Talk:Platt Amendment

US dominance

Help......???

Dude.. Basically-

The Cubans had accepted the political dominance of the United States that was expressed in the Platt Amendment of 1901.

They did not capitulate or agree to anything other than what the text of the Treaty of Relations says. Cuba agreed finally because the US would not withdraw the army it had sent to assist the Cubans in fighting the Spanish. The 1903 Treaty was softened in 1934 because of the "good neighbor" policy. It restored the requirement that the US be asked for help before sending in the military again. ( Martin | talk • contribs 17:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC))

crushed or not?

This article says "US troops were not used to crush the revolt", the article on the Roosevelt Corollary says "U.S. troops landed in Cuba, suppressed the revolt". Which one is right? Joriki 08:07, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, according to what you said, the revolt was NOT used to crush the revolt....they only suppressed the revolt....Did the article say that the U.S. forces crushed the revolt or no?

Reference for cuban denunciation?

Could someone provide a reference to the text wherein "The Cuban government strongly denounces the treaty on grounds that article 52 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties declares a treaty void if its conclusion has been procured by the threat or use of force."?

This supposed denunciation on the Basis of the Vienna Convention does not make sense to me because article 4 of the Vienna convention html, pdf states:

Article 4 Non-retroactivity of the present Convention

Without prejudice to the application of any rules set forth in the present Convention to which treaties would be subject under international law independently of the Convention, the Convention applies only to treaties which are concluded by States after the entry into force of the present Convention with regard to such States.

This seems to imply that the Vienna convention does not apply to any treaties made before 1969, which includes not only the Platt Amendment but also the 1934 FDR treaty which removed the Platt amendment but left the Guantamo Bay base in the hands of the US.

--Rafael Garcia

Yes I agree. Plus the Cuban objection is based on general principles of sovereignty, I believe. I am trying to find more, but the Cubans seem to have been very quiet, aside from the annual gesture of not cashing the checks. Maybe it is just that they don;t have the internet.... ( Martin | talk • contribs 07:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC))

Removal of Trivia section?

I changed the trivia subject to References in popular culture. In general, it is my understanding that such trivia should be removed. My only quandary is that perhaps the incorrect belief that it was a constitutional amendment extends further than the movie. Jickyincognito (talk) 17:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

That's not all that the movie gets wrong. Mr. Hand also gets Senator Platt's first name wrong and gets the year of the amendment wrong.47.139.40.19 (talk) 05:11, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

The lease can be revoked only by mutual consent or by abandonment

I object to the word "only". Of course the lease can be changed by mutual consent, as can any agreement, and as the lease was by later negotiation to drop Bahia Honda in favor of more land at Guantanamo. The factual point is that if the US abandons the property, it no longer needs to pay the rent, and the lease is terminated. The last clause, that the lease would be terminated, is not explicitly mentioned in Article 2 of the 1903 lease. The notion that the lease can only be terminated in these two ways seems incorrect or misleading, for the following reasons

• The lease is a contract, and a contract can be voided for a material breach.
• Is this even actually a lease, in the sense that it can be enforced by some impartial court?
• The US seems to be violating the terms at will (as the Supreme Court case "Gherebi" noted.)
• The time period stated in the 1903 Feb document is for "the time required". So if the base isn't required for a coaling or naval station, then the lease is over.
• etc..

The abandonment clause mentioned (from the 1934 treaty) is not about the term of the lease, at least as it reads. It is about the extent of the property at Guantanamo that is the subject of the lease. Slightly different.

Poor intro

"The Platt Amendment of 1903 was an amendment to the military appropriations bill, constrained by the earlier Teller Amendment that forbade annexation of Cuba"

It amended WHAT military appropriations bill? How did the Teller Amendment constrain it? What did the Teller Amendment amend? Why use passive voice in the first sentence of the article? --179.218.140.239 (talk) 23:50, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

That's why Wikipedia has editors like 179.218.140.239. Hint hint. Int21h (talk) 04:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

If I knew the answer, I wouldn't be looking it up on Wikipedia. Hint Hint. --179.218.140.239 (talk) 15:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Here is a reference: [1] You can also add a "fact" interjection in the sentence to indicate that a footnote of some sort would be helpful. I will check the article to see if the reference is still relevant. ( Martin | talk • contribs 21:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC))

The Teller Amendment declared that the US had no desire to annex Cuba, or to assert jurisdiction over it. That restrained the text of the Platt Amendment, although the Platt Amendment still required Cuba to grant the US complete jurisdiction over Guantanamo Bay. There is an article on the Teller Amendment itself, and gives more detail. If the opening is clumsy, or seems so to you, you are able to fix it, as best you can. ( Martin | talk • contribs 21:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC))

The redirect is not exactly correct, and should be removed.

The Platt Amendment and the 1903 Treaty of Relations are not the same thing. The Platt Amendment is an amendment to the (1902?) Military appropriations act, and it was voted on and passed by Congress.
The 1903 Treaty of Relations is (was) a treaty between Cuba and the United States, that was approved by the Senate.
These are different documents.
You might, by this logic, say that the Platt Amendment was an amendment to the Cuban Constituton, since the text was incorporated into the Cuban Constitution word for word I believe, although it must have been translated into Spanish first.

There is another wikipedia article on the 1903 Treaty of Relations that is about the Treaty, and not about the Platt Amendment. ( Martin | talk • contribs 22:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC))

I do not know how to remove the bad redirection. ( Martin | talk • contribs 22:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC))

Help me --- Got it!! ( Martin | talk • contribs 22:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC))

Two Comments

1. While the acceptance of the Platt Amendment by the Cuban government is explained, this article could be made stronger if there was information regarding the Cuban reception to the terms of the Platt Amendment.

2. It would also be beneficial to detail Cuban operations under the Platt Amendment, or the actions of General Enoch H. Crowder who, "Invested with the full sanction of the Platt Amendment, received sweeping authority over the Cuban administration..." in 1921. His intervention was was not welcomed by the Cuban government.

--LilyWhites1882 (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

If you're asking for a sentiment analysis of a country's inhabitants verbal or written expressions, of historical actions in impoverished countries, good luck. I would think you might find published materials galore from Cuban sources, and I would think they would cover the whole range from extremely pro-American, to anti-Cuban government, to ambivalent or mixed, to extremely anti-American, to extremely pro-Cuban government. Would you propose to do a count? And since they would be written and published to such an extent they would be available in the US today, it could be claimed that they would be non-representative, as mass publishing even in the age of Twitter and Facebook has low penetration with the populace even in the US. But alas, no, its not as if most Cubans tweeted their feelings as it was happening, we are left with the opinions of the elites, which could go either way. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 01:55, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I think the actions of General Crowder could be insightful. But I think it most likely he mostly handled mundane administrative affairs of military headquarters, received the affluent and powerful in weekly, extravagant balls and galas, and enjoyed his days doing very little. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 01:55, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Platt Amendment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150423105708/http://history.state.gov/milestones/1899-1913/platt to https://history.state.gov/milestones/1899-1913/platt

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:20, 9 December 2017 (UTC)