The Spanish Descent From Power: Its Slow Beginning, Its Shoddy Duration, and The Wreckage
Paper by Chitua Alozie
It came. It conquered. It was conquered. Spain was a country that began its history as a world power, dominating peoples and conquering foreign lands, acquiring wealth and notoriety. It was a country determined to win in every thing it challenged itself to. Partially motivated and driven by Spanish pride, the Spanish rulers were determined to make Spain the most renowned and feared European country around the world. While Spain was successful in this feat for several centuries, it faced a sharp turnaround in its history when its focus on other countries resulted in the neglect of its own. It was a country infamous for its superb employment of asymmetrical warfare, during times of civil disruption among its territories, as a means of controlling the weak. Spain rose to power by preying on the more feeble countries—for example, with several ancient civilizations in South America—and eventually fell prey to its own methods—as this paper will demonstrate, during the War of Spanish Succession and during the Spanish-American War. In doing so, Spain wasted a significant amount of energy and resources for expansion and political gain; however, this foreign expansion resulted in domestic neglect. A series of superfluous wars and periods of substandard leadership caused the country to fall in power more quickly than it rose to it. During the 18th century, Spain began a descent from power that was finally completed at the end of the 19th century. What caused this remarkable country to fail in the aspects of politics in which it previously succeeded? This paper will explore a brief period of the Spanish legacy by examining its strategic beginning, its shoddy endurance, and the shameful aftermath.
In order to thoroughly understand the depth to which the Spanish empire encouraged colonialism, exploration, and imperialism, it is necessary to devote a fair portion of this paper to reflect upon the accomplishments of the Spanish explorers; these are the men who, in the name of Spain, were sent to attain foreign lands, conquer various peoples and return with ample treasures for the glory of the Spanish empire. They also utilized a form of asymmetrical warfare as a technique in defeating the newly colonized lands and peoples. Spain used to have the most powerful, most affluent and extended empire of all the countries around the world. During the fifteenth and sixteenth century, Spain devoted a prodigious amount of time and finances towards overseas exploration and worldwide colonialism. It reasoned, “Who else but a monarch could advance sovereignty, legitimize the discovery, conduct diplomatic relations, colonize the land, protect and defend the new colony, promulgate laws, oversee the exploitation of the riches, and create an ultramarine government? Not a private individual nor a merchant, and not even a banker” (Tirado). In the next few paragraphs, it will become clear how Spain took advantage of their civilization, strength, and extensive empire to conquer the powerless.
Of the most memorable explorers were Christopher Columbus, Francisco Pizarro, Vasco Núñez de Balboa, Amerigo Vespucci, Ferdinand Magellan, and Hernando Cortez. Each man ambitioned towards fame During the early 1500s, Spain was just about the only country that promoted the exploration of new territories—Italians, Portuguese, and French citizens often sought the endorsement of the Spanish government because the monarchies of their respective countries would hardly finance trips overseas. Thus, Spain intentionally sent explorers in its name and encouraged them to take advantage of those peoples for political distinction.
Of all the explorers worldwide, Christopher Columbus is the most popular within American society; perhaps this is due to the fact that he was extremely close to discovering America. Columbus was a Spaniard, born in 1451 he originally set out to prove that the Earth was round and evangelize the natives he would come across. However, his voyages soon became village raids, in which he and his men would exploit and terrorize natives until they received gold in large quantities.
Similarly, Francisco Pizarro massacred the very same natives who welcomed he and his crew. When Pizarro landed in Peru in the early 1500s, his crew slaughtered the nearest Inca village and took their chief as captive. In an effort to save their monarch, the Incas offered the Spaniards gold enough to fill the room in which he was held hostage (Newadvent). Of course, this was enough to momentarily please the Spanish, and they released the ruler; however, within two years, the explorers murdered the Incan chief and looted the remainder of the village (Newadvent).
In another example of exploitation for personal and political gain, Vasco Núñez de Balboa originally traveled to survey the Pacific Ocean but after he discovered and founded the town of Santa Maria de la Antigua del Darien, he was soon distracted by and preoccupied with fame and wealth. Between 1510 and 1519, he married the daughter of the town’s Indian chief to gain the trust of local Indians and began a crusade to conquer the nearby towns. He and his crew traveled from one village to the next murdering Indians and stealing their valuable possessions, namely gold (Enchanted Learning). Although the locals rebelled, the Spaniards showed no mercy and utilized their position of advantage to the detriment of the natives they encountered. This is yet another case of asymmetrical warfare.
Furthermore, we see with Amerigo Vespucci’s discovery of the America’s, Ferdinand Magellan who was the first Spanish explorer to lead an expedition around the world and established the Straight of Magellan, and the notorious Hernando Cortez who conquered and massacred the whole Aztec Empire of Mexico that Spain used the technique of asymmetrical warfare to defeat various groups of people. This is how the country was able to acquire such extensive territories and colonies around the world. From the late 1400s to the mid 1500s, the Spanish explorers were the main means through which Spain expanded its empire.
After reviewing the accomplishments and misbehavior of the explorers, it is important to remember those civilizations that were devastated through the aforementioned examples of asymmetrical warfare, those that were conquered and practically erased from the world. According to Thomas Tirado, Professor of History at Millersville University, while the impact of Columbus in particular has positively impacted the intellectual community, we cannot excuse the fact that he exploited a whole group of people for selfishly motivated reasons. He states:
“It is nearly impossible to over-exaggerate the historical significance of Christopher Columbus. The ultimate expression of the Columbian Legacy has been nothing less than global in its impact. Though much has been written about the subsequent Columbian Exchange, that is, the exchange of plants and animals, of diseases, of human migration, and of cultural exchange, students of history should not forget that the discovery of a New World had an intellectual impact as well. During the Age of Discovery (15th and 16th centuries), Western Europeans acquired the ability to exchange information with nearly all parts of the world. As one of the great thinkers of the age and one who led the way, Columbus deserves recognition for the intellectual transformation that took place. As a result, a new age was ushered in, the Modern Age, and after 1500 the world would never be the same, nor would the human race…
More than a generation after the initial contact, when the Spaniards encountered the more sophisticated natives of terra firma, such as the Mayas, the Aztecs and the Incas, the earlier image of "barbarian" still persisted in their minds. The Europeans simply could not see the true native societies. Or, perhaps the Europeans did not want to see anything more than primitive societies. The European settlers cared little for the indigenous culture and saw only a labor force in the Indian population. Thus, the native cultures–as well as the native population–began to disappear as the invaders advanced into the hinterland. In what can only be described as one of the greatest Holocausts of all time, disease and other conquest- and invasion-related activities led to the destruction of tens of million of natives. Only today are we realizing the enormity of the loss of people and the inestimable loss of culture” (Tirado).
Spain was well ahead of the remainder of the world in terms of affluence, reputation, and strength. Part of the reason why it had succeeded so extensively and with relative ease was based on several facts: the Spanish were the best at sea—they built the finest vessels for exploration and battle, the peoples that they conquered were far less advanced in terms of weaponry, and the Spanish always brought disease to the new lands. During their long journeys to the new world, several of the crewmembers would contract various illnesses due to lack of proper food and water, as well as from mice and other animals onboard. When they reached their destination, their diseases were rapidly spread amongst the natives, causing their depletion and weakness. Therefore, in combining all of these factors, we see that Spain was rather lucky in its initial endeavors in the New World. However, shortly after the country had secured its powerful reputation, it began to weaken and eventually crumbled into a powerless country. This was a result because Spain then feel prey to what it had subjected its colonies to—strange diseases, bad luck with weather, domination by a stronger country, continual warfare. All of these factors synergistically decreased Spanish strength considerably.
The turning point in Spanish domination occurred in 1588 with the disaster if the Invincible Armada, an armed Spanish fleet meant to symbolize Spanish Sea Power. King Philip II of Spain sent the Great Armada to invade and ultimately England. At this time, Philip II expressed two main grievances with England and its king Henry VIII. Firstly, Europe had just experienced the Reformation, after which Henry VIII rejected the power of the Pope; thus, Philip II, a devout Catholic, was extremely upset with this occurrence and set out to force the English back to the old faith (Reaves). Secondly, the battle harbored a competition of sea supremacy. As we have seen in the previous paragraphs, Spain completely dominated the New World, which opened trade rich routes that the English wanted a share of (Karpeles). Philip II intended to use the broad, bulky ship to transport soldiers to England and engage in a land battle, however, the crew was devastated by a horrible wind storm, lack of food and disease. Furthermore, the English had improved their fighting tactics and were successful in damaging Spanish ships with long-range guns from afar, never before done in history (Ross). After a few months at sea, the English, with the assistance of nature, had defeated the Spanish armada as well as morale. This event is a noteworthy factor in Spain’s descent and marked the beginning of the decline from power that the Spanish would experience; now that the English had proved their might at sea, they were in an advantageous position to control Spain’s trading routes and the entire Mediterranean Sea.
Only a couple of centuries later, the Spaniards experienced large setbacks in America by the British during the Revolutionary War of the late 1700s. Interestingly, Spain aided the American rebels during the war to support their plight against the British because the Spanish had colonial interests in Northern America—particularly in New Spain or Mexico (Chavez). Almost simultaneously, the Spanish were engaged in the War of Spanish Succession, also known as Queen Anne’s War (Queen Anne of England), and resulted in Spain losing Belgium, Luxemburg, Milan, Naples, Sardinia, Minorca and Gibraltar to Austria and Savoy. The war was triggered by the question of who was to succeed Charles II of Spain on the throne—for he was a childless ruler and lacked an heir to the throne after his death (Levick); it would be either the French Bourbons or the Austrian Habsburgs (Steingrad). At the time, King Louis XIV of France feared that if the new king was Austrian that Spain and Austria, two of France’s biggest enemies, would form a powerful and threatening alliance that may endanger French rule. Similarly, King William III England feared that if the new king was French, then Spain and France could become a powerful force against the English; this would be a clear imbalance of power among European nations. Ultimately, France and England decided that the new king should be neutral and that this new king of Spain must agree never to join forces with Austria, a union that could threaten both the English and the French. However, King Charles II of Spain later specified in his will that Philip V of Anjou, France—and grandson of Louis XIV—would be the new king of Spain. What England had feared became a realization: the French and Spanish governments had combined to yield a potent political force (Wikipedia). Although King Louis XIV had promised to remain neutral, he soon disregarded his former agreement with William III. Not long after, French forces began to occupy Spanish fortresses in the Netherlands and other European countries, thereby creating fear and political tension. In an effort to protect itself against the increasing powers of the French-Spanish union, England formed the Grand Alliance with the Netherlands, Denmark, Austria and Portugal against France, while France, Spain, much of Germany and Italy were allied against the former.
Of the Spanish-French union, Louis XIV certainly was the stronger member and he definitely intended to use this to his advantage, to exploit Spain, the already weakened country (1UpInfo). During and after the War of Spanish Succession, the king of France decided the fate of the Spain and engaged in the majority of negotiation as the war subsided. The resulting treaty was the Treaty of Utrecht of 1713, which provided that King Philip of Anjou could remain king of Spain as long as the Spanish did not unite with the French (Gibnet). King Louis had also agreed to cede the Spanish Netherlands, Naples and Milan to Austria, to the UK the Spanish government, essentially under Louis XIV, ceded Gibraltar and Minorca. It had also given England “the exclusive right to slave trading in Spanish America” (Wikipedia). In the same manner, Spain gave up Sicily to Savoy, and the Spanish government granted the title of “Most-Favored-Nation” to England and Holland (Steingrad). This time, the already weakened Spanish Empire endured defeat due to poor leadership and exploitation from the French. Thus, at the end of the war, Spain had suffered several political losses and diminished in influence and strength among European nations.
In the following century, Spain entered a war with Mexico. The origins of this war are rooted deeply in the dissatisfaction of the peoples of New Spain or Mexico with the ruler of Spain at that time—which was Carlos IV until 1808, Fernando VII only in 1808, Joseph Bonaparte from 1808-1813 and finally from 1813-1833 Ferdinand VII. During the early 1800s, Napoleon and his forces were steadily invading and conquering various European nations. Spain was divided. On one hand, it supported the French government and had serious economic ties with the country that it could not afford to engage in hostile relations. On the other hand, Spain disapproved of Napoleon’s increasing power and strength and feared that its country would be defeated next. The Spanish royalty were correct in their fear; in 1808 Napoleon invaded Spain and forced King Ferdinand VII off of the throne, replacing him with his brother, Joseph (de la Teja). Napoleon did not think much of Spain; he thought that they were a country most uncivilized and he assumed that the Spanish people would welcome his rule to free them from savageness. “With my banner bearing the words ‘Liberty and Emancipation from Superstition,’” he said, “I shall be regarded as the liberator of Spain.” Nicole Gottieri, Chief Curator at the National Archives of France, also states the following:
“Spain at that time was far behind all the other countries in Europe. Napoleon considered the Iberian Peninsula another world — with people from the Dark Ages - dominated by clergy, according to Napoleon, who were illiterate, ignorant, and fanatical. He thought that there would be no resistance whatsoever. Napoleon didn’t take the trouble to study the country he was going to invade. He didn’t think the Spanish people had the will to hold on to their independence” (PBS).
Napoleon did not anticipate facing a fierce opposition, which he did encounter. Months later, the Spaniards rose up against French domination in their country, which they held proud and were willing to defend. The two countries engaged in what is known as the Peninsula War, in which both countries, stubborn in their resolve to be autonomous and supreme, subjected the other to ferocious atrocities never before seen in the history of French warfare. This style of fighting is known as guerrilla warfare (PBS). Several French and Spaniards were killed; yet, there was no decisive victory and both countries endured enormous losses. Overall, the French were at the advantage, due to the immense power Napoleon held in Europe and the fact that his brother Joseph sat on the throne of Spain. The Spanish people had been broken, however they remained stubborn in their resolve to regain freedom.
Consequently, the Spanish government was experiencing one of its greatest defeats—the relinquishing of Spanish authority into the hands of the French on its own homeland. Napoleon’s decision to place Joseph on the throne of Spain was a huge mistake and devastating to Spain’s reputation (Napoleonic Guide). There was sharp disapproval of the new king in Spain causing the church and the peasantry to revolt. Since then, there was very little peace on Spanish territory. Finally in 1814, the Spanish gained sufficient strength to drive the French out of Spain after much difficulty. It lacked the support of several European countries—Germany was the only nation that supported the Spaniards. Kind Fernando VII was restored to the throne; however, things only got worse. The Inquisition was reinstated, which lead to the persecution of liberals and constitutionalists, and the suppression of free speech. Subsequently, Spain entered a severe economic recession and simultaneously, several of the American colonies won their independence, as Spain was too damaged a nation to succeed at war (Lonely Planet Guide). This period of Spanish history is marked with plague, famine, floods, drought and continuous wars with equally strong, if not stronger, countries like France; Spain was wasted by these continuous events (1UpInfo).
Mexico was one of the colonies that Spain lost during these terrible circumstances. By the time Spain entered the war with Mexico, it was distracted, broken and unprepared. The current state of Mexico was ruled by viceroy Francisco Javier Venegas, a governor of Mexico who was meant to represent King Ferdinand VII, the distant ruler in the mother country of Spain. Venegas extended Spanish rule in Mexico with the same absolutist, uncompromising approach used by Ferdinand, which eventually exhausted Mexican citizens. In the town of Dolores was a priest, Father Hidalgo, who identified with the majority of Mexicans. He believed that the Spanish government was too oppressive and that the people should rise against it in rebellion. In order to support the cause, Father Hidalgo would host informal meetings in his homes that served as a forum for the expression of frustration with the Spanish government.
“Hidalgo promoted discussion groups at his house, where Indians, mestizos, criollos, and peninsulares were welcomed. The themes of these discussions were current events, to which Hidalgo added his own input of social and economic concerns. The independence movement was born out of these informal discussions and was directed against Spanish domination of political and economic life in New Spain. December 8, 1810, was set for the beginning of the uprising”(OnWar).
Hidalgo was able to find supporters for his rebellion quite easily. On September 16, 1810—the day currently celebrated as Mexican Independence Day—citizens from all over were summoned to march the streets crying for freedom. These famous cries are known as Grito de Dolores or Cries of Dolores. They cried, “Long live Our Lady of Guadalupe! Death to bad government! Death to the gachupines!” (OnWar). This moment is recalled in several publications as a moving and memorable point in history in which the crowd of disgruntled Mexican citizens joined together to fight for their rights and happiness. As the crowd progressed toward the regional capital of Guanajuato, it grew in size and momentum. They continued to march through the major cities of Mexico, capturing them along the way. Unfortunately, they failed to capture Mexico City after reaching resistance, and were all arrested and tried. Father Hidalgo was eventually sentenced to death by firing squad in 1811 (Keller and Candelaria). The ending of this first revolutionary movement failed to diminish the faith that was planted in the hearts and minds of the Mexican people. They felt more encouraged than ever to rise against the injustices of the Spanish government and the struggle was continued by José María Morelos Pavón who met some success, but ultimately had the same fate as Hidalgo in 1815. Between 1815 and 1821 Mexican citizens rebelled against Spanish rule in more isolated bands, and Ferdinand VII, king of Spain, did not see these insurrections as a significant threat to Spanish control of Mexico. This display of bad judgment is what eventually aided the Mexicans in fighting with Spain. However, the rebellions continued until Augustín de Iturbide, a royalist officer who was responsible for the executions of Hidalgo and Morelos, intervened to negotiate a resolution. On February 24, 1821 they created a plan for independence called the Plan de Iguala (de la Teja).
“The plan offered three guarantees-preservation of the Catholic Church'sqv status, the independence of Mexico as a constitutional monarchy, and equality of Spaniards and criollos. Although viceregal authorities tried to resist, the plan met with widespread approval both in civilian and military quarters” (de la Teja).
The treaty was signed on August 24, 1821 granting Mexico its freedom. This was another loss for the Spanish government. Although Spanish representatives were willing to negotiate a treaty granting Mexico its independence, Spain retained the notion that it would still maintain control over Mexico and its new government on the backburner.
In July of 1829, Spain attempted to revoke the freedom it had previously granted to Mexico with an endeavor to retake Mexico. At the time, President Guerrero was governor of the Mexican liberal government. Guerrero proved to be an intelligent leader, for he appointed Santa Anna to dislodge the Spanish forces in August. Just two months later in October, the Spanish army decided to call off the war, as it was significantly weakened by disease, an insufficient food supply, and opposition from Mexican liberals (OnWar). The Mexican people hailed both Santa Anna and Guerrero as saviors and defenders of freedom; with the encouragement of the general public, Guerrero used this as a motivation to enact several liberal laws such as the abolition of slavery (OnWar). This battle signified the decrease in Spanish affluence, pride and might, and was part of the beginning trend of declining political influence of Spain.
Latin America was the most devastating and prodigious loss that the Spanish empire experienced in their dramatic decline from power. Simon Bolivar was the single most influencing voice of freedom in South America during this period of liberty and independence. Known as El Liberador or “The Liberator,” Bolivar was a symbol of determination, strength, and encouragement. According to Pat Daniels, author of Bolivar! Simon Bolivar’s “integrity, high morals, and perseverance in the face of overwhelming odds made him a role model to many. Simon Bolivar was the first President of Bolivia, which became independent of Spain in 1824, and gave his name to the country” (Daniels). His main motivation was to attain the freedom of all of America, mainly South America. While living in Spain during the Napoleonic Wars, Bolivar witnessed the distress and exploitation caused by the Spanish government over its weaker countries and he vowed that he would someday assist in obtaining the freedom of countries dominated by the Spanish government (Centellas). It is tempting to ask the question: how could one man have so much influence and power to free the whole of South America? Who supported Bólivar in his plight against the Spanish government?
The answer to this question is that Bolivar received aid from the Haitian government—he received weapons and ammunition, and was also given permission to enlist several Haitian men into his rebellion force on the condition that he free all slaves in the colonies he liberates (Daniels). Additionally, Spain was presently distracted by domestic political grievances about France and was experiencing a shift in authority. Thus, Bolivar’s timing to liberate Latin America was well planned.
From about 1807 to about 1824, Bolivar was heavily occupied in freedom fighting against Spanish rule in Latin America (Centellas). Eventually, Simon Bolivar was able to accomplish a great feat: the attaining of independence for Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Panama and Bolivia. However, soon after he had guided these countries to their liberation, the freedom for which he so passionately fought was disrupted and destroyed by several of the generals from the independence revolution on the account of personal rivalries. By 1827, civil wars had erupted in several of the South American countries and the unity Bolivar had established among them was broken by factional fighting (Centellas). Unfortunately, Bolivar had lost most of his physical strength by this time. He died from tuberculosis three years later.
In continuation to Spain’s increasing spiral downwards, it entered a war with the United States, a war that would later signify its total devastation. On the morning of February 15, 1898 the United States battleship, the Maine, pulled into the harbor of Havana, Cuba. Hours later, the ship exploded into bits and pieces, taking with it the lives of 266 Americans (Smith). The attack on the Maine was an additional signal of how remarkably Spain had decreased as an imperialist power and of its abating influence on the colonial frontier. The end of the war left Spain with hardly anything, for it had lost Cuba and its remaining colonies in the Caribbean and the Pacific. Spain had been ultimately defeated by the United States in the Spanish-American War of 1898.
The start of the Spanish-American War was triggered by the civil instability and unrest present among Cubans. The ethnic population of Cuba consisted largely of “peninsulares” and “creoles,” but also housed blacks and mulattos who were the descendants of Africans who were purchased as slaves to work Cuban plantations; the former is a Spanish word was given to Spanish emigrants who left Spain to live in Cuba, hence they were born on the Iberian peninsula and viewed themselves as “pure-blooded.” The latter term refers to the children of peninsulares, born “white” in Cuba or in the New World (Smith). Although it may seem strange for such a miniscule distinction to be made between Spanish, this division was a common source of tension, and later divided them against one another. Within Cuban society, peninsulares were regarded with higher social status, as connections to Spain, the mother country, were still strong. Because peninsulares had recent ties to Spain, they were granted more favor and assumed a more powerful role within Cuban society, leaving Creoles a rank below them and blacks in the lowest societal class. Not only were the distinctions visible through race and skin color, but also and more importantly, sharp differences in economic status was a significant factor of tensions between the different groups. Blacks clearly owned and earned little as descendents of slaves in sharp contrast to the privileged Creoles who practically ruled the long narrow island. Quite obviously discrimination and social injustice was a main aspect to daily life. Joseph Smith, author of The Spanish-American War: Conflict in the Caribbean and the Pacific 1895-1902, describes the situation accurately:
“Life was harsh for people of colour. Discontent showed itself in occasional slave uprisings but more commonly in a general lawlessness and banditry that was such a feature of rural areas especially during the latter half of the nineteenth century. One calming influence for peninsulares and Creoles was the presence of a permanently strong garrison of 20,000 Spanish troops in Cuba. Indeed, whites—whether peninsulares or Creoles—considered the maintenance of Spanish authority as the best guarantee of protecting property and social order” (Smith).
According to Smith, the affirmation of “white” privilege in Cuba further reinforced by the presence of Spanish troops was a large source of tension, as people of color felt as though they were constantly being exploited under the unjust and controlling powers of Spain. This is yet another example of asymmetrical warfare. They reacted with revolts and uprisings as a way to express their anger and discontentment. Their solution was to break free of the Spanish monarchy, and more specifically the rule of King Alfonso XIII, thus achieving complete independence from the mother country.
By 1895 the only colonies that the Spanish government had left were Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Philippines, and a few other small provinces in the Pacific Ocean and North Africa (Smith). Of these colonies, Cuba was the most valuable to the Spanish, for it was a large producer of sugar and coffee, which was a source of revenue and international influence, and it contained exactly 1.6 million Cubans, according to a Census taken in 1887—it was Spain’s largest populated territory. Plainly, Cuba was the “largest and richest island of the West Indies, but it had also remained loyal to the mother country”: Spain (Smith).
At the time of the sinking of the Maine, the Spanish government had hoped that the United States would agree to support the Spanish with military reinforcements. Through all of the turmoil between Spain and Cuba, Americans wanted to steer clear of a war; they were also fearful that this war would be contagious—that other nations would get involved and that the fighting would spread. Thus, in order to expedite peacekeeping efforts and with the hopes of bringing the war to an end the U.S. gave Spain a condition rather than agreeing or denying to help them in the war: America would intervene if peace was made first between Cuba and Spain through an armistice. Once an armistice was achieved, the two countries would then negotiate that Home Rule was the best outcome. According to this result, Cuba would have its independence while Spain would be left with less than what it started with. This was unacceptable to the Spanish government.
As we look further into the situation, we can see that the Spanish government was in-between a rock and a hard place. They were threatened by the Cuban rebels and were feeling increased pressures from the United States and its demands. To make matters worse, the U.S. sent the Maine, it’s largest battleship to the coast near Havana given the dangerous situation, knowing that Spain could see this gesture as a sign of war. According to the U.S. government, the Maine was sent to Cuba to protect the Americans stationed there. However, several sources agree that the Maine was sent to Cuba in order to provoke the Spanish into a war, a war the U.S. was certain to win and gain control over Spanish territories in the Caribbean and in Asia (Gauvreau). The war would be a clear and easy win for the U.S., which had a strong navy and average army, meanwhile Spain was stronger on land than on sea (Field). In my opinion, Spain could have won the war if they had a stronger navy or if they were located closer to Cuba. However, the distance and lack of sufficient ships prevented Spain from sending over enough men to fight in the war. Concerning the soldiers they did send, by the time they reached the shore, they were already exhausted and feeble from the long journey. The U.S. was well aware of these facts and decided to use them to its advantage.
At this point, Spain was incredibly determined to maintain the colonies it was still in control of, especially Cuba. And now it was at stake. Losing Cuba would greatly diminish the affluence and power that Spain once held. The United States saw this as an opportunity to humiliate the Spanish and subjugate the Cubans. While the Cubans nearly overcame Spanish domination on their own, the U.S. became involved to take advantage of both countries.
“Writer Philip Brenner wrote: The Cubans had nearly won the war by February when the United States battleship Maine - in Havana harbor to protect U.S. property and to signal the Cuban rebels that the United States was worried about the course the revolution would take - exploded.
When the Spanish-American War broke out in 1898, Cuban rebels achieved little success because the United States Army employed them as labor troops. This signaled the role that Cuba would endure under American control for the decades to come.
The United States viewed Cuba in the Nineteenth century as an island to economically exploit and a country needing American control. Spain shored up its last New World possessions to contain their last Latin American independence surge. Spanish colonial policies and conflicts, several insurgencies and Ten Year’s War, culminated in the War of 1895 for independence. The War of 1895 resulted in near victory for the Cubans because of Spanish inability to achieve their political, strategic, operational, and tactical objectives. The United States jumped in with its own agenda, which began a half century of direct American influence over Cuba. After the long, bitter fighting in the Nineteenth century, Cubans secured a moderately better life, but lost their dream of freedom” (Williford).
After Cuba’s “independence,” Spain’s reputation as a feared and revered naval force was shattered in the face of defeat. The end of this war marked the totality of Spain’s defeat as a nation, for it had lost a country over which it maintained controlled for over 400 years (1UpInfo).
Unfortunately, Cubans would be forced to continue to fight for their freedom under U.S. subjugation. It was not until the 1960s when Fidel Castro and his revolutionary forces relieved Cubans of the oppressive Fulgencio Bautista regime. Cuba’s path to independence was a long and arduous battle. In many ways, Castro’s path to liberating Cuba was similar to Bolivar’s struggle in freeing Latin America. Like Bolivar, Castro had dreamed of a free Cuba since his youth. He was especially disgusted by injustice and absolutist ruling, i.e. the dictatorship of Bautista. After Castro made a failed attempt to free Cuba in 1953, he was exiled to Mexico where he regrouped and plotted his next battle. There he received support and advice from Che Guevara and in his second attempt in 1959, he succeeded. Because the Cuban aristocracy and the United States disapproved of Castro’s Marxist Revolution, they decided to economically isolate Cuba—the U.S. prohibits its citizens from traveling to Cuba unless they have a special license. Economic strength is one of the most important factors to political affluence. During this time of economic hardship, Cuba searched for an ally and found one in the Soviet Union, to which Cuba exported large amounts of sugar and from which it received economic and military assistance (ThinkQuest). Economically, Cuba is not solely dependent on any one country—it exports mainly to Russia, Canada and the Netherlands, and imports from Spain, Venezuela and Italy (CIA). Thus far, Castro has been successful in uniting his country, and unlike Bolivar, he has remained alive despite several assassination attempts by the United States and opposing rulers.
As we advance towards the present and future status of Latin America, we will study the economic status of several countries. While these countries have gained independence from Spain, several are still bound by economic instability, which remains a form of political dependence on countries with stronger and more developed economies, like the United States, much of Western Europe and Japan. These countries are not yet free. The table below displays the current economic status of the South American countries. It lists the main economic political groups and the countries that belong to them.
Name of Economic Organization
Participating Countries
Establishment
MERCOSUR
Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay, Argentina
March 1991
NAFTA
Canada, United States, Mexico
January 1994
Andean Pact
Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Venezuela
1969
Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA)
See below
December 1994
APEC
See below
1989
It is especially important it is to review this information. It is solely through economic growth that these countries can begin to attain independence. For instance, MERCOSUR is a really interesting group that could assist in liberating South American countries. It’s name means Common Market of the South (El Mercado del Sur in Spanish) and aims to improve the lives of the inhabitants of the participating countries by modernizing their economies, extending the supply and quality of their goods and services to the world (RAU). What is even more fascinating is that MERCOSUR has been greatly supported by the European Union since its creation in 1991 (Europa). Currently, the EU has an individual relationship with each of the four MERCOSUR countries in an effort to promote economic cooperation; however, according to the External Relations Organization, the main difference between the South American organization and the EU is the following:
“The main difference compared to the EU is Mercosur's rejection of any notion of supranationality or of autonomous (supranational) central institutions. Thus Mercosur functions on the basis of a 100% intergovernmental structure, notwithstanding the fact that it aims to achieve objectives very similar to the European ideal, i.e. the creation of a common market and possibly later on in the future an economic and monetary union with a common currency.
Although the smaller countries of Mercosur (Uruguay, Paraguay) would prefer a larger degree of supranational governance in Mercosur, this is opposed by the larger members of Mercosur, which up to the present time have stalled or rejected initiatives in this direction. A good example is given by the arbitration mechanism in Mercosur, based on the 1994 Protocol of Brasilia, which does not lead to an easily binding mechanism for solving disputes, at times even necessitating the intervention of the Presidents of the four countries to solve (trade) disputes of a technical character. In this respect the EU strongly differs from Mercosur in its supranational and centralized set-up, with strong central entities such as the Commission and the European Parliament and with impartial arbitration by institutions such as the Court of Justice in Luxembourg” (Europa).
Furthermore, the European Union is avidly trying to encourage political discussion amongst Latin American countries. In 1986, the Rio Group was established by the collaboration of the EU and Latin America with the purpose of creating a political forum through which all of Latin America and representatives from Caribbean countries can annually seek political consultation (Europa). This organization, as well as many others, was established to strengthen political, economic and cultural understanding between Latin American countries and the Caribbean on multiple levels. Without the solidification of these countries, economic and political independence would be ineffectual and fragile. The aforementioned organizations are functioning to guide these countries through the international economy with support and advice.
On a different plane falls the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which was established to promote trade and economic growth between the United States, Canada and Mexico. This organization largely supports only the members of this organization, in contrast to the EU and MERCOSUR, which is a large-scale collaboration between South America, the Caribbean and Europe. On the contrary, the NAFTA is primarily concerned with eliminating tariffs among its trading partners and their territories thereby increasing their own economic development. Thus far, this strategy has been functioning well in Canada. Since 1994, Canada’s economy has grown by 3.8% annually; consequently, 2.1 million jobs have been created and the unemployment rate has decreased (Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade). Interestingly, in an effort to stimulate the economic negotiation between the three countries, the Agreement allows for temporary allowance into and out of each participating country so long as the visitor is a businessman, trader, an investor, an intra-company transferee or a professional (DFAIT).
In comparison to MERCOSUR and the EU, the FTAA strives to unite the economies of all countries in the Western Hemisphere. This agreement includes the following countries: Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, the United States, Uruguay, and Venezuela (FTAA). This is an extensive list of countries working in cooperation towards a similar economic objective: to gain economic independence.
Similarly, the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation or APEC consists of Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, People’s Republic of China, Hong Kong (China), Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Russia, Singapore, Chinese Taipei, Thailand, United States, and Viet Nam (APEC). This trade organization was established in 1989 with the intention of bridging the participating countries and unifying the interdependence of their economies (APEC).
The island of Puerto Rico is a prime example of a country that attained liberty from Spain, but now faces economic bondage and subjugation to the United States. Since the U. S. gained control of Puerto Rico, soon after the Spanish-American War, the Puerto Rican economy has heavily depended on tax subsidies and federal aid from the U.S. (Rivera). The country’s current status is as a commonwealth in association with the United States, with the chief of state being the President of the United States, although it has an elected governor that acts under the U.S. president. Below is a brief description of the nature of Puerto Rican government:
“Puerto Rico has authority over its internal affairs. United States controls: interstate trade, foreign relations and commerce, customs administration, control of air, land and sea, immigration and emigration, nationality and citizenship, currency, maritime laws, military service, military bases, army, navy and air force, declaration of war, constitutionality of laws, jurisdictions and legal procedures, treaties, radio and television--communications, agriculture, mining and minerals, highways, postal system; social security, and other areas generally controlled by the federal government in the United States. Puerto Rican institutions control internal affairs unless U.S. law is involved, as in matters of public health and pollution”(Rivera).
It maintains some similarities to the U.S.A.; for instance, Puerto Rico also has a House of Representatives and a Senate. However, the country holds some strong differences as well: Puerto Rico lacks representation in either house of the U.S. Congress, its local taxation system and exemption from the Internal Revenue Code, the inability of Puerto Ricans to vote in U.S. presidential elections, and its lack of assignation of revenues reserved for the states (Rivera). It is very limited in its capacity to self-govern. The United States completely monopolizes the country’s economy—the U.S. is Puerto Rico’s sole trading partner, 89.4% of its exports are destined to the United States, 65.5% of its imports are from the United States and it is indebted to the U.S. by $15,993,600,000 (Rivera). Thus there is clear evidence of oppression of Puerto Ricans by North Americans since the ending of the Spanish American War, it was clearly a territory and not a part of the union, “organized but unincorporated” (Rivera). It was not until 1997 that the U.S. allowed Puerto Ricans full self-government. While the country certainly gained freedom from Spain, it still has a struggle in its future towards gaining independence from the U.S.
Although Puerto Rico is the richest of all the islands in the Caribbean, it is significantly underdeveloped in comparison to the United States and has an economic status below Mississippi, the poorest state in the U.S. (Rivera). According to the official Puerto Rican website, “In 1989, Puerto Rico received 72 times more food stamps than Mississippi, half the island's population currently receives food stamps” (Rivera). Thus we see how economic freedom may lead to the re-liberation of this impoverished country.
In returning to the analysis of Spain’s descent from power, the paper will briefly shift its focus onto Spain’s present world status. After the Spanish Civil War, Francisco Franco ascended to the throne. Despite efforts to revitalize the economy, Spain was excluded from NATO and the UN and was crippled by economic recession once again. Luckily, during the 1950s, tourism increased considerably, thereby aiding in the recovery of the economy. By the 1970s, Spain had the fastest growing economy in Europe (Lonely Planet Guide).
Franco died in 1975 and named as his successor Juan Carlos, through which the country transitioned from dictatorship to democracy (Lonely Planet Guide). In the latter 20th century, Spain was able to regain a favorable reputation: in 1992 it hosted the Olympic Games in Barcelona, Seville hosted Expo 92 and Madrid was declared European Cultural Capita. In 1996, José María Aznar, from a conservative party, was elected leader, and since his election, Spain has experienced an annual 4% economic growth (Lonely Planet Guide).
Currently, Spain plays mainly a biased-neutral role in world politics. For example, during World War II, Spain tried to remain neutral for the majority of the war although they were supportive of the Axis powers (Polsson). The country remains relatively quiet and inactive in international affairs.
Overall, the Spanish Empire has progressed from a state of stability to one of high instability to its current state of relative stability. Along the way, the country has learned many valuable lessons in leadership, including a stronger focus on domestic relations and the economy. It was the concentration on acquiring international territories hundreds of miles away that caused Spain to lose sight of situations at home as well as those amongst the peoples it later acquired. Initially, Spain was so successful in its rule because it was militarily mighty in every aspect—navy, army, etc. However, as other became a better challenge, Spain did not choose the most logical strategies in combating opposing forces. Instead, spread its energy and resources thinly, all over the world, and this is what caused Spain’s rapid defeat. As Spain’s former colonies begin to fight for their independence, one of the most valuable lessons that they can draw from the history of the Spanish Empire is economic strength. The fact that Spain was lacking in this area during the 18th century—from various wars—is one of the most important factors in its decline from power. The battles were a drain on the country’s resources, funds, population, and general economy. Thus, Caribbean and Latin American countries should bear in mind the fact that internal strife, economic dependency, and continuous battles will only hinder economic growth and therefore hinder their chances of attaining their ultimate goal: autonomy.
Chitua Alozie
EDGE
Section: Monday 11am
Professor Lusignan
The Spanish Descent From Power: Its Slow Beginning, Its Shoddy Duration, and The Wreckage
Bibliography
1. Crucible of empire [videorecording] : the Spanish-American war / written and produced by Daniel A. Miller and Daniel B. Polin ; directed by Daniel A. Miller ; a production of Great Projects Film Company, Inc. in association with South Carolina ETV.
2. Think Quest Library: The Spanish Explorers. © 1995, Think Quest Inc. http://library.thinkquest.org/J002678F/balboa.htm.
3. Sidwell Friends Lower School: The Spanish Colonies. http://www.sidwell.edu/academics/lower_school/American_Studies/Colonial/spanish_colonies.htm.
4. Sí, Spain: Economy and Trade. © May 1994. http://www.sispain.org/english/history/.
5. de la Teja, Jesus F. The Handbook of Texas Online: Mexican War of Independence. © 1997, The Texas State Historical Foundation. http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/view/MM/qdmcg.html.
6. Timothy Anna, "The Independence of Mexico and Central America," in The Independence of Latin America, ed. Leslie Bethell (Cambridge University Press, 1987).
7. Armed Conflict Events Data: Mexican War of Independence 1810-1821. http://www.onwar.com/aced/data/mike/mexico1810b.htm.
8. Pazos, Luis. “Historia Sinóptica de México.” Mexico Connect: Timeline Overview. © 1996, Editorial Diana. http://www.mexconnect.com/mex_/history.html.
9. Michael C. Meyer and William L. Sherman, The Course of Mexican History (New York: Oxford University Press, 1979).
10. 1UpInfo. Country Study and Country Guide for Mexico: The Wars of Independence, 1810-1821. © 1UpInfo. http://www.1upinfo.com/country-guide-study/mexico/mexico103.html.
11. World Rover: Mexico, History. Cited from the U.S. State Department Background Notes. http://www.worldrover.com/history/mexico_history.html.
12. Armed Conflicts Events Data: Mexican-Spanish War 1829. http://www.onwar.com/aced/chrono/c1800s/yr25/fmexicospain1829.htm.
13. History Central: 1810-1820 A.D.© 2000, MultiEducator, Inc. http://www.multied.com/dates/1810ad.html.
14. Smith, Joseph. The Spanish-American War: Conflict in the Caribbean and the Pacific 1895-1902. Longman Group Limited, 1994.
15. Johnson, Harvey L. Bolivar, Missouri. “History of Simon Bolivar.” http://www.bolivarmo.com/history.htm.
16. Richardson, Kristi and Fisher, Mark. “Simon Bolivar 1783-1830, South American Liberator.” © 2001, CarpeNoctem. http://www.carpenoctem.tv/military/bolivar.html.
17. Simon Bolivar 1783-1830, Resources for the Study of the Liberator of South America. http://victorian.fortunecity.com/dadd/453/.
18. Gauvreau, Charles F. Reminiscences of the Spanish-American War: In Cuba and the Philippines. The Authors Publishing Co., Rouses Point N.Y., 1915.
19. Carruth, Gorton. "The Encyclopedia of American Facts and Dates". 10th Ed. New York: Harper Collins Publishers. ©1997. USA History. “Queen Anne’s War: War of the Spanish Succession 1702-1713.” http://www.usahistory.com/wars/spansucc.htm.
20. Keller, Gary D. and Candelaria, Cordelia. The Legacy of the Mexican & Spanish-American Wars: Legal, Literary, and Historical Perspectives. Bilingual Press, 2000.
21. Levick, Ben. The War of Spanish Succession 1701-1714. © 1999, Ben Levick. http://www.kipar.org/kirkes_spanish_succession.html.
22. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Spanish_Succession.
23. Field, Ron. Spanish-American War 1898. Brassey’s (UK) Ltd, 1988.
24. The Napoleonic Guide: The Peninsular War, 1807-1814. © 1999, Napoleonic Guide. http://www.napoleonguide.com/campaign_peninwar.htm.
25. Gibraltar: Article X of the Treaty of Utrecht, 13 July 1713. http://www.gibnet.com/texts/utrect.htm.
26. Trask, David F. The War With Spain in 1898. David F. Trask, Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc, 1981.
27. Centellas, Miguel. Biblioteca Virtual de Simon Bolivar, “El Libertador.”© 1997. http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/7609/eng/bio.html.
28. Polsson, Ken. Chronology of World War II. © 1998. Islandnet.com http://www.islandnet.com/~kpolsson/ww2hist/ww21940.htm
29. Young, Hon. James Rankin and Moore, J. Hampton. History of Our War With Spain. New York, W.J. Holland 1898.
30. “War of the Spanish Succession.” Infoplease.com. The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia. © 1994, Columbia University Press. http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0846179.html.
31. “The Peninsula War 1808-1813.” Public Broadcasting System Online. © 1995, PBS. http://www.pbs.org/empires/napoleon/n_war/campaign/page_9.html.
32. “The Road to Independence.” © 1987. Country Study and Country Guide for Caribbean Islands. 1UpInfo. http://www.1upinfo.com/country-guide-study/caribbean-islands/caribbean-islands66.html.
33. F. Taylor, The Wars of Marlborough, 1702–1709 (1921); J. B. Wolf, The Emergence of the Great Powers, 1685–1715 (1951).
34. Kathryn, Ashlyn, and Lauren. “Timeline of Spain: History and Government.” Chapin Elementary School.© May 2000. http://www.lex5.k12.sc.us/ces/Spainhis.htm.
35. “Politics and Administration”, “Economy, Trade and Employment.” Embassy of Spain. http://www.embaspain.com/info_spain3.htm.
36. Spain Government and Politics. Yahoo! Directory. http://dir.yahoo.com/Regional/Countries/Spain/Government/Politics/.
37. “Spain in Decline.” Country Study and Country Guide for Spain. © 1988, 1UpInfo. http://www.1upinfo.com/country-guide-study/spain/spain19.html.
38. “Caribbean Islands—A Country Study.” Library of Congress. http://memory.loc.gov/frd/cs/cxtoc.html.
39. “Caribbean islands—The Cuban Presence.” © 1987, Library of Congress. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+cx0239).
40. “Islands of the Commonwealth Caribbean.” Appendix C, Library of Congress. http://memory.loc.gov/frd/cs/caribbean_islands/cx_appnc.html.
41. “U.S. –Cuba History.” 1998 National Bipartisan Commission on Cuba. http://www.uscubacommission.org/history.html.
42. Daniels, A. Pat. “The Life of Simon Bolivar,” excerpt from “Bolivar!” Crystalbeach.com, http://www.crystalbeach.com/history.htm.
43. “The EU’s Relations with MERCOSUR: Overview.” Last updated April 2002. http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/mercosur/intro/.
44. “MERCOSUR.” Red Académica Uruguaya. www.rau.edu.uy/mercosur/.
45. “The EU’s relations with Latin America: Overview.” Last updated March 2002. http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/la/index.htm.
46. “The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA): An Overview.” © 2001, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/nafta-alena/over-e.asp.
47. Free Trade of the Americas (FTAA).http://www.ftaa-alca.org/alca_e.asp.
48. Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation. http://www.apecsec.org.sg/.
49. “Andean Pact.” The Penguin Dictionary of Economics. © 1998, Graham Bannock, R.E. Baxter and Evan Davis. Xreferences. http://www.xrefer.com/entry/444583.
50. “Mercado Común.” © 2001, Secretary of Andean Community. Comunidad Andina. http://www.comunidadandina.org/.
51. Tirado, Thomas C. “Christopher Columbus.” Ecarta Encyclopedia. http://www.millersv.edu/~columbus/columbus.html.
52. “Francisco Pizarro.” New Advent: Catholic Encyclopedia Online. Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XII © 1911, Robert Appleton Company, Online Edition © 2002, Kevin Knight. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12140a.htm.
53. “Vasco Nuñez de Balboa: Spanish Conquistador and Explorer.” EnchantedLearning.com. http://www.enchantedlearning.com/explorers/page/b/balboa.shtml.
54. Chavez, Thomas E. “Spain’s Support Vital to U.S. Independence.” Hispanics in the American Revolution. © 1996. http://www.neta.com/~1stbooks/vital.htm.
55. “Fidel Castro.” ThinkQuest Library of Entries. © 1998, Team 18355. http://library.thinkquest.org/18355/fidel_castro.html.
56. “Fidel Alejandro Castro Ruz.” ABCNews.com. © 2001, ABCNEWS Internet Ventures. http://abcnews.go.com/reference/bios/castro.html.
57. “Cuba.” CIA: The World Factbook 2002. Last updated January 1, 2002. http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/cu.html#Econ.
58. “Destination Puerto Rico.” Lonely Planet World Guide Online. © 2002 Lonely Planet Publications. http://www.lonelyplanet.com/destinations/caribbean/puerto_rico/history.htm.
59. Musicant, Ivan, The Banana Wars: A History of United States Military Intervention in Latin America from the Spanish-American War to the Invasion of Panama, New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1990.
60. Steingrad, Elena. “Wars of Louis XIV.” http://www.abi01.de/history/Wars/Wars.html.
61. Williford, Brad. “The Cuban Revolution of 1895-1898.” The Spanish-American War: Centennial Website. http://www.spanamwar.com/cubanrev.htm.
62. Rivera, Malagy. “Economy” and “Government.” Welcome to Puerto Rico! © 1995. http://welcome.topuertorico.org/economy.shtml.
63. Rauch, Karen. “Panorama historico de España,” Civilización España. http://www.uncg.edu/rom/courses/klrauch/civ/timeline.htm.
64. Gray, Vikki and Lewis, Angela. “Brief Timeline of New Mexico History.” http://www.rootsweb.com/~nmbernal/time.htm.
65. Google Images. http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=www.bait-tov.com/images/map.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.bait-tov.com/atlas/a.php&h=240&w=480&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dspanish%2Bcolonies%2Band%2Bmap%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8.
66. Spanish Empire. Google Images: Maps. http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=www.utep.edu/kc3312/clymer/images/map03.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.utep.edu/kc3312/clymer/maptable1.html&h=-1&w=-1&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dspanish%2Bempire%2Bmap%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26sa%3DN.
67. Google Images. http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=www.utep.edu/kc3312/clymer/images/map03.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.utep.edu/kc3312/clymer/maptable1.html&h=-1&w=-1&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dspanish%2Bempire%2Bmap%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26sa%3DN.
68. “The Invincible Armada.” The Karpeles Manuscript Library. http://www.rain.org/~karpeles/armadadis.html.
69. Reaves, Pastor John. “The Invincible Armada of Spain.” The Baptist Pillar. http://www.baptistpillar.com/bd0127.htm.
70. Ross, David. “The Spanish Armada.” Britain Express: English History. © 2001. http://www.britainexpress.com/History/tudor/armada.htm.