Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2019 January 5

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 5

Did a large part of the U.S. Senate support annexing Cuba in 1898?

Looking at the Wikipedia article for the Teller Amendment, what I'm struck by is the fact that this amendment only passed the U.S. Senate by a narrow (42 to 35) margin. In turn, this makes me wonder--did a large part of the U.S. Senate support annexing Cuba in 1898?

Also, why was opposition to the Teller Amendment much less in the U.S. House of Representatives? Futurist110 (talk) 00:29, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

The idea of annexing Cuba had been kicked around in U.S. politics for a number of decades at that point (see Ostend Manifesto). The U.S. rented Guantanamo, and intervened a number of times in Cuba in the early 20th century (see Platt Amendment), but probably many in the U.S. realized that formally annexing Cuba would be a big commitment, and that annexing Puerto Rico instead was a more modest commitment which was probably more relevant to defending the approaches to the Panama Canal... AnonMoos (talk) 06:50, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

It's worth noting, though, that Cuba's total population back in 1898 was much, much less than the U.S.'s total population during this time. Thus, it probably wouldn't have taken much on the part of the U.S. to improve Cuba's standard of living and raising it closer to U.S. levels. Futurist110 (talk) 21:31, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I suppose not, but it seems unlikely that improving the lives of Cubans was much of a topic of discussion. Matt Deres (talk) 22:25, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I think our article is a bit misleading. I've just been looking over the Congressional Record for April 18, 1898 (they did not adjourn until well after midnight) and the point that really held things up was whether to recognize the Cuban revolutionary government, which the House seemed more in favor of than the Senate. The 42-35 vote was on a vote to accept the report of a conference committee.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Do you know what this report said? Futurist110 (talk) 21:31, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

The House, though it passed the conference report 311-6, divided much more closely on the procedural vote just prior to that, 173-121.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

What were the reasons given for objecting to this report? Futurist110 (talk) 21:31, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Because it removed the recognition, which the House

You didn't finish your sentence here. Futurist110 (talk) 05:11, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry. The Senate favored recognition and the House did not. Therefore, the resolution kept getting tied up over the fine points of language.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:11, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

There was also an issue as to who would pay the bonds issued by Spain secured by the Cuban revenues that divided Congress. This was a nasty and very protracted debate, and I'm afraid that our articles give it short shrift. I don't think Panama was a major issue--neither the word "Panama" nor "Colombia" appears in the day's debates--but there was some discussion, while the Senate was considering an appropriations bill, to funding for preliminary work for the proposed Nicaragua Canal, and no doubt having a friendly Cuba was in senators' minds relative to that, to some extent. Support in the Senate for recognizing the revolutionary government (this was eventually struck out and replaced by vagaries) came from Democrats and some dissident Republicans, such as those from the West who differed from McKinley over the monetary issue, and general malcontents like Joseph B. Foraker of Ohio.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Why did most Republicans oppose recognizing Cuba's revolutionary government? Also, what exactly did they want to happen to Cuba? Futurist110 (talk) 21:31, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

The report said:

The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the House of Representatives to the joint resolution (H. Res. 3i) for the recognition of the independence of the people and Re. publicof Cua, demanding thattheGovernmentof Spain relinquish its author- ity and government in the Island of Cuba, and to withdrawits landand naval forces from Cuba and Cuban waters, and directing the President of the United States to use the land and naval forces of the United States to carry these resolutions into effect, having met, after full and free conference have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses as follows: That the House recede from its amendment numbered 1, in line 1, striking out the words "are, and." That the Senate recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the House numbered 2, in line 2, to strike out all after the word "independent," to and including the word " Island," in line 4; and agree to the same. That the Senate recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the House to the title of the resolution, omitting in line 2 thereof the words "and republic," and agree to the same. ROBERT ADAMS, Jn., JOEL P. HEATWOLE. :managers on the part of the House of Representatives. C. K. DAVIS, J. B. FORAKER,

Managers on the part of the Senate.

It might be simpler if you sent me an email, I could send you the Congressional Record.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:53, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

OK; that works. Let me try doing this after I will get back home in a couple of hours (I'm about to leave my house right now). Futurist110 (talk) 22:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

P.S. My comment of "5 January" above basically refers to the whole 1898-1902 period; if you're just interested in one particular 1898 congressional vote, then ignore it, sorry... AnonMoos (talk) 18:54, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Photograph of Mack McLarty or...?

Mack McLarty or someone else?

The author of this photograph says the subject is Mack McLarty. Rashinseita disagrees. I also think the subject has a lot more hair than McLarty in other photographs. Who is he? Surtsicna (talk) 14:18, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Largest cities of countries

In the infoboxes of the countries, we state the largest cities of different countries. However, there are many ways to determine the largest/most populous city of a country. You can measure the population of the metropolitan area or the city proper. Do Wikipedia have set guidelines on what to consider the largest city of a country? Has there ever been a discussion on what to consider the largest city? --Mstrojny (talk) 21:20, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Those infoboxes are created using this template: Template:Infobox country. You could have a look through the talk-page archives (there are several) to see if there's anything there - or start a new thread. The area seems pretty active; someone there can likely fill you in. Matt Deres (talk) 22:35, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@Matt Deres: Thank you for that information. I have opened up a discussion here if you're interested in joining the discussion. --Mstrojny (talk) 23:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Mstrojny -- that was exactly what I was wondering about with respect to Template:Largest cities of Israel. According to most meaningful definitions, Tel Aviv is far larger than Jerusalem, but excessive devotion to technicalistic administrative gerrymanderings produces the opposite result on the template. I didn't get very far at Template talk:Largest cities of Israel#Jerusalem vs. Tel Aviv... -- AnonMoos (talk) 18:36, 6 January 2019 (UTC)