Talk:Proposed annexation of Santo Domingo

Maintenance templates at 13 October 2010
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)

This article needs improvement
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)

"Dangers" of aquisition
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)

Improvements made to article lede
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)

Basic rewrite
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)

Reasons section removed
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)


 * The primary reasons the annexationists offered for the annexation of the Dominican Republic into the U.S. were the rich natural resources the island offered, the Monroe Doctrine being weakened by European business ventures, a potential canal across the Isthmus of Darien, a strategic naval base granting the U.S. control of the Caribbean, and to encourage the Southern U.S. to grant civil rights to recently freed blacks. The island of Hispaniola, for them, offered many resources such as sugar cane. However, they thought the country did not have the infrastructure to export its goods. If the U.S. would have annexed the Dominican Republic, it would have also cut back on importing raw materials from other places, yet have a new market for its manufactured goods. Alongside manufactured goods, the free black labor force in the American south, according to President Grant, would have been granted more civil rights by their employers. This was assumed because many free blacks would leave for Dominican Republic, causing a shortage of cheap labor in the South where most work was done through harsh manual labor. In order to encourage them to stay, President Grant figured that they would have no choice but to give them the civil liberties they had been asking for.


 * The spirit of Manifest Destiny in the westward expansion had been fulfilled to a large extent in the American public’s eye, and it was time to expand beyond the continent’s borders. Rising European industries like the Dutch East India Company had begun to encroach on the Caribbean’s potential market. In turn, some in the U.S. government wanted to annex the Dominican Republic so that they would have a foothold in the market and gain from the enormous profits that could be made exporting goods off the island. In addition to an economic foothold, the island presented an opportunity to build a canal across the Isthmus of Darien, which would cut back on the time it took for trade vessels to travel throughout the Caribbean. An idea for a naval base was also presented as another solid reason for annexation. The naval base would allow the U.S. to prevent current and future enemies from stationing dangerous units close to its own shoreline.

Opposition section removed
Removed "Opposition" section from article written in a negative POV format. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Although Baez’s plebiscite said that many in the Dominican Republic supported the annexation, there were also many detractors that called for the Republic to remain an independent nation. One in particular, Gregorio Luperón among many others, was a patriot opposing the annexation because he understood the dangers that it entailed. He and others helped give voice to the majority of people who did not want to lose their national freedom. In fact, the U.S. immediately called Luperón a thief and terrorist because he was against the imperialist expansion.

Failure section removed
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.

Aftermath section removed
Removed "Aftermath" section for potential further use in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Despite the failure of the treaty to annex Dominican Republic, the United States did occupy the island for eight years (1916–1924) in order to ensure payments on its foreign debt and as a broader imperial project, which scholars today call "Dollar Diplomacy". The United States also got the canal in Central America by constructing it intervening in Panama. The naval base was established at Guantanamo Bay, again coat-tailing from the United States efforts to annex the Dominican Republic.

article is contradictory
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)

Impossible roll call vote
Maryland has three senators listed - it appears https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)

Multiple Issues
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)

Dominican positions
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)

Requested move 13 July 2024

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Moved to "Proposed annexation" (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 05:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

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)
 * 'Proposed annexation of Santo Domingo' might be better.Benjamin Trovato (talk) 02:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with "Proposed annexation". —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 12:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.