Final answer:
The question of whether the U.S. should have taken control of Cuba post-Spanish-American War is multifaceted. Although it did not formally annex Cuba, the U.S. exerted significant influence through the Platt Amendment and economic interest, while adhering to the promise of the Teller Amendment to respect Cuban sovereignty.
Step-by-step explanation:
When considering historically thinking, whether the United States should have taken control of Cuba at the end of the Spanish-American War presents a complex ethical and strategic question. After the war, the U.S. had an influential role in Cuba, exemplified by the Platt Amendment which dictated U.S. intervention rights and economic interests, indicating an indirect control rather than outright annexation. This control was justified by some Americans through the notion of an 'empire of liberty' with the intent to protect stability and interests in the region. However, for Cubans seeking full independence, the U.S. involvement was seen as a continuation of imperialism that thwarted true sovereignty.
The U.S. had attempted to purchase Cuba beforehand, showing a long-standing interest in the island for its strategic and economic value. Ultimately, the decision not to annex Cuba directly but to maintain significant influence aligned with both the Teller Amendment, which promised U.S. withdrawal to respect Cuba's sovereignty, and American foreign policy interests of ensuring Cuba's independence from all nations other than Spain.