1

Tatiana Zuniga
INR 4060: Causes of War
Dr. Ash
December 9, 2016
A Look into the Spanish American War:
How Yellow Journalism Led to a Balance of Power Struggle and United States Imperialism

Countries participate in war as a way to overpower each other. Every state wants to feel

as if they are the most powerful and capable of successfully winning a battle, this is done either

to take something from the other state or to prevent their actions. An intrastate war occurs within

the same state, between a government and a non-state actor, while an interstate war occurs

between two or more different states. The Spanish-American War is an example of an interstate

conflict that primarily occurred between the United States and Spain. Just as there are different

types of war there are also various reasons for why wars occur. In regards to the Spanish-

American war, what effect did the role of yellow journalism have on the start of the war and how

did that role contribute to the United States engaging in a balance of power struggle to achieve

imperialism?

Yellow journalism played a contributing factor leading up to the Spanish-American War.

The sensationalism of the Cuban struggle for independence and actions done by Spain caused

many Americans to support the war. This sensationalism gave the United States license to engage

in an attempt to balance power with the European countries while trying to achieve imperialism.

For a weak state at the time, Spain had acquired a lot of territory and the United States was not as

competitive in gaining land. However, to compete against other countries that were expanding

the United States engaged in conflict with Spain to become a growing power in international

expansion. The United States went through Spain by acquiring their territory. Compared to the

United States, Spain was a weak state and seen as an easy target that could be overpowered. As a
 2

state that was trying to expand their ownership of land in the international sphere, the United

States saw conflict against Spain as the best way to acquire territory and engage in expansion.

It is important to look at the contribution of yellow journalism as a push for the United

States to declare war. It is clear that the United States wanted to expand because they did not

own outside territory. However, instead of simply moving in and claiming the land for

themselves, the articles from yellow journalism gave the United States the popular support it

needed at home to declare war on Spain. This paper will look to the events that led up to the war,

the contributing role yellow journalism played, how the economy was seen as a factor to engage

in war, the use of the democratic peace theory in the Spanish-American war, and how the

European countries were expanding at a much larger rate than the United States. This paper will

ultimately find that the United States was competing against Europe and trying to balance power

in an effort to participate in imperialism. The Spanish-American War was a way for the United to

finally be seen as a growing power in the international sphere.

The Spanish-American War began with Cuba attempting to gain independence from

Spains control, around February 1895 Spain responded brutally in trying to contain the Cuban

rebellion. Newspapers within the United States used Spains actions to their advantage, they

sensationalized the actions which led to many Americans sympathizing with the Cuban

individuals who were being oppressed and pushed for the United States to engage in war with

Spain. The United States docked a ship in Cuba, the USS Maine, located in the Havana harbor

that sank without explanation on February 15, 1898, the ship was there to look out for and

protect United States citizens and property due to the rioting in Cuba. The Cuban rebellion

against Spain caused the United States to monitor the events and ensure that Spain was not

exerting too much control over Cuba and their trade relations. The United States had relations
 3

with Cuba, so they also had an interest in looking out for their independence to ensure their trade

relations were not being severed under Spains control1. The United States urged for Spain to

withdraw from Cuba.

On April 9th 1898 Spain issued an armistice to grant Cuba limited control of their own

government. In response to Spains armistice, the United States decided to issue their own

resolution granting Cubas right to independence and calling for the removal of the Spanish

regime and their weapons from Cuba. The United States resolution simultaneously granted

President McKinley use of force to secure Spains withdrawal.

Before going to war with Spain the United States Congress presented President McKinley

with a joint resolution known as the Teller Amendment. This amendment disclaimed any

exercise of U.S. sovereignty, except for the pacification of the island the amendments first

article recognized Cubas right to independence, this encouraged Cubans to cooperate with the

United States.2 From the beginning the U.S. made their intentions clear that they never wanted to

take over Cuba, they wanted to help Cuba and free them from Spains control. Shortly after the

United States exercise of power over Spain, the Spanish declared war on April 24th. The United

States declared war the next day, but their declaration had a retroactive effect to the 21st. The

United States declaration of war had a retroactive effect because April 21st was when the

resolution granting Cubas independence was signed.

The United States was in a better position to battle against Spain because they did not have to

travel as far as them to fight and could quickly mobilize their military. On May 1st

1 Spanish American War. History.com, last modified

2010,http://www.history.com/topics/spanish-american-war

2 Arlene J. Diaz, The War of 1898: The United States and Cuba in History and Historiography
Indiana University Department of History (2000).
 4

George Dewey led the U.S. Navy to invade Manila Bay, Philippines to destroy a Spanish fleet. In

Cuba, Spain had stationed their fleet at Santiago harbor, under admiral Pascal Cerveras

leadership. The U.S. army under General William Shafter and volunteers decided to move in on

Cerveras fleet to force them out of the harbor, Cervera moved his army in an attempt to escape

but the United States moved in on them with heavy fire. On July 17, Shafter surrendered putting

an end to the 4 month-long war. The conclusion of the war resulted with the signing of the Treaty

of Paris on December 10, 1898. Under the treaty Spain relinquished their control over Cuba,

transferred control of Guam and Puerto Rico to the United States as well as gave up sovereignty

over the Philippines for the price of $20,000. As a result of the United States victory over Spain

they were now seen as a new power in international affairs, acquiring territory overseas while

prohibiting Spain from expanding any further.3

Even if it was never a stated goal by the United States to engage in imperialism, as any

growing power, the United States wanted to become a competitive powerful force in the

international sphere. Without the stated goal of expansion, the United States saw that European

countries were expanding and engaging in imperialism and wanted that growth as well. The

United States sought to balance power against the European countries through engaging in

conflict with Spain to acquire their territory. The Cuban rebellion against Spain was a seen as a

good opportunity for the United States to intervene and acquire territory, while freeing Cuba

from Spains control.

William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzers engagement in yellow journalism gave

the United States support to engage in war. The articles written by the newspapers depicted Spain

in a negative light which led most of the American citizens and politicians to support the war.

3 Spanish American War. History.com, last modified

2010,http://www.history.com/topics/spanish-american-war
 5

Not all theorists agree that yellow journalism and imperialism lead to the start of war, in his

article American Business and the Spanish-American War, Julius W. Pratt argues the main cause

of the Spanish-American War was related to economic motivations. Pratt quotes the Financial

Record from November 1897, a finance journal from New York, that stated the war with Spain

would vastly increase the net earning power of every security sold on our market today.4

During that time, some people in the United States saw the war with Spain as a way to stimulate

the economy. Pratt contributes the boost in the economy from engaging in the war as the cause

that led to the Spanish-American war. In his argument, Pratt incorporates a statement from Mr.

Lackland (St. Louis bank President) who mentions that the war would cause a boom in many

lines of business in this country and give employment to a large number of persons who are

now out of work5 (Pratt 172). Before the war many individuals were out jobs and many had the

belief that a war could stimulate the economy while providing employment.

It is true that many people who were out of jobs could have gained from engaging in war.

When war occurs there is always a need for people to participate and engage in conflict, but

providing jobs is not a reason to risk going to war, there are many other ways that jobs could be

obtained. Another reason Pratt uses for the economic motivation is that railroads were hurried in

shipping certain commodities because they were anticipating the war prices that were to come.6

Certain items were in demand more than usual because people wanted to buy more of the items

up front instead of waiting until they needed them. Waiting to buy those in demand items could

have led to an increase in prices if many people were buying the same goods, thus causing a

shortage of supplies.

4 Julius W. Pratt, American Business and the Spanish-American War The Hispanic American
Historical Review (1934).
5 Ibid., 172.
6 Ibid.,
 6

Pratt credits the anticipation of war as a way for people to spend more money up front and

buy items in bulk so that they would not have to worry about the resources running out. While

buying many items in bulk in anticipation of the war could have stimulated the economy in that

instance, this factor does not cause an economic motivation to engage in a war because there are

other ways to stimulate the economy that does not involve conflict. The economy is an important

factor for any country, but it would be a reach to say that going to war to create jobs or to cause

individuals to buy goods in anticipation of war would be a deciding factor when determining if a

country should go to war or not. Many other factors should be considered when going to war, to

say that the economy was the only focus would be ignoring potential negative effects associated

with conflict and battle.

A potential motivating factor for the start of the war that Pratt discusses is the United

States investment in the Cuban sugar industry and how the conflict between Cuba and Spain was

interfering with sugar trade between Cuba and the United States. Individuals and businesses that

were affected by the dwindling trade had an interest in the United States intervening, knowing

that it could lead to war.7 Since businesses within the United States were seeing the economic

affect it had on them personally, they were supportive of the intervention and war that would

ensue. In May of 1897, over three hundred individuals with ties to businesses in the form of

bankers, merchants, manufacturesand also other citizens of the United States engaged in

the export and import trade with the Island of Cuba, signed a memorial document that was

presented to the Secretary of State, John Sherman. This memorial outlined their businesses

losses cause by the conflict in Cuba.8 The document called for the United States to intervene in

the conflict between Cuba and Spain with the interest of reestablishing American commerce and

7 Ibid., 175.
8 Ibid.,
 7

restoring the trade relations. The memorial had a large support from individuals affected by the

severed trade relations between the United States and Cuba.

The United States congress also presented another memorial to President McKinley on

February 9, 1898 which asserted that the Cuban war [which had gone on for three years], had

caused an average loss of $100,000 a year, or a total loss of $300,000 in the import and export

trade between Cuba and the United States.9 While Pratt may provide logical support in backing

up his claim that economic reasons were the cause of the Spanish-American War, most countries

usually see engaging in war as a negative decision because it is a risky choice or they end up

losing money. It is hard to be completely accurate if a war can be easily won, this risk factor is a

reason why it does not make sense to use the economy as the only motivating factor, especially

when each side has something to loose. Loses can be in the form of people, resources, money,

and land, so the chances of reviving the economy as the only factor for war is unlikely.

The changes to the trade deal between Cuba and the United States did not give a strong

enough reason for spending more money to engage in combat. As Fearon notes, rational states do

not choose to engage in war because it is costly and risky and that war is actually a result of

bargaining failure, not as an option to boost a states economy.10 Fearon notes three reasons of

why war is a result of bargaining failure: rational states want to keep their information private

and have incentives to misrepresent their information, war can occur due to commitment

problems, and both sides may issue indivisibilities if they cannot locate a peaceful settlement.11

Fearons first reason for bargaining failure can be seen as the reason why the United States and

Spain went to war. Spains military was not as versatile as the United States but Spain did not

9 Ibid., 176.
10 James D. Fearon, Rationalist explanations for War, International Organization 49, pp 379-
414 (1995) doi:10.1017/S0020818300033324
11 Ibid., 381
 8

reveal that information to avoid war and try to come to a compromise. The United States knew

they were at an advantage because Spains military was weaker, but Spain chose not to revise

their resolution and bargain further with the United States to grant Cuba full sovereignty. In

response to the bargaining failure, the United States issued their own resolution and preceded

with war. If Spain would have tried to bargain harder with the United States and agreed to

withdraw from Cuba since they were the ones at a disadvantage, then the events leading up to

war might have turned out differently.

Engaging in conflict with the hopes of improving ones economy is not usually a stance

many states take, it is not a rational reason for going to war. I acknowledge that many people

living within the United States had an interest in stimulating the economy and looked to the war

was an opportunity of doing so, but to declare a costly war goes against what a rational state

would do. As a state that sought imperialism, the United States would not risk the outcome of

winning or losing a war just because it might stimulate the economy. It would not have been

guaranteed that the United States would have defeated Spain or been capable of taking their land.

Although the United States was more powerful than Spain that risk factor is not a chance a

rational government takes into consideration when deciding if going to war over the economy

would revive the economy.

Reviving the economy is important. If a potential war could assist with boosting the

economy, then that is a positive factor, but to determine it to be the cause of a war is irrational.

The United States would not have acted irrational to improve their economy especially if there

was any hint of uncertainty for the outcome. If the United States had just intervened between

Cuba and Spain as a mediator and the circumstances escalated to war, it would be reasonable to

see why the war occurred. The United States intervention as a mediator did not take place, the
 9

countries went to war, but to say it was caused by the economy is unreasonable. The flaw that

Pratt makes in his article is declaring the economy as a cause for the Spanish-American War, it

can be seen as a factor that the United States wanted to improve if they were already going to

war, but it was not the motivating factor that caused the United States willingness to engage in

conflict with Spain. The United States spent money on the military and other resources

associated with war. Whenever wars occur countries have to spend money to participate, but it is

never with the expectation that they would be making a big profit from engaging in conflict.

The Spanish-American war also conflicts with another theory, the Democratic peace, this

notion entails that democracies do not fight each other. The United States and Spain were

thought to both be democracies but in An Institutional Explanation of the Democratic Peace,

Bruce Bueno De Mesquita and others argue that democracies do not go to war with each other.

The main reason for this is because they share the same values, respecting liberties and

competition.12 There is the belief that countries with similar morals and values do not want to

engage in conflict with one another.

Bueno De Mesquite introduces empirical regularities that back up the notion that

democracies do not go to war with each other. These regularities are: democracies fight non-

democracies, democracies win most wars they fight, democracies peacefully settle disputes with

each other, democracies are more likely to initiate wars against autocracies, transitional

democracies are more likely to fight, and larger democracies are more constrained in fighting.13

The theory that democracies do not go to war with each other is not fail-proof. The Spanish-

American is an example of a time where two democracies went to war with one another despite

having similar values. When applying the Spanish-American war to the factors that structure the

12 Bruce Bueno De Mesquita, et al, An Institutional Explanation of the Democratic Peace

(American Political Science Review, 1999).
13 Ibid., 791.
 10

empirical regularities within the democratic peace theory we note instances in which each of the

elements are violated.

The first factordemocracies fight non-democracies, is true is many instances where

democracies do not want to go to war with other democratic countries. In the case of the

Spanish-American war this was not an instance. The United States chose not to intervene in

Cubas rebellion against Spain at first, the rebellion had taken place for at least three years before

the United States took action. President McKinley was hesitant to go to war, but pressure from

the government finally led to his declaration of war. The second factordemocracies win most

wars they fight fails under the application, although the United States, a democracy, won their

adversary was also a democracy. The third factordemocracies peacefully settle disputes with

each other also fails in this situation. At first Spain tried to avoid war by issuing an armistice that

granted Cuba limited control of their government, but the United States did not think they went

far enough in granting Cuba independence. They wanted Spain completely out of Cuba and to

give them complete independence, so instead of trying to resolve the differences peacefully the

countries resorted to war.

The fourth factor of the democratic peace theorydemocracies are more likely to initiate

wars against autocracies, does not apply to this situation because there was not an autocratic

country within the dispute. The fifth factortransitional democracies are more likely to fight,

fails within this category because neither the United States nor Spain was transitioning to a

democracy. The countries were both democracies at the onset of the conflict when war was

declared. The sixth factorlarger democracies are more constrained in fighting, fails under the

application of the Spanish-American war because the countries did not constrain their fighting.

The United States initiated the start of conflict by invading Manila Bay, Philippines, although the
 11

war only lasted four months and not as long as other wars, the four months entailed an ongoing

battle between both countries and continued until Spain surrendered.

The Spanish-American war is an example of an instance where democratic peace did not

prevail under the empirical regularities, this speaks to a broader lack of application of potential

conflicts between two democracies. Usually democratic societies do not go to war against each

other, but in this case both of the countries were democracies, showing that democratic peace is

not always capable of being achieved. Although this theory was violated in this instance, it does

not mean that democratic peace does not exist. Usually countries fight each other to overpower

one another because one country poses as a threat, but Spain was a relatively weak state at the

time when the United States initiated conflict. The United States did not engage in war with

Spain because their end goal was to show their control over Spain; their main focus was on

imperialism. Spain being a weak state and an easy target was a way for the United States to

acquire their territory verses engaging in conflict with a more powerful state.

The democratic peace theory usually prevails because there is no reason for democracies

to fight since they have the same morals and values, but the main focus of the theory is

concentrated on countries choosing to avoid wars because they are not adversaries. The theory

does not look to other explanations and reasons for war to occur. It is simple to say that if two

countries are not opposed to one another then they should not have conflict, but sometimes wars

are not contingent upon countries being amicable or not. The theory does not focus on some

democracies being stronger than others and using that to their advantage when declaring war

regardless of engaging against democracies or not. The United States and Spain did not satisfy

the requirements for democratic peace, but their conflict does not mean that the United States
 12

abandoned their democratic values. The fact that two democracies were able to engage in conflict

does not make either country less of a democracy.

The United States was fighting to gain Cubas independence so they could be in control

of their own government without control from an outside state. The United States enacted the

Teller Amendment for a reason, their interest was not to gain Cubas independence in order to

exert power over them. In a way the United States was fighting for democracy for another

country by fighting against a democratic country. War is complicated and the many reasons for

engaging in conflict are not always so clear, but this shows that countries are not always thinking

about avoiding war with other democracies just because that is common. The United States saw

that Cubas independence was a higher priority at that time than avoiding war with a democracy

to keep the peace. In the end a state will look to their best interest when it comes to engaging in

conflict, the United States wanted to expand and acquire territory and going through Spain

seemed like the best route at the time.

The U.S. was not in the position to just create a conflict because they wanted to acquire

territory. They needed a reason to get into war, but Spain had not given them a major reason to

intervene at the start of the Cuban rebellion. The sinking of the USS Main in February 1898 was

the main event that led to the United States intervention. The sinking of the ship paved the way

for yellow journalisms conception because it allowed for a reason to doubt Spains intentions

towards the United States. Before the ship sinking, Spain had not committed highly repressive

actions towards Spain that newspapers could use to sensationalize stories. Despite no explanation

of why the ship sank and lack of concrete evidence that the sinking was as an action committed

by Spain, newspapers were able to sensationalize and sell stories highlighting Spain as the

culprit.
 13

With a push from William Randolph Hearsts New York Journal and Joseph Pulitzers

The World New York, the United States was given a reason through sensationalized news stories

to engage in conflict (Carey 132).14 Before the sinking of the USS Maine, yellow journalism was

seeking for a story to sensationalize. It has been said that in 1895 Hearst sent one of his artistic

journalists Frederic Remington to Cuba to report on the events, but Remington did not report of

any lucrative events that could be written in the newspapers so Hearst responded by saying you

Furnish the pictures and Ill furnish the war (Spencer 264).15 If what Hearst said was true, it is

clear that his publication has an interest in pursuing yellow journalism, but at the time they could

not pinpoint an event that portrayed Spain in a negative light so they had to try and find any

reason to depict Spain negatively.

When different newspapers are vying to have the most exciting stories they are going to

engage in similar styles of writing, each newspaper company is competing to print the next best

seller. Joseph Pulitzers newspaper, The World New York, also played a contributing role towards

yellow journalism. Pulitzer hired Sylvester Scovel, a journalist who agreed to cover the Cuban

uprising who coincidentally, was having dinner in Cuba the night of the USS Maines sinking.

Scovel called to the United States the next day to report the events of the sinking, but his

recounts of the ship were exaggerated. Even though his recounts of the events were a bit

embellished, the World ended up publishing a piece titled Main Explosion Caused by a Bomb or

Torpedo, because of Scovels reports.16 His accounts were exaggerated because it was never

determined what actually caused the sinking of the ship, nor was there proof of the exact

14 Craig Carey, "Breaking The News: Telegraphy and Yellow Journalism In The Spanish-
American War." American Periodicals 26.2 (2016): 130-148.
15 David R. Spencer, The Press and the Spanish American War Political Cartoons of the
Yellow Journalism Age International Journal Of Comic Art 9, no. 1: 262-280
16 Ibid., 268.
 14

weapon. The sensationalism of the events led the United States to point fingers at Spain and

blame them for the sinking of the USS Maine.

Yellow journalism pushed President McKinley to intervene militarily. From the

beginning the President did not want to intervene with force, but as someone who wanted to be

considered for re-election his mind changed with the coverage of the USS Maine and the push

from many individuals to engage in conflict.17 Not only did newspapers partaking in yellow

journalism have an interest in war but so did members of the United States Congress. One

member in particular, Senator Redfield Proctor was very critical on President McKinleys refusal

to engage in conflict. The Senator gave a compelling speech to Congress on March 17, 1989 and

was able to get the political establishment and business leaders within the United States to

support the war.18 With the backing of many Americans and individuals within the Congress,

President McKinley knew that not going to war could negatively affect his re-election and

popularity amongst the population. In order to avoid that potential reality and despite his

opposition to war in the beginning, ultimately President McKinley decided to engage in war.

Many people may contribute yellow journalism to be one of the main causes of the

Spanish-American War, although it played a major role it was a contributing factor, but not a

main cause. The sensationalized stories created by the newspapers gave the United States the

push they needed to engage in the conflict between Cuba and Spain. The American people, along

with politicians were supportive of the decision to move in against Spain, but the main cause of

war was the United States wanting to expand and engage in imperialism. Besides the territories

that the United States owned within the country, they did not have territory in the international

17 Ibid., 269.
18 Ibid.,
 15

sphere. The United States witnessed Europe expanding as a great power in the global sphere and

wanted the title of a competitive state in international relations as well.

The European expansion started around the 1860s when Britian annexed Lagos in 1861,

France controlled three eastern provinces over Cochin-China in 1862, France controlled and

proctored Cambodia and the Dutch annexed Borneo in 1863.19 By the time the United States

declared war with Spain in 1889, the European countries had consecutively expanded into other

territories every year since 1861. Europe was expanding at a much further rate than the United

States and this posed a threat to them. The United States knew they had to participate in

expansion as well but could not face off against the European countries because they were so

powerful. The United States had to face off against a state that was weaker than them and close

enough for the United States military to prevail, that is why they targeted Spain.

Mark Pecenys article A Constructivist Interpretation of the Liberal Peace: The

Ambiguous Case of the Spanish-American War, provides insight into how the United States

envisioned the imperialist expansion. Peceny makes an argument for the Gramscian approach as

one of the causes of the Spanish-American war. Peceny defines the Gramscian argument as an

attempt by the American state to exercise an ideological hegemony over its own citizens and

subordinate states.20 He argues that this was a war intended for the United States to exercise

hegemony over other states and mentions that the United States fought with Spain as a

preventive measure to keep hostile powers from acquiring Cuba and the Philippines.21 We see the

United States interest in maintaining Cubas independence, by even blocking their own

annexation as outlined in the Teller Amendment.

19 Andrew Porter, European Imperialism 1860-1914 (London: The Macmillian Press LTD,
1994), vii.
20 Mark Peceny, A Constructivist Interpretation of the Liberal Peace: The Ambiguous Case of
the Spanish-American War Journal of Peace Research pp. 415-430
21 Ibid., 423.
 16

The United States targeted Spain as a way to balance power against the European

countries, Mearsheimer introduces the balance of power theory as a function of the tangible

military assets that states possess, such as armoured divisions and nuclear weapons.22 While the

United States did not use nuclear weapons at that time, they used military intervention against

Spain as a way to win the war and acquire territory. The balance of power theory also entails

constraining a state when it gets too powerful, although the United went to war with Spain they

were not trying to balance against Spain. The United States was worried that the European

countries would keep expanding and get too powerful so they wanted to acquire land themselves.

European expansion had already taken place in Asia, but acquiring Guam and purchasing the

Philippines from Spain, the United States was able to also acquire territory in Asia. The United

States also obtained territory close to homePuerto Rico. The result of the Spanish-American

war immersed the United States into imperialism and paved the way for future expansion.

The United States was successful in defeating Spain, liberating Cuba from their control,

and acquiring territory. At the end of the Spanish-American War it had not been clear that the

United States was successful in their attempt to balance power between the European countries

but they made an effort towards that goal. The main cause of the war is seen as the United States

strive towards imperialism while engaging in a balance of power struggle. The economic

motivations argument was not strong enough to be considered a cause and the democratic peace

theory was not a reason to avoid war. The United States sought imperialism and they were

effective in entering the international affairs sector.

Bibliography

Bueno De Mesquita, Bruce, James D. Morrow, Randolph M. Siverson, and Alastair Smith. An
Institutional Explanation of the Democratic Peace. American Political Science Review,

22 John J. Mearsheimer, Structural Realism International Relations Theories: Discipline and

Diversity, 3rd Edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), pp. 77-93.
 17

Vol. 93, No.4 (1999).

Carey, Craig. 2016. "Breaking the News: Telegraphy and Yellow Journalism in the Spanish-
American War." American Periodicals 26, no. 2: 130-148. Communication & Mass
Media Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed December 8, 2016).

Diaz, Arlene J., and Louis A. Prez. Indiana Magazine of History 96, no. 1 (2000): 97-98.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/27792232.

Fearon, James D. Rationalist explanations for War. International Organization 49, (1995):
379-414 doi:10.1017/S0020818300033324

Mearsheimer, John J. International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity, 3rd Edition.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013

Peceny, Mark. "A Constructivist Interpretation of the Liberal Peace: The Ambiguous Case of the
Spanish-American War." Journal of Peace Research 34, no. 4 (1997): 415-30.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/424863.

Porter, Andrew. European Imperialism 1860-1914. London: The Macmillian Press LTD, 1994.

Pratt, Julius W. "American Business and the Spanish-American War." The Hispanic American
Historical Review 14, no. 2 (1934): 163-201. doi:10.2307/2506353.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2506353

Spanish American War. History.com. Last modified 2010.

http://www.history.com/topics/spanish-american-war

Spencer, David R. "The Press And The Spanish American War Political Cartoons of the Yellow
Journalism Age." International Journal Of Comic Art 9, no. 1 (April 15, 2007): 262.
Biography Reference Bank (H.W. Wilson), EBSCOhost (accessed December 8, 2016).