Page images
PDF
EPUB

departure from the old and safe policy of the fathers. It means courting rather than avoiding foreign entanglements. It means one collision after another, each with its sulphurous war-cloud about it. It means the violation of former precedents, setting up new ones in their stead which may prove awkward, even dangerous. It will encourage aggressions upon weak neighbors. It will make this country hated and distrusted by its natural friends. It will weaken its commercial position on this continent, throwing trade into other channels than our own. Years must pass before Chile can forget her bitter experiences at the hands of the United States and open her arms to our trade freely. International trade is largely based on sentiment."

In 1892, owing to a revolution in Venezuela, we deemed it necessary to send two men-of-war. An American merchantman violated the paper blockade. Our consulate on the Orinoco River was attacked, and hard feelings were engendered on both sides.

In 1893, during the civil war in Brazil, five men-of-war were sent into Brazilian

waters, under the command of Admiral Benham. He had no intention of allowing the naval party in the civil war to interfere with American merchant shipping, nor of recognizing rules tacitly admitted by foreign vessels. Two United States merchantmen entered the harbor and proposed to draw up to the docks to discharge. Admiralda Gama, in charge of the naval forces, notified the masters of these vessels that they could not moor to the wharves, as the district was within the fire zone. The shipmasters appealed to Admiral Benham, who immediately ordered the merchantmen to go up to the wharves, and notified the Brazilian admiral that he would open fire upon the insurgent squadron if any interference was attempted. There were then five American men-of-war in the harbor, and the Brazilian admiral could make no effective resistance in the face of this superior force. One of his cruisers did order the merchantmen to heave-to when on their way to the docks, but the U. S. S. "Detroit" immediately fired two shots at the Brazilian vessel, and the merchantmen were allowed to proceed.

This action was a great blow to the prestige of the naval party in the civil war. Their strongest resource had been their ability to prevent the land forces from having communication by sea with the outside world. Partly as a result of this, the naval party lost the cause for which they were fighting. The consequent anti-American attitude of their friends and supporters may easily be imagined.

In 1894 occurred the Bluefields incident in Nicaragua, when it was necessary for us to send two men-of-war in order to prevent the banishment of hated Americans who had interfered in a local revolution.

In 1895 came the Venezuela boundary dispute and the enunciation of the new Monroe Doctrine by Secretary Olney, already described.

Our actions fitted in with his words. And we were soon to justify still further the fear and apprehension of our South American neighbors. Less than three years after the enunciation of the new Doctrine we were at war with Spain. The progress of the war in Cuba and the Spanish colonies was fol

lowed in South America with the keenest interest. How profoundly it would have surprised the great American public to realize that while we were spending blood and treasure to secure the independence of another American republic, our neighbors in Buenos Aires were indulging in the most severe and caustic criticism of our motives! This attitude can be appreciated only by those who have compared the cartoons published week after week, during the progress of the war, in this country and in Argentina. In the one, Uncle Sam is pictured as a benevolent giant, saving the poor maid, Cuba, from the jaws of the ferocious dragon, General Weyler, and his cruel mistress in Spain. In the other, Uncle Sam in the guise of a fat hog is engaged in besmirching the fair garments of the Queen of Spain in his violent efforts to gobble up her few American possessions. Representations of our actions in the Philippines are in such disgusting form that it would not be desirable to attempt to describe some of the Argentine cartoons touching upon that subject.

Our neighbors felt that a decided change

had come over the Monroe Doctrine! In 1823 we had declared that "with the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we have not interfered, and shall not interfere" (so runs the original Monroe Doctrine). In 1898 we not only interfered, but actually took away all of Spain's colonies and dependencies, freeing Cuba, retaining for ourselves Porto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines, and eventually securing a valuable naval station at Guantanamo on the island of Cuba.

Without for a moment wishing to enter into a discussion of the wisdom of our actions, I desire to emphasize the tremendous difference between the old and the new Monroe Doctrine. This is not a case of theories and arguments, but of deeds. What are the facts?

In 1895 we declare that we are practically sovereign on this continent, and we follow up this declaration three years later, as a result of the Spanish War, by actually increasing the extent of our possessions and thoroughly justifying the alarm of our neighbors. The immediate result was to treble our difficulties throughout Latin America.

« PreviousContinue »