It is safe to say that without them, things would not have gotten so heated so quickly, though there was already strong sentiment against Spain. The American public was already upset about the alleged atrocities being committed in Cuba by the Spanish during their war for independence. President McKinley would have preferred a negotiated settlement, but the USS Maine incident pushed things along. Instead of objective journalism, they both had their papers launch into blaming the Spanish. There is, after all, some considerable doubts to the idea that the Spanish would have blown up the USS Maine. A coal bunker fire causing a magazine to detonate seems like a reasonable conclusion here. There are plenty of conflicting opinions here, however.

As for the freedom part of your question, I will avoid getting too much into the politics, but I will say that Cuba was granted its formal independence from the US protectorate relatively soon after the end of hostilities -- during Theodore Roosevelt's first term, they were granted it (May 2nd, 1902). From reading Theodore Rex, my impression is that the four years under US control were not all that bad. A few years after independence, there was an insurrection, and the US stepped in to install Charles Magoon as governor. I'm not as familiar with this period and would have to look into it further.

(The occupation of the Philippines, however, went considerably longer and was entirely much more brutal. There were investigations during TR's presidency that indicated that there were serious problems, possibly even what we would call war crimes today. In this area, I can see the "freedom" question being more relevant.)

Posts consisting of nothing but "What happened here?" or "Comment graveyard", etc, will be removed; top level comments in AskHistorians must be focused on answering OP's question in depth.

Read this thread for our reasoning behind these removals.

If you want to comment on our moderation, this is not the place. Here is the most current meta-thread - please post there.

This answer that I wrote a while back about the escalation of US intervention in Cuban affairs (as well as the rest of thread) might be of use in explaining how the US became involved in the first place. "Freedom" is a very flexibly defined term when it comes to diplomatic rhetoric, as it can be applied to states, the general public, and/or specific groups as is most convenient to the speaker's interests, so it might be helpful to rewind a bit further and get down to more basic assumptions. So, continuing to speak with Luis Perez/Cuba and the United States: Ties of Singular Intimacy as my base:

As far as yellow journalism goes, I think the crucial component that American journalism brought to the table was a sort of hyper-awareness of Spanish misconduct, both real and made-up or exaggerated. This provided a coherent plotline that could be delivered to the public whenever intervention of any form in Cuba served an intersecting interest, which at various times in the 19th century took many different forms right up until Reconcentration under Weyler and the Maine provided the finishing touches. This is, of course, especially true with the explosion of the Maine, although it's an open question how much a genuinely reluctant US government could have done to defuse that had they been so inclined.

So I don't know how well that answers your question, but if you are familiar with more recent US wars, you know how important a coherent storyline is for pitching the war to the American people.