This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Annexation of Santo Domingo article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Although footnotes and references have been provided, many statements in the text are not individually sourced, which could imply that they may be the author's opinion or original research. More inline references are required to link to sources that can verify these statements as fact. Relevant Wikipedia policies can be found at: WP:RS, WP:V, WP:CITE, and WP:OR. Layout guidance is at WP:MOS. -- Kudpung ( talk) 05:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
There seems to be an inherent bias against capitalists in this article. That is POV. Sumner is looked on as the hero and Grant as the villain. Sumner wanted to annex Canada for the British government over the Alabama Claims. That could be considered "imperialism". There really is no good or bad guy in the Santo Domingo issue, in my opinion. Grant wanted to make Santo Domingo a state in the original treaty. Statehood would have given blacks the vote in the Congress, especially needed, in light of the formation of the Solid South. I would view this as Grant as a practical politician and Sumner as an Enlightenment politician. Sumner got his way. Santo Domingo remained an African state. Would Santo Domingo have been prosperous under statehood? The Island nation has been one of the most impoverished in the last 100 years. Sumner did not want non Anglo-sized blacks being part of the United States. The Santo Domingo annexation attempt involved real estate, civil rights, and foreign policy. Cmguy777 ( talk) 03:14, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
What were the dangers of aquisition if the Dominican Republic was annexed or became an U.S. state? Cmguy777 ( talk) 20:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
I have made improvements to the article by starting with rewriting the lede. This is to set up for later improvements to the article body and narration. Cmguy777 ( talk) 06:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
I have moved sources to talk page for potential future use and reference. Cmguy777 ( talk) 00:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite magazine}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)I am attempting a basic rewrite of the article with limited historical commentary. The article needed to be rewritten and referenced. The article had been written in an essay format and negative POV concerning the Domincan Annexation treaty process. In order to keep the article focused, I have minimized the historical background in the article. Cmguy777 ( talk) 00:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
I have removed the "Reasons" section form the article since this was written in a negative POV essay style. Reasons for opposition and for annexation are to be written into the article with appropriate references. Cmguy777 ( talk) 00:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
References
Removed "Opposition" section from article written in a negative POV format. Cmguy777 ( talk) 18:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Removed "Failure" section from the article written in a negative POV style. Cmguy777 ( talk) 19:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
The annexation of the Dominican Republic, under the Grant administration, failed to take hold of the American public’s interest. President Grant tried to explain in his State of the Union Address on December 5, 1870 the dire necessity of the treaty to Congress from both the American and Dominican side of the deal. In a bold strategy, Grant tried to muster up support by pointing out that it is in the Dominicans’ interest and hopes that the United States would annex the island in order to spread the United States’ free society and way of law to a country that was unable to support itself under its established government. Grant also explained what kind of factor geography played by pointing out that this positioning could give the United States an “entrance to the Caribbean Sea and the Isthmus transit of commerce”. Following this, President Grant pushed the points of the island being able to prevent external enemies from ever reaching our coast (naval importance), the annexation forcing Puerto Rico and Cuba to abolish slavery in order to keep its work force from emigrating to the Dominican Republic, an increase of American exportation through cheap furnishing of the people, vanishing of the national debt without raising taxes, the opening of new markets for American products, and ultimately being “an adherence to the ‘Monroe Doctrine’”. None of these reasons ever took the country or Congress by storm, and in his last State of the Union Address on December 5, 1876, Grant left Congress with speculation about what could have happened if the annexation had been ratified. His main points consisted of everything produced in Cuba could have been produced in the Dominican Republic, the luxury of free commerce, and the freed slaves could have used the free labor in the Dominican Republic as leverage against the people denying them of their rights, therefore making the freed slaves “’master of the situation’”. The driving force of Congress not supporting the annexation can be accredited to the feud between Frederick Douglass and Massachusetts United States Senator Charles Sumner. These two men were allies on abolition and civil rights for African Americans, but their views on the annexation differed. Douglass was appointed to assistant secretary to the Commission of Inquiry for the annexation of the Dominican Republic. He strongly believed that the people of the Dominican Republic were craving and needed this annexation. He stated, “San Domingo asked for a place in our union…Santo Domingo wanted to come under our government…” Sumner, who was traditionally an ally in most racial politics with Douglass, saw this as an example of the imperialistic politics and agenda of the Grant administration to promote greedy capitalists who wanted to exploit the Dominican Republic and African Americans. Sumner also saw this as an infringement on self-determination of the black race because it would be taking sovereignty away from one of the few self-governing black countries. Too many politics got in the way in Congress, therefore preventing the Grant administration from fomenting support from the American people. [1] [2]
References
Removed "Aftermath" section for potential further use in the article. Cmguy777 ( talk) 20:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
The top of the article says "The movement for annexation appeared to have been widely supported by the inhabitants of the Dominican Republic, according to the plebiscite ordered by Báez, who believed the Dominican Republic had better odds of survival as a US protectorate and could sell a much wider range of goods to the US than could be sold in European markets"
but then the article ends with "The whole affair never took into account the wishes of the Dominican people who desired to remain independent.[19]" 76.121.1.139 ( talk) 19:07, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Maryland has three senators listed - it appears /info/en/?search=Willard_Saulsbury_Sr. was from Delaware, but I don't have access to the Baltimore Sun or other primary sources from the period to cite that correctly Pjm2119 ( talk) 19:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
In this Article, there are multiple issues that arise when reading the "Vote to Ratify the Treaty", which should be looked at.
•18 Republicans are listed as opposing, listed as "nay", however 19 is needed and listed.
• Willard Saulsbury is listed as a Senator of Maryland, making three senators represent Maryland which is impossible. Instead he should be listed as a Senator of Delaware.
It appears this area is incorrect, and needs to be revised. Caeser the Marylander ( talk) 20:39, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
I recommend someone more familiar with the topic include more info on the Dominican perspective. There’s a lot about US support and opposition, but contemporary Dominican views aren’t covered except cursorily. 201.225.1.60 ( talk) 22:20, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
![]() | It has been proposed in this section that
Annexation of Santo Domingo be
renamed and moved to
Treaty of annexation of Santo Domingo. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{
subst:requested move}} . Do not use {{
requested move/dated}} directly. |
Annexation of Santo Domingo → Treaty of annexation of Santo Domingo – The Haitian occupation of Santo Domingo was an actual annexation of Santo Domingo, so the current title of this article more properly refers to the other. This article is about an attempted annexation that did not take place. Srnec ( talk) 14:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Annexation of Santo Domingo article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Although footnotes and references have been provided, many statements in the text are not individually sourced, which could imply that they may be the author's opinion or original research. More inline references are required to link to sources that can verify these statements as fact. Relevant Wikipedia policies can be found at: WP:RS, WP:V, WP:CITE, and WP:OR. Layout guidance is at WP:MOS. -- Kudpung ( talk) 05:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
There seems to be an inherent bias against capitalists in this article. That is POV. Sumner is looked on as the hero and Grant as the villain. Sumner wanted to annex Canada for the British government over the Alabama Claims. That could be considered "imperialism". There really is no good or bad guy in the Santo Domingo issue, in my opinion. Grant wanted to make Santo Domingo a state in the original treaty. Statehood would have given blacks the vote in the Congress, especially needed, in light of the formation of the Solid South. I would view this as Grant as a practical politician and Sumner as an Enlightenment politician. Sumner got his way. Santo Domingo remained an African state. Would Santo Domingo have been prosperous under statehood? The Island nation has been one of the most impoverished in the last 100 years. Sumner did not want non Anglo-sized blacks being part of the United States. The Santo Domingo annexation attempt involved real estate, civil rights, and foreign policy. Cmguy777 ( talk) 03:14, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
What were the dangers of aquisition if the Dominican Republic was annexed or became an U.S. state? Cmguy777 ( talk) 20:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
I have made improvements to the article by starting with rewriting the lede. This is to set up for later improvements to the article body and narration. Cmguy777 ( talk) 06:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
I have moved sources to talk page for potential future use and reference. Cmguy777 ( talk) 00:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite magazine}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)I am attempting a basic rewrite of the article with limited historical commentary. The article needed to be rewritten and referenced. The article had been written in an essay format and negative POV concerning the Domincan Annexation treaty process. In order to keep the article focused, I have minimized the historical background in the article. Cmguy777 ( talk) 00:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
I have removed the "Reasons" section form the article since this was written in a negative POV essay style. Reasons for opposition and for annexation are to be written into the article with appropriate references. Cmguy777 ( talk) 00:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
References
Removed "Opposition" section from article written in a negative POV format. Cmguy777 ( talk) 18:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Removed "Failure" section from the article written in a negative POV style. Cmguy777 ( talk) 19:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
The annexation of the Dominican Republic, under the Grant administration, failed to take hold of the American public’s interest. President Grant tried to explain in his State of the Union Address on December 5, 1870 the dire necessity of the treaty to Congress from both the American and Dominican side of the deal. In a bold strategy, Grant tried to muster up support by pointing out that it is in the Dominicans’ interest and hopes that the United States would annex the island in order to spread the United States’ free society and way of law to a country that was unable to support itself under its established government. Grant also explained what kind of factor geography played by pointing out that this positioning could give the United States an “entrance to the Caribbean Sea and the Isthmus transit of commerce”. Following this, President Grant pushed the points of the island being able to prevent external enemies from ever reaching our coast (naval importance), the annexation forcing Puerto Rico and Cuba to abolish slavery in order to keep its work force from emigrating to the Dominican Republic, an increase of American exportation through cheap furnishing of the people, vanishing of the national debt without raising taxes, the opening of new markets for American products, and ultimately being “an adherence to the ‘Monroe Doctrine’”. None of these reasons ever took the country or Congress by storm, and in his last State of the Union Address on December 5, 1876, Grant left Congress with speculation about what could have happened if the annexation had been ratified. His main points consisted of everything produced in Cuba could have been produced in the Dominican Republic, the luxury of free commerce, and the freed slaves could have used the free labor in the Dominican Republic as leverage against the people denying them of their rights, therefore making the freed slaves “’master of the situation’”. The driving force of Congress not supporting the annexation can be accredited to the feud between Frederick Douglass and Massachusetts United States Senator Charles Sumner. These two men were allies on abolition and civil rights for African Americans, but their views on the annexation differed. Douglass was appointed to assistant secretary to the Commission of Inquiry for the annexation of the Dominican Republic. He strongly believed that the people of the Dominican Republic were craving and needed this annexation. He stated, “San Domingo asked for a place in our union…Santo Domingo wanted to come under our government…” Sumner, who was traditionally an ally in most racial politics with Douglass, saw this as an example of the imperialistic politics and agenda of the Grant administration to promote greedy capitalists who wanted to exploit the Dominican Republic and African Americans. Sumner also saw this as an infringement on self-determination of the black race because it would be taking sovereignty away from one of the few self-governing black countries. Too many politics got in the way in Congress, therefore preventing the Grant administration from fomenting support from the American people. [1] [2]
References
Removed "Aftermath" section for potential further use in the article. Cmguy777 ( talk) 20:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
The top of the article says "The movement for annexation appeared to have been widely supported by the inhabitants of the Dominican Republic, according to the plebiscite ordered by Báez, who believed the Dominican Republic had better odds of survival as a US protectorate and could sell a much wider range of goods to the US than could be sold in European markets"
but then the article ends with "The whole affair never took into account the wishes of the Dominican people who desired to remain independent.[19]" 76.121.1.139 ( talk) 19:07, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Maryland has three senators listed - it appears /info/en/?search=Willard_Saulsbury_Sr. was from Delaware, but I don't have access to the Baltimore Sun or other primary sources from the period to cite that correctly Pjm2119 ( talk) 19:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
In this Article, there are multiple issues that arise when reading the "Vote to Ratify the Treaty", which should be looked at.
•18 Republicans are listed as opposing, listed as "nay", however 19 is needed and listed.
• Willard Saulsbury is listed as a Senator of Maryland, making three senators represent Maryland which is impossible. Instead he should be listed as a Senator of Delaware.
It appears this area is incorrect, and needs to be revised. Caeser the Marylander ( talk) 20:39, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
I recommend someone more familiar with the topic include more info on the Dominican perspective. There’s a lot about US support and opposition, but contemporary Dominican views aren’t covered except cursorily. 201.225.1.60 ( talk) 22:20, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
![]() | It has been proposed in this section that
Annexation of Santo Domingo be
renamed and moved to
Treaty of annexation of Santo Domingo. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{
subst:requested move}} . Do not use {{
requested move/dated}} directly. |
Annexation of Santo Domingo → Treaty of annexation of Santo Domingo – The Haitian occupation of Santo Domingo was an actual annexation of Santo Domingo, so the current title of this article more properly refers to the other. This article is about an attempted annexation that did not take place. Srnec ( talk) 14:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)