Spain’s Crisis of ’98: Colonial Loss & National Identity

Colonial War and the Crisis of ’98

Background: The First War in Cuba

Cuba, along with Puerto Rico and the Philippines, were the last remnants of Spain’s colonial empire after the independence movements of the early nineteenth century. Cuba was a prosperous island, producing sugar, coffee, cacao, and other tropical crops. The mechanization of agriculture, its intensification, and the use of slave labor had enriched the island. Most businesses were in the hands of Spaniards, but a wealthy and educated Creole bourgeoisie was gradually emerging. This bourgeoisie soon began to desire independence or, at least, greater autonomy, as they felt marginalized from public office and economically burdened by high tariffs imposed by Spain on trade with other countries, especially the USA. The revolution began, coinciding with the outbreak of the Revolution of 1868 in Spain. The so-called “Grito de Yara” was launched by Céspedes with the aim of establishing an independent Cuban republic. The war lasted 10 years (1868-1878). It was prolonged due to:

  1. Political instability and changes in Spain, leaving little time for governments to address the Cuban war.
  2. The division and poor organization of the insurgents, despite receiving aid from the USA.

Finally, in 1878, the Peace of Zanjón was signed.

The Second War in Cuba and the Loss of the Colonial Empire

After the Peace of Zanjón, the situation in Cuba gradually worsened:

  1. The abolition of slavery ruined small landowners. Former slaves were unemployed or had to work for very low wages, leading to increased discontent.
  2. Discontent also grew among the Creoles. The promise of autonomy for the island was not fulfilled. Gradually, a sense of independence developed among the Creoles, whose greatest representative was José Martí.

In the 1890s, there was a shift in economic policy in many countries towards strict protectionism. Spain also imposed this on Cuba, as well as on the Philippines. In Cuba, the discontent of the Creoles and the lower classes led to the final uprising for independence in February 1895, with the so-called “Grito de Baire”. The Spanish government sent General Martínez Campos, who believed it was possible to crush the resistance through conventional warfare. He was mistaken. The Spanish army crossed the island from west to east, encountering little resistance. However, when Martínez Campos believed he had quelled the uprising, he realized that rebel groups continued to operate in the rear. Strong retaliation against the entire population was necessary, but Martínez Campos, unwilling to do this, requested his relief. Spain had to decide between abandoning the island or imposing harsh repression. Neither Cánovas nor Sagasta favored harsh measures, but they could not resign themselves to losing Cuba. Most politicians and military leaders believed the war could be won, as the Cubans lacked a regular army and heavy weapons. Cánovas sent General Weyler, a strong military figure familiar with the island and known for his heavy-handedness. His plan was to fight the rebels in their own territory, isolating and annihilating them. He ordered the concentration of the civilian population in controlled areas, which they could not leave. Thus began an unequal offensive, as the Spanish army was far superior in numbers and had better control, organization, and weaponry than the Cubans. However, the Cubans had the advantage of knowing the terrain and climate and were supplied with arms and ammunition by the USA. By the end of 1896, after a bitter campaign, Weyler controlled half of the island and estimated that he would control the other half the following year. The war dragged on, which was contrary to Spanish interests. In the USA, President Cleveland had announced that the U.S. would remain neutral in the war. However, at the end of that year, he lost the election to the Republican Party, and McKinley was appointed President. With him, the U.S. attitude changed, influenced by the American press, which swayed public opinion in favor of war, aligning with the Republicans. The powerful newspaper chains of Pulitzer and Hearst, funded by sugar companies, worked to publish news, often false, about Spanish atrocities committed in Cuba and, above all, the damage inflicted on U.S. residents. Diplomatic tensions began to rise. Cánovas then realized that the conflict had to be resolved quickly to avoid direct U.S. intervention, but he was left without the support of Sagasta’s liberals, who opposed Weyler’s heavy-handedness and favored granting full autonomy to Cuba. Cánovas was assassinated by an anarchist in Madrid. Sagasta took power and dismissed Weyler. He adopted a statute of autonomy for Cuba. In April 1898, the USA sent an ultimatum to Spain demanding the independence of Cuba. Spain refused, and on April 25, the USA declared war. It was a quick and unequal war, as the U.S. army and navy, more modernized, were far superior to the Spanish. The Americans struck first in the Philippines. In Cuba, the Spanish fleet under the command of Cervera was blockaded by the U.S. in the Bay of Santiago. Peace was signed in Paris in December 1898. Spain lost Cuba, the Philippines, and Puerto Rico—the last remnants of its once great colonial empire.

The Crisis of ’98: The Spain of Problems

With the defeat in Cuba, a deep crisis began in Spain, highlighted by the Generation of ’98. From 1898 and during the early years of the twentieth century, Spain’s problems began to be discussed and written about extensively: political, social, military, religious, economic, regionalism, and, above all, the problem of Spain’s identity. There was a profound crisis in the Spanish consciousness, a crisis that denounced all these problems and led to a reassessment and a desire for change. Among the most notable problems were:

The Problem of Being in Spain

This was evidenced by the writers of the Generation of ’98, a group of intellectuals that included figures like Unamuno, Valle-Inclán, Baroja, Azorín, Maeztu, Ganivet, and Antonio Machado. One common theme that united the members of the Generation of ’98 was the question of what Spain was and what it should be. This question generated abundant literature and ongoing controversies throughout the twentieth century. In their search for the real Spain, the first thing we find in the members of the Generation of ’98 is a deep critique of the Spain in which they lived (the rulers, the political system, the caciquismo…). From these criticisms, myths arose, such as the African myth. However, these harsh criticisms did not mean indifference to Spain. The men of ’98 felt disgusted by the Spain of their time, but they also felt pain because they loved Spain. The desire to change Spain gave rise, at first, to the birth of the myth of Europe. For the men of ’98, Spain was Europe’s problem and its solution. However, alongside this Europeanization, another solution coexisted. This is what has been called the “conversion of ’98”, which defended the values and characteristics of Spain, forged throughout its history. There is the myth of the two Spains: the Spain of traditional historical values and the modern Spain, progressive and tolerant, the European one. Later, there would be talk of the official Spain and the real Spain (Costa) and the Spain of life (Ortega).

The Political Problem

  1. Firstly, there was the falsehood of the system. Spain, in 1900, was theoretically one of the most democratic countries in the world. It enjoyed universal suffrage, a flexible and open constitution, and had declared all rights and liberties. However, it was all a facade. Politicians had created a system for themselves, behind the backs of the people, where election results were pre-determined by the parties and did not reflect the will of the people.
  2. Secondly, there was the loss of content, the lack of a program from the two political parties in power. It didn’t matter which party one voted for, as both lacked new ideas and a specific program.

The Social Problem

This stemmed from the existence of a backward and unequal social organization. Of the 19 million people in Spain in 1900, only 1 million belonged to the upper class. The upper class, the oligarchy, held all the political and economic power in the country. Meanwhile, the vast majority of the population belonged to the lower middle class—workers and peasants. In both groups, there was a process of proletarianization, meaning they owned nothing but their labor, which was poorly paid. Both political parties and unions began the struggle to solve the problems of the Spanish proletariat and seize power to radically change the organization of the bourgeois state. In conclusion, while until the late nineteenth century, the history of Spain could be told almost exclusively through political events, from 1898 onwards, it is impossible to do so without taking into account the social struggles that would be triggered by political parties and labor unions.

The Economic Problem

In the early twentieth century, Spain, despite its modest industrialization, was still an underdeveloped country where the agricultural sector employed 60-70% of the population. Underdevelopment was a problem that they sought to overcome, but failed to do so. In the countryside, the main problem was the poor distribution of land. Many of Spain’s resources, mostly minerals, were owned by foreign capital and companies, contributing to the industrialization of other countries and not Spain’s. Public services, transport, and the telephone were controlled by foreign capital. There was a lack of domestic capital and initiative from the Spanish middle class, who preferred to invest in land purchases. There was also a lack of investment and effective economic policies by the state.

The Regional Problem

This began to gain importance from the early twentieth century. The essential features of these regionalist-nationalist movements were:

  1. They developed in the periphery of the country, most importantly in Catalonia and the Basque Country.
  2. Their ideology was a mix between tradition and modernity.
  3. They aspired to a high degree of autonomy within Spain, and some, like the Basques, to total independence.

In conclusion, the Crisis of ’98 highlighted the existence of several serious problems in Spain. These problems were intertwined and evolving, ultimately leading to the collapse of the Restoration regime.