Talk:Bombardment of San Juan

Porter or Wompatuck

I have conflicting accounts of this engagement, only one says a gunboat the USS Wompatuck participated in the battle and not USS Porter. All of the other reports I have researched say USS Porter was involved and Wompatuck is not mentioned. The painting in the battle box illustrates USS Porter that is how it will be written in the article. If anyone has information about whether or not Wompatuck was involved in the bombardment, please leave the information here for further editing, thank you all.--Az81964444 (talk) 21:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Outcome of Battle

The action was cited by the navy department as a great failure for sampson, as he failed to find the spanish fleet, let alone destroy the defenses of the harbour which remained intact throughout the entire length of the war. Sampson was chastised by American government officials for his actions at San Juan, what source do you have quoting that this is an American victory, all detailed accounts i have read state no such thing.XavierGreen (talk) 01:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes thats all mostly true but the fact remains that the Spanish fire gradually came to a halt due to American fire. The Spanish stopped firing first and that means a U.S. victory. The fact that Sampson did not find the Spanish squadron is irrelevant to the outcome of this battle. The defences did remain intact until the end of the war, which was only like 2 months long in the first place so that really doesn't matter. The source I wrote the article from clearly stated that massive damage was done to Morro Castle, the main Spanish fortification involved in the fighting. san Juan itself was significantly damaged as well. The actual engagement was not cited as a failure, the failed cruise to find the Spanish squadron was the "great failure" you write of. Where do you get the idea that the engagement was inconclusive, that doesn't make sense? --Az81964444 (talk) 02:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I think leaving the "result" section as saying just "San Juan damaged" can be a good spot in the middle. The engagement is certainly not regarded as a great American victoy, it was definately not a U.S. defeat and I don't understand how it could be considered indecisive so that is my reasoning as to why it should be left simply as "San Juan damaged".

"the Spanish fire gradually came to a halt due to American fire" isn't reflected in the article at all. Who are you to decide what was "irrelevant" to Sampson's mission. Find a source that states categorically that Sampson's failure was "irrelevant", and that the defences remaining intact "didn't really matter". For all I can see here is an unreferenced article and an editor drawing some bizarre conclusions from it. --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 08:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The Bombardment was entirely relevent to sampsons mission because it achieved nothing while distracting him from searching for the Spanish fleet, which as a result managed to reach Cuba without .being engaged by Sampsons forceXavierGreen (talk) 15:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Outcome

The bombardment of San Juan was a dismal failure for the Americans. The forts never fell, no amphibious landing was done, and the city remained intact. In fact, Puerto Rico never fell to the Americans. The Governor correctly surmised that attempting to contest a landing anywhere other than San Juan would only lead to massive civilian casualties, since only San Juan was fortified. The Americans were allowed to land unopposed at Guanica, the intent being a decisive battle at El Asomante, the flat ridge in the mountains between the south and San Juan. Only a brief shooting duel between mountain batteries was done, which resulted in a direct hit by the Spanish gun, which silenced the American gun. Then a rider from San Juan appeared with the news that Spain had capitulated, and the Spanish garrison was to lay its arms down. Orders were followed, and the war was over, but Puerto Rico never fell in battle in 500 years.98.162.136.248 (talk) 01:01, 12 March 2019 (UTC)