China. Our motives, in 21st Century terms were not pure, but certainly the Panama Canal has been a net benefit to the world.
Interesting and very possible considerations that I've never before encountered. Do you have any documentation (links) providing an historical record for these possibilities?

If they are your thoughts, you should research them and write a book!!!

Personally, I don't see how Cuba and especially Puerto Rico were giant obstacles to the building of an Atlantic/Pacific canal. To the extent that Spain was bankrupt (part of the peace treaty ending the Spanish American War required the U.S. to pay to extradite the Spanish armed forces back from Cuba to Spain) and its military neglected, it hardly posed a threat to the U.S., as events proved.

The U.S. engaged in island hopping in World War II, and isolated Cuba after the Cuban Revolution despite Soviet support and bases. It wasn't a major strategic consideration in 1890 to 2020, although the American Gauntanamo Bay naval base certainly strengthened the U.S. ability to dominate the Caribbean Sea, especially in the age of coal-powered naval vessels.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-04-2017, 12:13 PM
 
18,039 posts, read 25,052,276 times
Reputation: 16721
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy100 View Post
If that was the case why not invade Cuba and free their slaves? If slavery is in a different country did the North really care if it existed? The North could have started by freeing slaves in their own capital before trying to free everybody else’s.
Stop this BS dude,
NOBODY FOUGHT TO FREE THE SLAVES

The slaves were freed as a war tactic to weaken the South in the middle of the civil war
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2017, 12:28 PM
 
11,610 posts, read 10,282,114 times
Reputation: 7213
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dopo View Post
Stop this BS dude,
NOBODY FOUGHT TO FREE THE SLAVES

The slaves were freed as a war tactic to weaken the South in the middle of the civil war
Actually free blacks, a significant part of the Union military by the end of the Civil War, and abolitionists did fight to end slavery as much as to defend the Perpetual Union. Defending the Perpetual Union likely was even a lesser concern among African American servicemen in the Union military.

After the Emancipation Proclamation, ending slavery certainly became a Union war goal.

Have you ever seen the movie, "Lincoln?" It accurately portrays Lincoln's efforts to pass the Thirteenth Amendment in Congress, ending slavery throughout the U.S. So to the extent that the Confederacy was defeated, slavery in North America also would be kaput. The Thirteenth Amendment certainly wasn't universally popular in the border states that remained in the Union throughout the war, but it was popular with the Radical Republicans who wanted the issue of slavery put to bed for all times.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirte...s_Constitution

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_(film)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_Republican
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2017, 02:48 PM
Status: "A solution in search of a problem" (set 8 days ago)
 
Location: New York Area
34,378 posts, read 16,502,517 times
Reputation: 29536
Quote:
Originally Posted by WRnative View Post
Interesting and very possible considerations that I've never before encountered. Do you have any documentation (links) providing an historical record for these possibilities?

If they are your thoughts, you should research them and write a book!!!
These were my thoughts, but I think from the timeline it's pretty obvious. McKinley was shot in September 1901 and Roosevelt succeeded to the Presidency a few weeks later, after McKinley died. Panama, with U.S. assistance, seceded from Columbia in 1903. The U.S. Army Corp of Engineers built the canal starting in 1904, and it was completed in 1914.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WRnative View Post
Personally, I don't see how Cuba and especially Puerto Rico were giant obstacles to the building of an Atlantic/Pacific canal. To the extent that Spain was bankrupt (part of the peace treaty ending the Spanish American War required the U.S. to pay to extradite the Spanish armed forces back from Cuba to Spain) and its military neglected, it hardly posed a threat to the U.S., as events proved.
Anything posing a threat to shipping was a serious problem given the dollars involved. The U.S. did not want an intermittently hostile Spain threatening shipping interests.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WRnative View Post
The U.S. engaged in island hopping in World War II, and isolated Cuba after the Cuban Revolution despite Soviet support and bases. It wasn't a major strategic consideration in 1890 to 2020, although the American Gauntanamo Bay naval base certainly strengthened the U.S. ability to dominate the Caribbean Sea, especially in the age of coal-powered naval vessels.
The need to engage in island hopping shows the importance of ensuring that islands in both oceans remain in friendly hands.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2017, 05:52 PM
 
11,610 posts, read 10,282,114 times
Reputation: 7213
Default Correction to post 301

Quote:
Originally Posted by WRnative View Post
The U.S. engaged in island hopping in World War II, and isolated Cuba after the Cuban Revolution despite Soviet support and bases. It wasn't a major strategic consideration in 1890 to 2020, although the American Gauntanamo Bay naval base certainly strengthened the U.S. ability to dominate the Caribbean Sea, especially in the age of coal-powered naval vessels.
Correction: The above statement in BF should read: "It wasn't a major strategic consideration from 1890 to 1920" I meant to cover the period in which the Panama Canal was built through World War I, certainly not the Cold War.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2017, 05:58 PM
 
11,610 posts, read 10,282,114 times
Reputation: 7213
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa View Post
These were my thoughts, but I think from the timeline it's pretty obvious.
This would be an interesting topic for a PhD dissertation, especially if there are some primary documents discussing the issue.

It's likely that there was some consideration by some proponents of the U.S. invasion of Cuba to making a Cuba a territory or state, but I don't remember much about the resolution of that issue. From distant memory, unlike in the Philippines, the U.S. acquiesced to the desire of Cubans for independence. I don't know why the outcome was different in Cuba than in the Philippines.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2017, 06:49 PM
Status: "A solution in search of a problem" (set 8 days ago)
 
Location: New York Area
34,378 posts, read 16,502,517 times
Reputation: 29536
Quote:
Originally Posted by WRnative View Post
Correction: The above statement in BF should read: "It wasn't a major strategic consideration from 1890 to 1920" I meant to cover the period in which the Panama Canal was built through World War I, certainly not the Cold War.
It may have been a big strategic consideration during that period, which embraced WW I, if Cuba remained under Spanish control.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WRnative View Post
This would be an interesting topic for a PhD dissertation, especially if there are some primary documents discussing the issue.
I may look at NY Times coverage from that period and see what I can dig up. But while I respect Roosevelt's intelligence a lot I don't think he woke up, out of the blue in 1903 and decided building a canal was a good idea. The idea had been floating (pun intended) around for a while. Having the Caribbean under control would have been of crucial importance. I really don't think slavery was on the horizon as a consideration.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WRnative View Post
It's likely that there was some consideration by some proponents of the U.S. invasion of Cuba to making a Cuba a territory or state, but I don't remember much about the resolution of that issue. From distant memory, unlike in the Philippines, the U.S. acquiesced to the desire of Cubans for independence. I don't know why the outcome was different in Cuba than in the Philippines.
The easy answer was that Cuba was until 1956 readily controllable. The Philippines, a largely Muslim control, was ablaze and leaving it untended would have been a terrible idea. As letting it go in 1944 certainly was.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-05-2017, 07:43 AM
 
Location: Atlanta
6,793 posts, read 5,625,985 times
Reputation: 5660
Quote:
Originally Posted by WRnative View Post
Actually free blacks, a significant part of the Union military by the end of the Civil War, and abolitionists did fight to end slavery as much as to defend the Perpetual Union. Defending the Perpetual Union likely was even a lesser concern among African American servicemen in the Union military.

After the Emancipation Proclamation, ending slavery certainly became a Union war goal.

Have you ever seen the movie, "Lincoln?" It accurately portrays Lincoln's efforts to pass the Thirteenth Amendment in Congress, ending slavery throughout the U.S. So to the extent that the Confederacy was defeated, slavery in North America also would be kaput. The Thirteenth Amendment certainly wasn't universally popular in the border states that remained in the Union throughout the war, but it was popular with the Radical Republicans who wanted the issue of slavery put to bed for all times.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirte...s_Constitution

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_(film)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_Republican
The union army was 10% black at the end of the Civil War.. i guess that depends on how you define significant.. but i think 10% is a lot. Keep in mind that black soldiers were not allowed into the Union army at the beginning of the Civil War and were not allowed in combat roles until the very end. Still, since they had no way of keeping count of the number of abolitionist fighting, there is no way of knowing if any or all of the union army were abolitionist.

When i think of abolitionist i think of Harriett Beecher Stowe, Frederick Douglas and obviously John Brown. Older, wiser folks... although john brown had a hint of crazy in him (IMO). Point is, i don't think the 20 to 30something year olds who made up the bulk of the union army were abolitionist. If i had to guess,i would guess aside from the 10% black who were obviously abolitionist, there were probably less than 1% abolitionist fighting.

I did watch the movie Lincoln. Very well done.. not sure how accurate it was.. most historical movies are horribly inaccurate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-05-2017, 09:50 AM
 
11,610 posts, read 10,282,114 times
Reputation: 7213
Quote:
Originally Posted by mco65 View Post
The union army was 10% black at the end of the Civil War.. i guess that depends on how you define significant.. but i think 10% is a lot. Keep in mind that black soldiers were not allowed into the Union army at the beginning of the Civil War and were not allowed in combat roles until the very end. Still, since they had no way of keeping count of the number of abolitionist fighting, there is no way of knowing if any or all of the union army were abolitionist.

When i think of abolitionist i think of Harriett Beecher Stowe, Frederick Douglas and obviously John Brown. Older, wiser folks... although john brown had a hint of crazy in him (IMO). Point is, i don't think the 20 to 30something year olds who made up the bulk of the union army were abolitionist. If i had to guess,i would guess aside from the 10% black who were obviously abolitionist, there were probably less than 1% abolitionist fighting.

I did watch the movie Lincoln. Very well done.. not sure how accurate it was.. most historical movies are horribly inaccurate.
<<In many cases, soldiers found themselves marching off to war, as Private Chauncey Welton of the 103rd Ohio suggested, in order to “fight for and vindicate the supremacy of the Constitution.” Not all were staunch abolitionists, looking to eradicate the institution of slavery. However, as many US soldiers tramped through middle Tennessee, headed toward Chattanooga, they became personally acquainted with the peculiar institution. As soldiers interacted with enslaved African Americans, some of their mindsets began to change, as indicated by Lieutenant Alfred Pirtle, when he shared in a letter home that as the unfolding events in which he was involved rapidly made “practical abolitionists of every soldier.”>>

https://www.nps.gov/chch/learn/news/whytheyfought.htm

The Congressional battle over the Thirteenth Amendment to abolish slavery raged in late 1864 into early 1865 (it was approved by Congress in late January), so at war's end everyone in the Union army knew that they were effectively fighting not only to preserve the Union, but to abolish slavery throughout the U.S. Maybe because of this, certainly because of a sense that war was nearing an end, the elan of the Union armies increased significantly in the spring of 1865. The final destruction of the Confederate armies was prosecuted with a determined vigor.

<<By the time the war ended, some 179,000 black men had served in the Union Army, representing 10 percent of its total. Nearly 20,000 more were in the navy. Nearly 40,000 died, three-fourths of them due to disease or infections.>>

http://www.historynet.com/african-am...-the-civil-war

The movie "Lincoln" generally is considered a generally accurate portrayal of history, despite some minor inaccuracies and bloopers.

http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/149664

http://www.npr.org/2012/11/22/165671...ate-is-lincoln

Last edited by WRnative; 10-05-2017 at 10:30 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-05-2017, 11:17 AM
 
Location: Atlanta
6,793 posts, read 5,625,985 times
Reputation: 5660
Quote:
Originally Posted by WRnative View Post
<<In many cases, soldiers found themselves marching off to war, as Private Chauncey Welton of the 103rd Ohio suggested, in order to “fight for and vindicate the supremacy of the Constitution.” Not all were staunch abolitionists, looking to eradicate the institution of slavery. However, as many US soldiers tramped through middle Tennessee, headed toward Chattanooga, they became personally acquainted with the peculiar institution. As soldiers interacted with enslaved African Americans, some of their mindsets began to change, as indicated by Lieutenant Alfred Pirtle, when he shared in a letter home that as the unfolding events in which he was involved rapidly made “practical abolitionists of every soldier.”>>

https://www.nps.gov/chch/learn/news/whytheyfought.htm

The Congressional battle over the Thirteenth Amendment to abolish slavery raged in late 1864 into early 1865 (it was approved by Congress in late January), so at war's end everyone in the Union army knew that they were effectively fighting not only to preserve the Union, but to abolish slavery throughout the U.S. Maybe because of this, certainly because of a sense that war was nearing an end, the elan of the Union armies increased significantly in the spring of 1865. The final destruction of the Confederate armies was prosecuted with a determined vigor.

<<By the time the war ended, some 179,000 black men had served in the Union Army, representing 10 percent of its total. Nearly 20,000 more were in the navy. Nearly 40,000 died, three-fourths of them due to disease or infections.>>

African Americans In The Civil War | HistoryNet

The movie "Lincoln" generally is considered a generally accurate portrayal of history, despite some minor inaccuracies and bloopers.

How Historically Accurate is "Lincoln"? | History News Network

We Ask A Historian: Just How Accurate Is 'Lincoln'? : NPR

I have read several dairy's and or accounts of the war by Union Soldiers. One of which was from an Ohio soldier who spent over a year at Andersonville and Florence POW camps. In one chapter he recanted a letter he had received from a fellow inmate who had successfully escaped from Florence and made it back to the Union side. He specifically mentioned an incident where he and a fellow inmate were forced to ask some slaves for help. They were starving and cold and likely would not have lasted much longer so as nightfall the approached a slave cabin to ask for food and shelter. Initially the slaves were very reluctant but then one of the younger slaves confirmed that these soldiers had to be Union soldiers because he had spent some time in a rebel outfit and knew these were not REBELs. Once the slaves were convinced these were Union soldiers that brought them ample food, clothes and allowed them to rest some. It was nice story and confirmed that the slaves had a genuine interest in the Norths victory.. and even though the union soldiers were appreciative of the slaves gratitude, i didn't get the impression while reading that they had become staunch abolitionists. I don't doubt that some union soldiers saw or heard of autocracies that turned them into Abolitionists but i doubt there were many.

As the war was nearing an end, no doubt the Union soldiers could smell victory at hand and the end of the war was near.. certainly that inspired them to fight harder and were more determined that ever but when things like this are thrown into the mix; Maybe because of this (end of slavery), certainly because of a sense that war was nearing an end, the elan of the Union armies increased significantly in the spring of 1865. The final destruction of the Confederate armies was prosecuted with a determined vigor. That's just fluff... that is a writer sharing his or her own views into an article.. i don't mind it but you have to see it for what it is.. fluff.. there is no way to prove it and in my opinion, its just wasn't true! The union soldier no doubt fought harder as the war was ending, simply because the war was ending, not because slavery was too...

Its fluff like this that attempts to create the false moral ground that the North had which perpetuates the Southern Heritage and lost cause fluff from the other side. Don't you get that? The North had the higher moral ground merely because MOST Northern States (not all) outlawed slavery. But that moral ground was not absolute... the majority of northerners didn't care two squats about slaves....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:01 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top