Page images
PDF
EPUB

theretofore considered as belonging to Venezuela, in no manner affected the rights or interests of the United States. On the contrary, some critics rather openly hinted that the settlement of the disputed area by British subjects would give to the territory better chances for development under an assured good government, and that England's occupation of the tract would therefore inure to the advantage of American trade. So far as the wilds of the upper Orinoco were capable of civilized occupation, it would be better for the commercial interests of the world if they were under British jurisdiction than under the uncertain rule of a nation whose weak and faltering government has been throughout its history subject to constant revolution. American trade with Great Britain and with British possessions far exceeded the slender volume of American commerce with Venezuela. Indeed, to have imperilled even for a year the five hundred millions of trade with Great Britain for the sake of the annual two or three millions with Venezuela would have been a quixotic proceeding. This suspected expansion of British territory in South America involved no danger to the safety of the United States. England already possessed Canada with a contiguous boundary line of nearly three thousand miles. The islands of Newfoundland, Bermuda, the Bahamas, Jamaica, together with numerous smaller islands of the Lesser Antilles and Trinidad, already formed a chain of English naval posts along the coast of the United States. Belize and British Guiana supplemented these outposts, and all of these English possessions, barring the last, are nearer to the United States than is the territory in dispute, indeed, a direct line from the southernmost point of Florida to the mouth of the Orinoco River is about sixteen hundred miles. The addition of this tract of land to existing English possessions in the Western Hemisphere would have been, after all, a matter of little consequence. The country was a tropical jungle, where the maintenance of military forces would be impossible, on account of its extremely unhealthy climate; and such military posts as England would be likely to establish thereabouts would be located in her existing Guiana colony. Under these circumstances the danger to the United States arising out of British occupation appeared to be wholly imaginary. If British acquisition of this disputed territory lying so far distant could be justly regarded as threatening the safety of the United States, by similar process of reasoning, to what deplorable condition of helplessness is the American government reduced by the cordon of English possessions, naval stations, and fortified positions which have threatened it for one hundred years!

“Whatever may have been the dangers of European colonization in 1823, that danger had ceased to exist. English liberty is as well guarantied as American liberty. The English colonist is as jealous of his rights and as determined in the support of human freedom as is the American. Wherever he or his descendants go, industry, trade, commerce, civilization, and religion go with them. In reality, the English government in its actual administration more nearly approximates that of the United States than does the government of Venezuela."

IV

Mr. Cleveland, since his retirement from the presidency, has written a book entitled "Presidential Problems," in which he discusses this Venezuelan boundary case at some length, and with a show

of partisanship in favor of Venezuela, which serves merely to emphasize either his ignorance of conditions in that country or some latent antagonism towards Great Britain not justified by the facts of the controversy. In concluding his essay he says:

"I know that occasionally some Americans of a certain sort, who were quite un-American when the difficulty was pending, have been very fond of lauding the extreme forbearance and kindness of England toward us in our so-called belligerent and ill-advised assertion of American principle. Those to whom this is a satisfaction are quite welcome to it.

"My own surprise and disappointment have arisen more from the honest misunderstanding and the dishonest and insincere misrepresentation, on the part of many of our people, regarding the motives and purposes of the interference of the government of the United States in this affair. Some conceited and doggedly mistaken critics have said that it was dreadful for us to invite war for the sake of a people unworthy of our consideration, and for the purpose of protecting their possession of land not worthy possessing. It is certainly strange that any intelligent citizen, professing information on public affairs, could fail to see that when we aggressively interposed in this controversy it was because it was necessary in order to assert and vindicate a principle distinctively American, and in the maintenance of which the people and government of the United States were profoundly concerned. It was because this principle was endangered, and because those charged with the administrative responsibility would not abandon or neglect it, that our government interposed to prevent any further colonization of American soil by an European nation. In these circumstances neither the character of the people claiming the soil from Great Britain, nor the value of the lands in dispute, was of the least consequence to us; nor did it in the least concern us which of the two contestants had the best title to any part of the disputed territory, so long as England did not possess and colonize more than belonged to her however much or however little that might be. But we needed proof of the limits of her rights in order to determine our duty in defence of the Monroe Doctrine, and we sought to obtain such proof, and to secure peace through arbitration.

"But those among us who most loudly reprehended and bewailed our vigorous assertion of the Monroe Doctrine were the timid ones who feared personal financial loss, or those engaged in speculation and stock-gambling, in buying much beyond their ability to pay, and generally in living by their wits. The patriotism of such people traverses exclusively the pocket nerve. They are willing to tolerate the Monroe Doctrine, or any other patriotic principle, so long as it does not interfere with their plans, and are just as willing to cast it off when it becomes troublesome.

"I hope there are but few of our fellow-citizens who, in retrospect, do not acknowledge the good that has come to our nation through this episode in our history. It has established the Monroe Doctrine on lasting foundations before the eyes of the world; it has given us a better place in the respect and consideration of the people of all nations, and especially of Great Britain; it has again confirmed our confidence in the overwhelming prevalence among our citizens of disinterested devotion to American honor; and last, but by no means least, it has taught us where to look in the ranks of our countrymen for the best patriotism."

[ocr errors]

Mr. Cleveland's characterization of those who criticised his action in this case, as "Americans of a certain sort," or as "quite un-American," or as "timid ones who feared personal financial loss, or those engaged in speculation and stock-gambling," whose patriotism "traverses exclusively the pocket nerve," is on a par with the remainder of his most extraordinary actions in this case.

I must assure Mr. Cleveland that there are gentlemen, many of them, who do not belong to any of the classes he enumerates, who are just as patriotic American citizens as he is, fully as moral, conscientious, painstaking, well-balanced, conservative, intelligent, and quite as scholarly, and who know a thousand times as much about Venezuela as he knows, or ever will know, and who regard his action in the premises as bordering on criminal insanity.

Did not Mr. Cleveland know, does he not know now, that the very existence of the Monroe Doctrine depends upon the goodnatured tolerance of England?

If England had turned on her heel, and snapped her fingers, and said to Mr. Cleveland and his Secretary, Mr. Olney, "Your Monroe Doctrine is dead and the corpse stinks," does not every thinking man know that the thing in fact would have been dead beyond all possibility of resurrection ?

Every nation on this earth would have joined with England, should she have desired it, on that proposition. Mr. Cleveland stood ready with phlegmatic sangfroid to precipitate a wicked and indefensible war, of a magnitude which no human being could conceive, in all probability with the combined naval and military powers of the earth, while at the same time the party of which he is such a conspicuous member is eternally crying out with strident screeching against any increase of our own military or naval power, on the ground that it will lead to "militarism"!

And "in retrospect" I, at least, am one American who does "not now acknowledge the good that has come to our nation through this episode in our history," nor do I acknowledge that any good has come to any one from it. Nor do I believe that "it has established the Monroe Doctrine on lasting foundations before the eyes of the world," for I do not believe that such a monster of iniquity can be "firmly established" while there is sense and decency among men.

CHAPTER V

THE MONROE DOCTRINE-FOURTH PERIOD IN ITS HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT

D

URING the administration of President McKinley the United States took control of the Philippine Islands and Porto Rico, and, by the Platt amendment, placed certain limitations on Cuba. These acts were regarded by many persons as modifying in some way the Monroe Doctrine. It was argued, if the United States had reversed its traditional policy with reference to the Eastern Hemisphere by acquiring interest there, it must necessarily recede from its policy in the Western Hemisphere, known as the Monroe Doctrine, in virtue of which European nations were forbidden to acquire territorial interest here. This argument is not sound in logic. That a government may change its policy with reference to one hemisphere does not mean that it must change it with reference to the other. The administration of Theodore Roosevelt, however, has added considerable to the literature, if not to the actual history, of the Monroe Doctrine.

Unfortunately, American presidents and their secretaries of State are, as a class, men who have travelled but little; at any rate, their knowledge of the Latin-American dictatorships is very superficial. It would seem, with reference to these countries in which the United States is supposed to have such a direct and peculiar interest, that the American Secretary of State should be a man who had resided in some of them for at least three or four years, and should have a good working knowledge of the Spanish language and of the laws, history, and general conditions prevailing there. The semi-occasional executive pronunciamentos concerning the sacred Monroe Doctrine might then be entitled to a second reading. In the absence of this definite knowledge presidential expressions on the Monroe Doctrine are usually made up of little else than glittering generalities and platitudes.

I. PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT'S VIEWS OF THE MONROE DOCTRINE President Roosevelt declared that, as we could not under the Monroe Doctrine allow European nations to take possession of LatinAmerican territory, so we could not allow the Latin-American nations

so to conduct themselves as to make such action on the part of the European nations necessary. Those words look well in print, and would receive the thundering applause of an audience. But what do they mean? They mean either that it is our duty to establish civilized governments where there are now semi-barbarous governments, - that is, that it is our duty to see that foreigners are protected in their lives and property in Venezuela and the other lands of darkness; or they mean nothing! If they mean the former, they import the destruction of barbarism and the establishing of civilization in the Western Hemisphere; they signify a greater reformation and a stronger upward impetus to progress than has been recorded in the history of modern times; they indicate that Roosevelt's name will lead all the rest as a benefactor of mankind.

But is it true? Do Mr. Roosevelt's words mean what they say? Has the government of the United States, under Roosevelt, protected its own citizens in Latin America? Has it defended their lives, their liberty, or their property? Mr. Roosevelt has distinctly stated that he would not undertake to defend the rights of our citizens growing out of contracts with the Latin-American countries. How absurd, then, is it to talk in such grandiloquent terms about the United States preventing the Latin-American countries from making it necessary for the European governments to interfere for the protection of their citizens! If the government of the United States will not protect its own citizens - and it admits frankly that it will not why make any pretence of performing greater and more wonderful feats?

One action of President Roosevelt which will go to make a part of the history of the Monroe Doctrine is worthy of consideration. It relates to Santo Domingo, concerning which a message was sent by the President to the Senate in February, 1905. For years prior to this, Santo Domingo had been the scene of interminable bloodshed and virtual social dissolution. A three-cornered revolution had prevailed between the forces of Morales, Jimenez, and Gil y Wos. At times there were three governments; at other times none. Finally Morales, gaining substantial control of the warring factions, and finding his government confronted with serious problems at home and abroad, had the good sense to appeal to the United States for practical support. President Roosevelt endeavored to straighten matters out, but he was hampered in a serious manner by the inaction of the United States Senate in failing to ratify the protocol which he submitted to it. In his message to the Senate the President stated that conditions had been growing steadily worse in Santo Domingo for several years, owing to revolutions, and to the improvident management of the government, and that certain foreign countries were talking of taking possession of the custom houses, in order to satisfy the claims of their citizens.

Santo Domingo had violated many contracts and concessions,

« PreviousContinue »