Which 1898 Cuban resolution did not seek annexation? A closer look at four congressional actions

History sometimes feels like a courtroom scene in your mind—claims on one side, evidence on the other, and the big question hanging in the air: what did the people in power actually intend? For students in LMHS NJROTC, that question isn’t just academic. It’s a habit you’ll use again and again—in debates, in briefings, and in any moment you’re asked to weigh a claim against the record.

Let me give you a little snapshot from history that’s perfect for sharpening that habit: April 19, 1898, when Congress passed four resolutions about Cuba. The quiz question you might see asks which statement is NOT one of those resolutions. The options look simple, but the truth hides in the details and in the larger story those details tell about U.S. aims, power, and responsibility.

A quick snapshot of the four statements

• A. The president was directed to use American forces to enforce these resolutions.

• B. The United States declared that it would annex Cuba.

• C. Withdrawal of all Spanish forces was demanded.

• D. All resolutions were passed unanimously.

If you’re spotting the catch, you’ve already started thinking like a history detective. The correct choice is B: The United States declared that it would annex Cuba. That specific claim doesn’t fit the resolutions that Congress approved on that day. Instead, the focus was on helping Cuba become independent from Spain, and it authorized the use of U.S. military force to make that happen. Annexation? That idea isn’t what those resolutions were about.

Why that distinction matters

• The human stakes were high. News of Cuban suffering under Spanish rule had sparked humanitarian concerns, but the motivations weren’t just soft-hearted sympathy. There were strategic interests at play—protecting American citizens, safeguarding economic ties, and shaping a regional balance of power in the Caribbean.

• The resolutions signaled intent, not a formal plan to absorb Cuba as a new American state. The language aimed at withdrawal of Spanish forces and support for Cuban independence, paired with the President’s authority to use force to back those aims.

• The Teller Amendment looms in the background. If you know a thing or two about the period, you’ll remember that Congress later framed U.S. involvement in Cuba with the Teller Amendment, which declared that the United States would not annex Cuba after defeating Spain. That line of reasoning flows from the same impulse behind the April 19 resolutions: intervene to help independence, not to add a new sovereign to the union.

A little context that helps the dots connect

Think of these events as part of a larger shift in U.S. policy at the end of the 19th century. The United States was transitioning from a relatively isolated posture to a more world-facing one. The Spanish-American War, which would soon follow, was not just about a single war—it was about redefining the United States’ role on the global stage. In the air were questions of humanitarian concern, national security, and what power the United States should claim in the Western Hemisphere.

For LMHS NJROTC cadets, this isn’t just trivia. It’s a case study in reading a history moment with nuance. When you see a multiple-choice item, the tempting trap is to assume the question wants the boldest move or the most dramatic principle. But real historical questions usually settle on what was actually written, voted on, and then acted upon. The April 19 resolutions show that moment: a push to support Cuban independence, backed by U.S. military means, and a sense of broad, not unanimous, yet substantial, agreement in Congress.

How to read this kind of primary-source summary without getting tangled

• Track the verb choices. The emphasis on “withdrawal,” “use of force,” and “independence” reveals the core aims. If you see “annexation” pop up, pause. That word signals a fundamentally different intent than the other statements.

• Look for the sequence. What comes first? What gets tied to what? In this case, forcing a withdrawal and using force come before any notion of absorbing Cuba. The order matters for understanding motive.

• Tie it to broader frameworks. The later Teller Amendment matters because it reinforces the idea that U.S. involvement in Cuba was not a pathway to statehood for Cuba. It helps explain why the annexation option isn’t listed among the resolutions.

• Check the tone. Was the language framed as a demand, a condition, or a promise? The resolutions read as a call to action with humanitarian and strategic aims, not as a pledge of incorporation.

A quick digression that still stays on point

If you’ve ever been in a drill or a briefing, you know how important clarity of orders is. A commander doesn’t want fuzzy instructions—he wants a clear mission and boundaries. History works the same way. The April 19 resolutions show a mission banner: end Spanish rule, protect Cuban independence, and empower the U.S. to act. The boundary line wasn’t “let’s take Cuba for ourselves.” It was “let Cuba decide its own destiny, with some U.S. support on the way.” That nuance is the difference between a decisive move and a misread claim.

Why this matters beyond the classroom

• In world affairs, the distinction between intervention for humanitarian or strategic reasons and annexation is not just academic. It shapes policy debates to this day—about when to intervene, how to protect civilians, and how to balance national interests with global responsibility.

• In your own leadership roles, whether in NJROTC or in school clubs, you’ll be weighing rhetoric against actions. Understanding how a single historical moment balanced humanitarian concern, national interest, and constitutional limits can inform how you interpret current events, briefings, and mandates.

• The example also highlights a practical skill in research: cross-checking a summary with the broader historical record. When you see a claim about what a government did or didn’t do, ask where that claim comes from, what it presumes, and what it leaves out.

A neat, memorable takeaway

• The key message of the April 19, 1898 moment is simple, but powerful: the United States moved to support Cuban independence with the backing of American forces, but it did not declare that Cuba would become a U.S. state. The idea of annexation wasn’t part of those four resolutions, and later constitutional and legislative actions—like the Teller Amendment—kept the door open to independence rather than permanent incorporation.

Bringing it home to daily study and curiosity

If you’re exploring history for LMHS NJROTC or any rigorous program, here are a couple of quick habits that help you stay sharp:

• Build a small mental map of a key moment: who’s involved, what each side wants, and what actions they take. This makes it easier to sort fact from interpretation.

• Tie questions to a timeline. Even a rough sequence helps anchor your understanding and makes complex events feel more tangible.

• Practice with a few “what does this imply?” prompts. For example, what would annexation have meant for international relations in the late 19th century? How did the Teller Amendment shift American policy after this moment?

A final, friendly nudge

History isn’t just about memorizing a list of facts. It’s about learning how to read, reason, and relate. The April 19 resolutions are a compact lesson in intent, power, and restraint. They remind us that words on a page carry weight and that, sometimes, the absence of a particular claim (in this case, annexation) can tell you as much as what is stated outright.

So next time you encounter a set of statements about a historical moment, try this approach: identify the core aim, note what is being asked or commanded, watch for what isn’t said, and connect the dots to a larger arc in history. You’ll find the narrative begins to click, and with it, your own ability to think clearly under pressure—whether you’re in a classroom, at a briefing, or guiding a team through a tricky question of cause and effect.

If you’re curious to explore more about how these resolutions shaped U.S. policy and how historians interpret similar moments, you’ll find plenty of reliable sources at libraries and museum collections, from the Library of Congress to reputable historical encyclopedias. They’re excellent companions when you want to see the actual wording and the context around it—because that’s where the real understanding begins: with careful reading, a keen eye for intent, and a healthy dose of curiosity.