Part 1: About the text book:
Hawaii Island posed threat to the American authorities which was neutralized through diplomatic maneuvers. Samoa Island was region that held the interest of three main powers early in the 20th century. The spoils of territory were shared in common between the stakeholders.
The point of content and concern that brought Spain and America to battle fields was occupation of Cuba. Cubans expressed their sentiments of siding with America during the middle days of 19th century.
Massive atrocities came to forth from Cuban militia as a result of the aspirations expressed by Cuba. Several states within the U.S.A facilitated the migration of Cubans as a result of atrocities by the usurpers. “Remember the Maine” (KAPUR) was one similar move to avenge the alleged Cuban army’s miss endeavors.
The scores had to be eventually settled through the “Splendid little war” where Cubans helped the cause of Americans but they were constrained by lack of infrastructure and war equipment availability. Cuban circumstances posed a direct and constant source of threat and challenge throughout.
Marked by imperialist pursuits, the then American administration stepped its feet into the Asian continent and aimed at dominating Philippines this time. Again, it was a tussle with the rivals from Cuba- Spaniards. Little resistance was seen in case of Philippines. Next in line was the land of Puerto Rico, which had its pedigree and inclination stretching back to 16th century. The high handed approach of usurpers had left the natives of Puerto Rico in a dismal state. The land saw reforms and relaxation around late 19th century from Cuban administration.
Treaty of Paris was a marked sign of peace over the three areas. This was combined with within the country cry of discouraging the imperialist pursuits. Early 20th century saw status of Republic, role of individual states and constitutional say.
Part 2 : Summarize the 1st article :
Internal policies were marked by values and true ideology of the United States of America underpinned after War of Independence, the foreign policy in contrast was a blend of imperialist interests and aims of dictating its presence and dominance in the region.
Confrontation with Spain was one of the major events of this policy and this confrontation was taken up in form of Cuban attack and Philippines offensive (Offner). Both yielded an eventual success after early hiccups. The case of Puerto Rico was a similar affair. Cuban interest was invited by the dismal social outlook of the Cubans as a colony of Spain. The Cuban affair took a toll on the American economy and what was already a struggling time at home, further strangulated the state of affairs. Trade and Business sectors suffered in the most gruesome manner. U.S investors had a mixed response and course of action to the overall industrial and agricultural outlook of Cuba.
The mixed equation of Cuban expedition gave the local politicians back home a platform to contest and outshine their political rivalries against one another in a louder manner. For example, Cleveland administration stood in favor of the course taken up in Cuba. The topic was center of attraction in all forms of internal political platforms. Mckinley adopted a new stance that was aimed at bringing down and halting the expensive war which was directly impacting the health of economy in the country. Direct representatives were floated in to Spain to settle the matters in an amicable manner. International assurances and loyalties were earned over the matter of supporting the U.S supported militia and insurgents in Cuba.
Divided in opinion over Cuban offensive, the President eventually gave his ascent to offensive against Cuba, although it had its economic and political repercussions but this was thought of as the best way out of the entire situation that was at hand.
Part 3:
Enrique Dupuy de Lome, was an individual who rose beyond his individual capabilities and penned down his name in the books of history as a man of valor, values, vision and virtue. He was privileged to serve Spain in times when it was confronted in a direct and an unavoidable war with United States of America in the late part of the 19th century.
Born in 1851, and qualified at the best institutes around, he took up all the learning and would one day implement them in the practical domain of politics to serve his country on the top most level of diplomacy. He had the chance to travel to parts of Asia, notably Japan and China as the third secretary and later on was assigned on official task to United States of America (Barrón).
He is renowned for his famous line about the American President where he termed the U.S President Mckinley as a low politician and this was based on the fact that U.S President remained un decided about the future course of action about Cuba for major part of the entire episode.
He served between Third secretary to Second to Charges de affair in different countries and represented the country’s version in letter and spirit. He left a good reputation of his own wherever he went. It was in 1892 that he was assigned the task of representing his country in Washington at a time that was quite complex and based on hostility towards one another.
Throughout his stay as the ambassador, his task was to convey the message and concerns of the Spanish administration to the Congress and Republicans and present the true picture which the Spaniards thought was miss understood. His stay in United States in the last decade was intense both on account of on the table affairs and under the table activities of espionage to tackle the menace of Cuban Crisis. His stance was not one based on reaction and rebellion rather, like any professional and a top notch diplomat, he aimed at resolving the disputes, misunderstandings and misconceptions between the two governments (United States and Spain) . Major event that came up during his early days in Washington was Olney’s proposal that were presented in the month of April in 1895.
The resolution of Cuban crisis in form of Spanish defeat led him to serve in Italy. His demise came about in 1904.
Part 4: Comparison:
Both the articles pertain to the American Spanish war in the last decade of 19th century. The former writer has given an account of the scenario that was around in that era, while the later has undertaken the personality assessment of the reputed ambassador of Spain to Washington Enrique Dupuy de Lome, who served at a time where the situation between the two countries were most strained and needed wise counsels, strong personalities and representatives to represent the Spanish’s people’s aspirations.
John. L. Offner has concentrated all his researched towards the overall course of the war and the subsequent outcome of the war. His writing has sufficient space for the President incumbent of United States of America, his stance and undertaking of the entire event as it unfolded over period of time, he has also given an insight of how other European states under took his efforts and the overall cause of Cuban crisis.
The piece of writing by Carlos Garcia is divided into two parts, the first gives and elaborative insight into the entire life of Enrique Dupuy de Lome, starting off from his birth date to 1904, all the posts he served on, his early education, his distinctions, his efforts and his major role in the war with America during the last years of 19th century.
The second part gives an insight into the affairs that unfolded, the governmental policies, the efforts undertaken.
Similarities are found in form of the cause and theme of both the papers, with one addressing the individual character and personality while the second takes into account the matter in a more holistic manner. The time period of the matters is same in both the letters.
Works cited:
Barrón, Carlos García. "Enrique Dupuy de Lôme and the Spanish American War." Academy of American Franciscan History (1979): 21.
KAPUR, NICK. "William McKinley's Values and the Origins of the Spanish-American War: A Reinterpretation." Center for the Study of the Presidency (2011): 22.
Offner, John L. "McKinley and the Spanish-American War." Center for the Study of the Presidency and Congress (2004): 13.
