Paris in 1898: different territorial outcomes
Read the treaty’s distinction between relinquishing Cuba and ceding other territories without treating Spain’s agreement as Filipino consent.
Exam scope and assessment notes
Eighteen introductory lessons and 54 explained tasks address revised International AS enquiry 7.1: motives, direct and indirect government, Barth, Livingstone, Stanley, technology and science, Suez, boundaries, Congo exploitation, Christianity, education, healthcare, infrastructure and resistance in the Anglo-Zulu War, Ndebele rebellion, Adwa and Herero and Nama histories. Two selected comparison workshops use labelled original paraphrases of identified primary passages, not quotations or complete authentic source sets. This is introductory teaching, not verified full historical or assessment coverage and not full AS or A Level preparation. Twenty-six further lessons and 78 explained tasks introduce enquiry 7.2: Berlin and its coastal occupation, recognition, anti-slavery, trade and navigation provisions; Weltpolitik, fleet laws and risk theory, Dreadnought, South African tensions, Fashoda, changing British partnerships, the Entente, the Moroccan crises, Algeciras, the November 1911 convention, imperial extent, alignment and contemporary views. Three further selected source comparisons distinguish obligations from implementation, diplomatic support from consultation and automatic military commitment, and advocacy from critique. These are introductions, not verified full historical or assessment coverage. Twenty-two further lessons and 66 explained tasks introduce enquiry 7.3: controlled foreign contacts, Perry, unequal treaties and revision; Meiji central government, revenue and conscription; industry, technological adaptation and education; Korea, the 1895 settlement, the conditional 1902 alliance and the Russo-Japanese War; Portsmouth; wartime Pacific occupations and global naval cooperation; the Twenty-One Demands, Chinese responses, Siberian intervention and Japan’s position by 1918. Three selected comparisons distinguish constitutional aims and provisions, outside recognition and Korean sovereignty, and public intervention assurances and actual conduct. These are introductory lessons, not verified full historical or assessment coverage. Twenty-seven further introductory lessons and 81 explained tasks address enquiry 7.4: the frontier debate, industrial resources and the Panic of 1893; Mahan, the Great White Fleet and Panama; Cuba, yellow journalism, Maine, the 1898 war and settlement, Teller and Platt, Dollar Diplomacy and Pacific expansion; Filipino independence, war and continuing resistance; neutrality, peace advocacy, submarine policy, the Zimmermann proposal, the war decision and intervention through 1918. Four selected comparisons distinguish treaty grants and policy arguments, independence and restrictions, protective claims and sovereignty, and a war request and a later defence of dissent. All four enquiries have introductory teaching, not verified full historical or assessment coverage. Deeper regional and African-source reading, subject-specialist review, full four-source sets, timed papers and calibrated marking remain unfinished. Existing 2026 teaching receives no automatic revised-year coverage credit. Imperialism and the emergence of world powers, c.1870–1918 belongs to International Paper 1 in 2027 and International Paper 2 in 2028 and 2029. Keep it separate from European and American alternatives and from the International Paper 4 Eastern Europe enquiry 7.1. Paper 1 Historical sources is 75 minutes and 40 marks: both parts of one question use four sources totalling at most 600 words, at least three written and up to one visual. Part (a) compares two sources for 15 marks; part (b) uses all four and contextual knowledge for a 25-mark judgement. Paper 2 Outline study is 105 minutes and 60 marks: answer two questions from one section, both parts of each, with a 10-mark causal explanation and a 20-mark argument. These lessons are not complete papers or calibrated assessment.
Before you begin
- Connect dated economic resources, strategic arguments, political decisions and implementation
- Distinguish American claims, local political authority, consent and practical outcomes; separate 1898, 1904, 1909–1913 and 1917
Work on paper. Try each question before revealing help, and explain why your method works.
Quick readiness check
How should you explain America’s emergence as a world power?
What you will learn
- How did Cuba’s treatment differ from that of Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines?
- Why did the payment to Spain not establish Filipino consent?
- How far did the treaty establish an uncontested American empire?
Develop an International AS historical argument
- Write your own response before opening the model.
- Use a dated causal explanation, attribute policy arguments, retain Cuban, Filipino and Panamanian agency and compare intended aims with actual outcomes.
Eighteen introductory lessons and 54 explained tasks address revised International AS enquiry 7.1: motives, direct and indirect government, Barth, Livingstone, Stanley, technology and science, Suez, boundaries, Congo exploitation, Christianity, education, healthcare, infrastructure and resistance in the Anglo-Zulu War, Ndebele rebellion, Adwa and Herero and Nama histories. Two selected comparison workshops use labelled original paraphrases of identified primary passages, not quotations or complete authentic source sets. This is introductory teaching, not verified full historical or assessment coverage and not full AS or A Level preparation. Twenty-six further lessons and 78 explained tasks introduce enquiry 7.2: Berlin and its coastal occupation, recognition, anti-slavery, trade and navigation provisions; Weltpolitik, fleet laws and risk theory, Dreadnought, South African tensions, Fashoda, changing British partnerships, the Entente, the Moroccan crises, Algeciras, the November 1911 convention, imperial extent, alignment and contemporary views. Three further selected source comparisons distinguish obligations from implementation, diplomatic support from consultation and automatic military commitment, and advocacy from critique. These are introductions, not verified full historical or assessment coverage. Twenty-two further lessons and 66 explained tasks introduce enquiry 7.3: controlled foreign contacts, Perry, unequal treaties and revision; Meiji central government, revenue and conscription; industry, technological adaptation and education; Korea, the 1895 settlement, the conditional 1902 alliance and the Russo-Japanese War; Portsmouth; wartime Pacific occupations and global naval cooperation; the Twenty-One Demands, Chinese responses, Siberian intervention and Japan’s position by 1918. Three selected comparisons distinguish constitutional aims and provisions, outside recognition and Korean sovereignty, and public intervention assurances and actual conduct. These are introductory lessons, not verified full historical or assessment coverage. Twenty-seven further introductory lessons and 81 explained tasks address enquiry 7.4: the frontier debate, industrial resources and the Panic of 1893; Mahan, the Great White Fleet and Panama; Cuba, yellow journalism, Maine, the 1898 war and settlement, Teller and Platt, Dollar Diplomacy and Pacific expansion; Filipino independence, war and continuing resistance; neutrality, peace advocacy, submarine policy, the Zimmermann proposal, the war decision and intervention through 1918. Four selected comparisons distinguish treaty grants and policy arguments, independence and restrictions, protective claims and sovereignty, and a war request and a later defence of dissent. All four enquiries have introductory teaching, not verified full historical or assessment coverage. Deeper regional and African-source reading, subject-specialist review, full four-source sets, timed papers and calibrated marking remain unfinished. Existing 2026 teaching receives no automatic revised-year coverage credit.
Original teaching brief and analytical model
The opening brief is original StudyForA teaching prose, not a quotation or contemporary source. Imperialism and the emergence of world powers, c.1870–1918 belongs to International Paper 1 in 2027 and International Paper 2 in 2028 and 2029. Keep it separate from European and American alternatives and from the International Paper 4 Eastern Europe enquiry 7.1. Paper 1 Historical sources is 75 minutes and 40 marks: both parts of one question use four sources totalling at most 600 words, at least three written and up to one visual. Part (a) compares two sources for 15 marks; part (b) uses all four and contextual knowledge for a 25-mark judgement. Paper 2 Outline study is 105 minutes and 60 marks: answer two questions from one section, both parts of each, with a 10-mark causal explanation and a 20-mark argument. These lessons are not complete papers or calibrated assessment.
StudyForA teaching brief · original prose · Paris in 1898: different territorial outcomes
[1] Original analytical teaching prose, not a quotation or contemporary source. Read the treaty’s distinction between relinquishing Cuba and ceding other territories without treating Spain’s agreement as Filipino consent.
1. How far did the treaty establish an uncontested American empire?
Compare after trying
The Treaty of Paris substantially expanded the American position, but its effects cannot be understood through an undifferentiated list of annexations. Signed on 10 December 1898, it required Spain to relinquish its claim to Cuba while ceding Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines. Article I also addressed American occupation of Cuba, making the distinction important to subsequent relationships.
The Philippine payment was a financial provision between governments, not evidence that Filipinos had accepted American rule. The treaty records the agreement of Spain and the United States. It does not establish that those states’ claims were uncontested by the peoples concerned or that formal transfer had already produced complete control.
A judgement should therefore distinguish the enlarged claim to authority from its implementation and legitimacy. Hawaii’s annexation was a separate development, while Cuban occupation and Philippine resistance require further explanation. The treaty was a major instrument of expansion whose specific provisions mattered, but it was neither a uniform settlement for all territories nor proof that the political future of every affected community had been peacefully resolved.
Why this response fits
- Develop a reasoned judgement using dated and relevant evidence.
- Compare motives, means and outcomes; distinguish outside agreement and local consent.
- This original model is not an authentic source, calibrated examination script or Cambridge grade.
Read the date and parties
The Treaty of Paris between the United States and Spain was signed on 10 December 1898. It was an agreement between those states after the war, not a vote by the peoples whose futures it addressed. American Senate approval on 6 February 1899 was a separate stage. Signing, ratification processes and implementation should not be collapsed into one undated claim that the treaty solved every problem.
Distinguish the territorial provisions
Article I required Spain to relinquish its claim to Cuba and referred to American occupation. Articles II–III ceded Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines to the United States. The treaty also provided a payment of twenty million dollars to Spain in relation to the Philippines. Cuba was therefore not simply listed as a territory ceded to the United States on the same terms as the others.
Explain what the agreement does not prove
The text records what Spain and the United States agreed, not universal acceptance of their power to decide. Filipino independence claims and Cuban aspirations need their own evidence. A payment between governments is not a purchase of popular consent, and a formal transfer does not demonstrate complete control on the ground. The outbreak of fighting in the Philippines exposes the danger of treating a treaty as a full description of actual authority.
Evaluate expansion through different relationships
The settlement gave the United States a much wider position, but territorial cession, occupation and influence were different relationships. Hawaii’s annexation in 1898 was a separate process, not a Spanish concession in this treaty. A precise answer distinguishes places and terms before judging expansion. Further investigation of government, resistance and local experience is needed to establish the consequences of those formal arrangements.
Sources for this lesson
- Cambridge History 9489 · 2027–2029 · enquiry 7.4 pp. 31–32 · official Version 2 PDF retrieved; selected enquiry and rotation pages checked with the April 2025 update
- Cambridge History 9489 · 2027–2029 update · Version 2 changes, April 2025
- Treaty of Peace between the United States and Spain, 10 December 1898 · primary text, Yale Avalon; Cuba relinquished, other territories ceded
- US Office of the Historian · The Spanish–American War, 1898 · retired retrospective institutional account; Cuban agency, war and peace stages distinguished
- US Office of the Historian · The Philippine–American War, 1899–1902 · retired retrospective institutional account; formal endpoint and continuing resistance distinguished
Pause and explain
Which explanation best fits this lesson?
Worked example
How did Cuba’s treatment differ from that of Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines?
Show the worked solution
- Identify relinquishment in Article I.
- Identify cession in Articles II–III.
- Keep occupation distinct.
Answer Spain relinquished its claim to Cuba, with American occupation addressed, while it ceded Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines to the United States. The different language prevents a claim that all four places were simply annexed on identical terms.
Try a topic test
Choose Easy, Normal or Difficult. Save your answers and open worked review after finishing.
Test this topic →From guided practice to a new situation
Write your answer and reasoning first. Use a hint only if you are stuck. The model solution is for self-checking; your written work is not automatically marked.
Guided: How did Cuba’s treatment differ from that of Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines?
Give me a hint
Compare the treaty’s verbs and arrangements.
Compare my reasoning
- Identify relinquishment in Article I.
- Identify cession in Articles II–III.
- Keep occupation distinct.
Spain relinquished its claim to Cuba, with American occupation addressed, while it ceded Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines to the United States. The different language prevents a claim that all four places were simply annexed on identical terms.
Look for these in your work
- Uses dated evidence and explains a causal connection
- Distinguishes American policy arguments, practical capacity and the authority of affected societies
Independent: Why did the payment to Spain not establish Filipino consent?
Give me a hint
Identify who agreed and who was not being consulted.
Compare my reasoning
- Identify the treaty parties.
- Identify the payment.
- Ask for separate evidence of local acceptance.
The payment was part of an agreement between Spain and the United States. It did not record the consent of the Filipino population or extinguish independence aspirations in practice. Financial terms and political legitimacy are different questions.
Look for these in your work
- Uses dated evidence and explains a causal connection
- Distinguishes American policy arguments, practical capacity and the authority of affected societies
Transfer: How far did the treaty establish an uncontested American empire?
Give me a hint
Compare formal transfer with actual power.
Compare my reasoning
- Explain the expanded position.
- Distinguish territorial arrangements.
- Retain resistance and implementation.
The treaty greatly extended formal American claims and strategic possibilities, but the arrangements differed by territory. It did not demonstrate universal consent or complete practical control, and the Philippine conflict shows that formal cession could coexist with determined resistance.
Look for these in your work
- Uses dated evidence and explains a causal connection
- Distinguishes American policy arguments, practical capacity and the authority of affected societies
Common mistakes
- Cuba was relinquished, not ceded on the same terms as the Philippines.
- Hawaii was not a Spanish cession in the Treaty of Paris.
What can you explain now?
Which explanation best fits this lesson?
Compare with the explanation
Distinguish relinquishment, cession and occupation, then investigate consent and control
Cuba’s treaty provision differed from the cessions, Hawaii followed a separate process and the treaty parties did not constitute a referendum by affected peoples.
After trying it yourself, choose your next review. This is your self-assessment.
Your review choice appears on Today. Sign in to sync it across devices.
Make it stick
Which explanation best fits this lesson?
If you needed the solution, close it and solve the problem again from a blank page. A correct answer is stronger when you can explain the reason for each step.