Page images
PDF
EPUB

of an alliance between ourselves and the South American republics no one who has travelled in South America can be ignorant. As has been well said by a recent Peruvian writer : "Essential points of difference separate the two Americas. Differences of language, and therefore of spirit; the difference between Spanish Catholicism and the multiform Protestantism of the Anglo-Saxons; between the Yankee individualism and the omnipotence of the State natural to the South. In their origin, as in their race, we find fundamental antagonisms; the evolution of the North is slow and obedient to the lessons of time, to the influences of custom; the history of the Southern peoples is full of revolution, rich with dreams of an unattainable perfection."

One of the things which make it and will continue to make it difficult for us to treat fairly with our Southern neighbors is our racial prejudice against the half-breed. As Señor Calderon bluntly says: "Half-breeds and their descendants govern the LatinAmerican republics;" and it is a well-known fact that this leads to contempt on the part

of the average Anglo-Saxon. In the United States a "half-white" counts as a negro. In South America he counts as a white. The difference in viewpoint is absolutely fundamental. Such a state of affairs shows the difficulty of assuming that Pan-Americanism is axiomatic, and of basing the logical growth of the Monroe Doctrine on natural sympathy."

In the third place, the new form of the Monroe Doctrine declared, in the words of Secretary Olney, that the "United States is practically sovereign on this continent." This at once aroused the antagonism and the fear of those very Southern neighbors who, in another sentence, he had endeavored to prove were "friends and allies, commercially and politically, of the United States." And their fears seem to have been justified by the facts.

II

The truth is that in the later 80's and early 90's, having completely recovered from the effects of the Civil War, and starting on an

era of great prosperity, we were "feeling our oats," as the saying goes, and were inclined to be somewhat frisky where any questions of Latin-American foreign policy were concerned.

First there was the Barrundia affair. General Barrundia, exiled from Guatemala in '85, had violated the neutrality laws of Mexico and taken passage on a United States merchantman which touched at the ports of his native land. The authorities of Guatemala demanded his surrender, but the captain of the steamer declined. The American minister and the commander of an American man-of-war in those waters were brought into the discussion. They decided that by the rules and precedents of international law the United States could not object to the exercise of local police jurisdiction over a merchantman while she was lying in the waters of another country. Guatemalan soldiers then attempted to arrest General Barrundia, who was killed in the scuffle that followed. The American minister and our naval officer had acted with absolute propriety, and yet, such was

the temper of the American people over this action that the minister was recalled and the officer was removed from his command with a reprimand. In other words, we virtually denied the right of Guatemala to be treated with the respect due to a free and independent state.

In 1890, during the war between Guatemala and Salvador, the good offices of the United States were tendered in an effort to mediate between the warring Central American powers. Our suggestion was not only refused, but resented; our consulate at San Salvador was attacked, and as a result we sent two men-of-war to Salvador and forced a promise of reparation.

In 1891 we again overstepped the rules of international law, and denied the right of one of the contestants in the civil war in Chile to purchase arms on the Pacific Coast. It has always been considered lawful for merchants to sell arms to all the world, at peace or at war. Arms were sold and shipped by the steamer "Itata." The transaction was not a guilty one, but one of our men-of-war chased the "Itata" for thou

sands of miles and finally brought her back to San Diego, where she was kept several months awaiting trial. The case against her was eventually dismissed, for she had committed no breach of international law in the judgment of our own courts. The seizure of the "Itata" was the cause of very bitter feeling arising in Chile. Aided by other events which it is not necessary to go into here, it resulted in the "Baltimore" episode, when two of our sailors on shore leave were killed in the streets of Valparaiso. We did not like the dilatory tactics of Chilean law and procedure. We refused to respect the decision of the Chilean courts, and we issued an ultimatum which, although extremely distasteful to Chile, forced her to take our view of the case. There is no question that the American people took an immense amount of satisfaction in riding rough-shod over Chile at that time, and did it without the slightest notion that we had given the Chileans abundant cause to feel that with us might meant right. In commenting on this episode in 1892 Professor Woolsey very justly said: “... It means, in the first place, a

« PreviousContinue »