Leave a comment

Comments 21

bing_crosby December 17 2008, 03:20:54 UTC
I would guess that the student would have to cite some reasons for that since it's a pretty broad claim. I am sure others will know more about this than I do, but my understanding is that there were actually not that many people in the military then and so some private groups, e.g. Teddy Roosevelt's Rough Riders, joined up and went to the war. Overall the US was very reluctant to enter this war and I think the general consensus is that Spain taunting McKinley and making him feel ashamed not to be tougher was the main cause.

Reply

drenilop December 17 2008, 03:22:49 UTC
Thanks. Unfortunately it was a blue-book exam and so the student doesn't have any further details in the essay.

Reply

dhole December 17 2008, 04:51:21 UTC
During the run-up to the war, Roosevelt was Assistant Secretary of the Navy. Once he got the war, he resigned the post, and organized the Rough Riders, who weren't exactly a private organization -- their official name was the 1st US Volunteer Cavalry, after all.

Reply


tx_cronopio December 17 2008, 03:32:26 UTC
Dubious...and certainly not a primary cause.

Reply


kira_bouviea December 17 2008, 03:48:15 UTC
Sounds like your student was grasping at straws here. Did they say that this was the "only" cause or just a contributing cause? If they say it was the only cause, they need to research some more, but, while I don't know nearly enough about this, if they said that it was a contributing cause, maybe they have room to stand, but I'm seriously doubting it.

Reply

sensaes December 17 2008, 04:07:39 UTC
The word referenced in the post was "primary".

But it's all clearly nonsense because, as everyone knows, all wars are caused by oil lust. *Nods.*

(And it isn't even Friday yet.)

Reply

kira_bouviea December 17 2008, 04:22:19 UTC
*frowns* Clearly I have been studying too much since I compleatly did not catch the word "primary."

I cannot wait till Finals week is over.

Reply

sensaes December 17 2008, 04:26:47 UTC
Not only are you excused, but you've just gained bonus points for that archaic spelling of "completely". ;o)

Reply


delenda_est December 17 2008, 03:51:32 UTC
If it never came up in lecture, the student is most likely BS-ing. I just finished grading final exams, and I got all sorts of weird answers when students were grasping for straws and just made stuff up.

Reply

drenilop December 17 2008, 04:14:05 UTC
Thanks. I did have a couple of students who wrote their papers on this war and who cited evidence of an 'imperialist' mindset/expansionist preferences within some parts of the military and other bureaucracies. That's the only reason I even gave this a second thought.

Reply

tigg December 17 2008, 04:37:53 UTC
It's arguable. I wouldn't give it as a "primary" cause, but it IS arguable in light of imperialism and expanionism AND if you couple in hyper-masculinity and Teddy Roosevelt....it has some basis, but I would buy more of the imperialism and expansionism.

Reply

pansette December 17 2008, 17:09:53 UTC
Yeah, I think it's one of those things that's totally valid in a long enough list, but is kind of off in a short list of primary causes.

Reply


vietcong December 17 2008, 04:43:27 UTC
There's something to be said for the argument that the US wanted to "test out" it's new ocean-going navy--a reasonable interpretation of the presence of the USS Maine near Cuba anyway. (This would be thanks, in part, to the theoretical musings of Alfred Thayer Mahan, author of _The Influence of Seapower on History_, which tried to apply Napoleonic principles of domination of land warfare to the sea. He argued that the US should project its power in part by having a two-ocean fleet). All told, the Navy was in far better shape than the US Army, which was, by most accounts, a fairly rag-tag bunch, shipped off to the frontier to fight/kill (insert own political views here) Indians or else sent around this great land to build things, as one thing West Point was good at producing was engineers ( ... )

Reply

drenilop December 17 2008, 04:55:12 UTC
I've had the distinct misfortune of reading Alfred Thayer Mahan, thanks... It was one of the worst books I've ever read; I was literally tracking progress by the page (in percentage form) because I'd read for an hour and get (what felt like) nowhere.

But thanks for the clarification. I love the fact that AA has experts in just about everything.

Reply

vietcong December 17 2008, 11:04:52 UTC
agreed on Mahan. it's painful stuff.

Reply

paperkingdoms December 17 2008, 05:54:09 UTC
I really like your icon.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up