Aspects in Church–State Relations in Puerto Rico, 1898–1900

1963 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 291-304
Author(s):  
Edward J. Berbusse
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Puerto Rico ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Philippines ◽  
United States Military ◽  
The Pacific ◽  
Colonial Empire ◽  
Church State Relations ◽  
State Relations ◽  
The Church

In 1898 the United States fought Spain, terminating her colonial empire in the Americas and in the Pacific. With this conquest came problems for the United States in Cuba, the Philippines, and Puerto Rico. From October 18, 1898, to May 1, 1900, United States military governments controlled the island of Puerto Rico; and on April 12, 1900 the President of the United States approved the organic act (Foraker Act) which Congress had passed as the first civil government for Puerto Rico. The study of Church-state relations in this period is an interesting one, since it represents the conflict of two widely different conćepts: a residue of Spanish patronage which fostered the Church and its schools while confining the activity of the Church because of paternalism, anti-clericalism and a trend toward the philosophy of positivism; and Yankee-Americanism that was dominantly Protestant and wedded to the proposition that the Church must be separated from the state. It was a rugged wrenching that brought the Puerto Rican Church from a position of dependency to that of autonomy and self-support. The Church, moreover, had to engage in a political and legal fight for the retention of such properties as schools, churches, and cemeteries. Into the fray came such interested competitors as a United States Commission sent by President McKinley to report on the conditions in Puerto Rico, a small but vocal group of anti-clerical Puerto Ricans, three military governments, and the first civil governors.

Spanish-American and Philippine-American Wars

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stuart White
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Puerto Rico ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Philippines ◽  
Spanish American ◽  
Spanish American War ◽  
Guerrilla War ◽  
The Pacific ◽  
The Us ◽  
Santiago De Cuba

The Spanish-American War is best understood as a series of linked conflicts. Those conflicts punctuated Madrid’s decline to a third-rank European state and marked the United States’ transition from a regional to an imperial power. The central conflict was a brief conventional war fought in the Caribbean and the Pacific between Madrid and Washington. Those hostilities were preceded and followed by protracted and costly guerrilla wars in Cuba and the Philippines. The Spanish-American War was the consequence of the protracted stalemate in the Spanish-Cuban War. The economic and humanitarian distress which accompanied the fighting made it increasingly difficult for the United States to remain neutral until a series of Spanish missteps and bad fortune in early 1898 hastened the American entry to the war. The US Navy quickly moved to eliminate or blockade the strongest Spanish squadrons in the Philippines and Cuba; Spain’s inability to contest American control of the sea in either theater was decisive and permitted successful American attacks on outnumbered Spanish garrisons in Santiago de Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Manila. The transfer of the Philippines, along with Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Guam, to the United States in the Treaty of Paris confirmed American imperialist appetites for the Filipino nationalists, led by Emilio Aguinaldo, and contributed to tensions between the Filipino and American armies around and in Manila. Fighting broke out in February 1899, but the Filipino conventional forces were soon driven back from Manila and were utterly defeated by the end of the year. The Filipino forces that evaded capture re-emerged as guerrillas in early 1900, and for the next two and a half years the United States waged an increasingly severe anti-guerrilla war against Filipino irregulars. Despite Aguinaldo’s capture in early 1901, fighting continued in a handful of provinces until the spring of 1902, when the last organized resistance to American governance ended in Samar and Batangas provinces.

‘Smoked Yankees’, ‘Wild’ Catholics and the Newspaper ‘Lions’ of Manila

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian Shott
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
African Americans ◽  
American Exceptionalism ◽  
Manifest Destiny ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Philippines ◽  
American Identity ◽  
Scientific Racism ◽  
The Pacific ◽  
Fault Lines

When the United States declared war on Spain in 1898, American troops battled Spanish forces in Cuba and across the Pacific in Spain’s longtime colony, the Philippines. There, American troops initially fought alongside Filipino rebels, but after the defeat of Spanish forces the United States annexed the islands and fighting broke out between the rebels and their new occupiers. American soldiers, including nearly 6,000 African Americans, struggled to understand their adversaries, employing varied conceptual frames that mixed scientific racism, the notion of Manifest Destiny, and American exceptionalism and that encompassed long-standing fault lines in American identity, including religion. The chapter draws material from diaries of soldiers, black and ethnic newspaper presses, and diplomatic sources to describe a potent but ephemeral mix of racialist thinking during and immediately after the Philippine-American War.

Southeast Asian Defense Treaty

1954 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 611-613
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Southeast Asia ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Philippines ◽  
Southeast Asian ◽  
Southwest Pacific ◽  
The Pacific ◽  
Collective Defense

On September 8, 1954, representatives of the United States, United Kingdom, France, the Philippines, Thailand, Pakistan, Australia and New Zealand signed the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty, a protocol designating the areas to which the treaty was to apply, and the Pacific Charter, a declaration setting forth the aims of the eight countries in southeast Asia and the southwest Pacific. Negotiations leading up to the actual signature of the treaty had been underway throughout the summer of 1954 and had culminated in an eight-power conference in Manila which opened on September 6.

Anzus Pacific Security Pact

1954 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 399-400
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Philippines ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Pacific ◽  
The Government ◽  
Foreign Ministers ◽  
Relationship Of

The ANZUS Council held its second meeting in Washington, D.C., on September 9 and 10, 1953. While the first meeting of the Council had been devoted largely to organizational matters, the second meeting provided an opportunity for the foreign ministers of Australia, New Zealand and the United States to review the developments of the past year and to discuss common problems in the Pacific area. Prior to the opening of the meeting, there had been speculation in the press about the possibility of providing some form of associate membership in ANZUS for other countries — particularly the United Kingdom – and other international organizations. The United Kingdom was reportedly dissatisfied with its exclusion from the organization; Prime Minister Churchill had been quoted as telling the House of Commons on June 17 that he “did not like the Anzus Pact at all” and that he hoped that “perhaps larger and wider arrangements could be made which would be more satisfactory than those now in force”. According to the communique issued at the close of the meeting, however, the ministers “unanimously concluded … that to attempt to enlarge its membership would not contribute directly and materially” to the strengthening and defense of the ANZUS area. The communique pointed out that ANZUS was one of a number of arrangements for the furtherance of the security of the nations of the area; specifically the communique mentioned the mutual security pacts between the United States and the Philippines and Japan, United States defense understandings with the government of China on Formosa and the relationship of Australia and New Zealand with the other Commonwealth nations. Together, the communique noted, these arrangements ‘constitute … a solemn warning to any potential aggressor and represent the growing foundation for lasting peace in the Pacific”.

6. The Doldrums and The New Navy (1865–1900)

2018 ◽  
pp. 57-67
Author(s):  
Craig L. Symonds
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Puerto Rico ◽  
Civil War ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Philippines ◽  
The U.S

‘The doldrums and the new navy (1865–1900)’ describes the period after the end of the Civil War: an era of swift retrenchment with little forward progress. When the Civil War ended, the U.S. Navy boasted 671 warships, yet within a decade, all but a few dozen had been sold off, scrapped, or placed in ordinary—mothballed for a future crisis. The concept of a peacetime standing navy was finally embraced with Congressional approval for new battleships in 1890. The war with Spain in 1898 also resulted in the United States assuming significant authority on Cuba and gaining control of the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Guam, and Wake Island.

Roadside Memorials

2003 ◽  
Vol 47 (3) ◽  
pp. 221-244 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles O. Collins ◽  
Charles D. Rhine
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Present Article ◽  
Traffic Safety ◽  
The United States ◽  
Highway Maintenance ◽  
Public Officials ◽  
Automobile Accidents ◽  
Current Context ◽  
Church State Relations ◽  
State Relations

Roadside memorials or descansos have diffused from a Mexican/Southwestern regional Hispanic hearth to increasingly draw the attention of motorists and public officials throughout the United States. In the current context, the authors' attention is on privately and spontaneously erected memorials placed at the sites of fatal events. Typically these result from automobile accidents, though not exclusively. The intent of the present article is three-fold: 1) to identify meaning and significance in the precise placement of contemporary markers; 2) to directly investigate the motivation and purposes of memorial/ descanso builders; and 3) to survey issues of traffic safety, highway maintenance, landscape or visual blight, and church/state relations arising from the placement and maintenance of these roadside memorials.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document