Download 1890—i909 Empire and Expansion - West Windsor

Empire and Expansion,
1 890—i 909
It has been a splendid little war [with Spain]; begun
with the highest motives, carried on with magnificent
intelligence and spirit, favored by that fortune which
loves the brave.
John Hay, 1898
Prologue: As the nineteenth century neared its sunset, as the frontier closed and
factories and farms poured out exportable surpluses. Americans increasingly looked
outward. Spain, struggling to crush a rebellion in Cuba, became the focus of Ameri
can wrath and ambition. Goaded b the new “yellow journalism.” the probusiness
administration of William McKinley forced a showdown with Spain over Cuba and
soon found itself at war in both the Caribbean and the far Pacific, where Spain’s
Philippine colony was ripe for plucking. Although Cuba was freed from Spanish
domination, the United States long compromised Cuba’s full independence under
the terms of the controversial Platt Amendment. The liberated Filipinos also chafed
under American rule, mounting a bloody insurrection that dragged on for seven
years. Imperialists and anti-imperialists hotly debated the wisdom and morality of
America’s new international role. Theodore Roosevelt, assuming the presidency
after McKinley’s assassination in 1901, pursued an especially assertive foreign poi
icy. He secured the Panama Canal Zone for the United States and proceeded to
build an isthmian canal. With the “Roosevelt Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine, he
asserted the right of the United States to intervene throughout the Caribbean and
Central America. By mediating a settlement at the end of the Russo-Japanese War in
1905, he won the Nobel Peace Prize. And by interceding in the quarrel between Cal
ifornia and Japan over Japanese immigration, he hammered out the “Gentlemen’
s
Agreement” to stem the flow of ,Japanese immigrants.
A. Yellow Journalism in Flower
I. Jose ph Pulitzer Demands intervention (1897)
The oppressed Oibans ret’olted in 7895, and the Spanish corn mande,; General Vale
riano (Butcher’) Wylei; tried to crush them by herding them into pesthole concen
tration camps. Atrocities on both sides were inevitable, but the United States heard
little of Cuban misdeeds. The American vellou’press. with Joseph Pulitzerc New York
World and William Randolph Hearst s New York Journal competing in sensational
ism, headlined lurid horror tales. The basic principle of the so-called new journalism
seemed to be An vthing to Sell a Paper” regardless of’ the truth. A World reporter
wrote from Cuba that slaughtered rebels were fed to dogs and that children of highranking Spanish ,fhmilies clamoredfor Cuban ears as playthings. Thefollowing edi
torial in Pi thtzer s World demanded action. What point orj)oiIlts probably made the
heaviest impact on the American public?
How long are the Spaniards to drench Cuba with the blood and tears of her
people?
how long is the peasantry of Spain to be drafted away to Cuba to die miserably
in a hopeless war, that Spanish nobles and Spanish officers may get medals and
honors?
flow long shall old [Cuban] men and women and children he murdered by the
score, the innocent victims of Spanish rage against the patriot armies they cannot
conquer’?
flow long shall the sound of rifles in Castle Morro [in Cuba] at sunrise proclaim
that bound and helpless prisoners of war have been murdered in cold blood?
How long shall Cuban women be the victims of Spanish outrages and lie sob
bing and bruised in loathsome prisons?
flow long shall women passengers on vessels flying the American flag be un
lawfully seized and stripped and searched by brutal, jeering Spanish officers, in vio
lation of the laws of nations and of the honor of the United States?*
I low long shall American citizens, arbitrarily arrested while on peaceful and le
gitimate errands, be immured in foul Spanish prisons without trial?
How long shall the navy of the United States be used as the sea police of bar
barous Spain?
How long shall the United States sit idle and indifferent within sound and hear
ing of rapine and murder?
Ho\v long?
‘Vew York World, February 13, 1897.
The most highly puhlici7ed case actually involved an examination by a police matron.
Americans of Cuban
tBy 1897 there v ere few, if any. U.S. citizens in Cuban prisons, even naturalized
birth.
I
/J
2. William Randolph Hearst Stages a Rescue (1897)
William Randolph Hearsi. the irresponsible Califbrnia pla’boy who had inherited
some $20 million from his /itbei; was cccii more ingen jolts than his archrii ‘aijoseph
Pulitzer. He is said to have boasted (with undue credit to himself) that it cost him $3
million to bring on the Spanish-American War fie outdid himsef in the case of
Evangelina Cisneros. a “tender!)’ nit ilured” Cuban girl of eighteen who was impris
oned in Havana on charges of rebellion and reportedly faced a twenty-year incar
ceration with depraved fellow inmates. The yellow press pictured her as a beautiful
yolmg woman whose only crime had been to preserve her virtue against the lustfhi
adi ‘a nces of a “lecherous’ 5pan ish officer lien rst New York Journal whipped up a
storm of sympathy for the girl and inspired appeals to the Spanish queen and to the
Pope. All else frilling, a Journal reporter rented a house next to the prison, drugged
the inmates, sawed through the cell ba,:c. and—using ajbrged visa —escaped with
Señorita C’isneros disguised as a boy. What does this account in the Journal reveal
about the character and the techniques o/the new wllou’/ournalism?
EVANGELINA CISNEROS RESCUED BY THE JOURNAL
AN AMERICAN NEWSPAPER ACCOMPLISHES AT A SINGLE
STROKE WHAT THE RED TAPE OF DIPLOMACY
FAILED UTTERLY TO BRING ABOUT IN
MANY MONTHS
By Charles Duval
(Copyright. 1897. by \V. R. Hearst)
Havana, Oct. 7, via Key West, Fla., Oct. 9.—Evangelina Cosio y Cisneros is at lib
erty, and the Journal can place to its credit the greatest journalist coup of this age. It
is an illustration of the methods of new journalism and it will find an endorsement
in the heart of every woman who has read of the horrible sufferings of the poor girl
who has been confined for fifteen long months in Recojidas Prison.
The journal, finding that all other methods were unavailing, decided to secure
her liberation through force, and this, as the specially selected commissioner of the
Journal, I have succeeded in doing.
I have broken the bars of Recojidas and have set free the beautiful captive of
monster Weyler, restoring her to her friends and relatives, and doing by strength,
skill, and strategy what could not be accomplished by petition and urgent request of
the Pope.
Weyler could blind the Queen to [thel real character of Evangelina, but he could
not build a jail that would hold against ournal enterprise when properly set to work.
Tonight all Havana rings with the story. It is the one topic of conversation;
everything else pales into insignificance.
ATeu’ York Journal. October 10, 1897.
I / ‘t
l..[J(LJ}tt(
,
/
Lh’1jJUt L4ItL4 1jJ(4tJiiF.
L)_’L±’’’
B. The Declaration of War
I. President McKinley Submits a War Message (1898)
Despite Spain c belated concessions, McKinley sent his war message to Congress on
April 11, 1898. His nerves were giving way under the constant clamor Jbr wai his
heart u’ent out to the mistreated Cubans. (He had anon)’;nouslv contributed S5.000
Jbr their relief ) He realized that Spain ojfrr of an armistice, at the discretion of its
commande,; did not guarantee peace. The rebels had to agree on terms, and Spain
had shown a talent Jhr breaking promises mid protracting negotiations. Further
dela’ would only’ worsen the terrible conditions. Among the reasons that McKinley
here gives congress fbr intervention, which are the soundest and which the weakest?
Was there danger in ultervennig for hunmnitauian reasons?
The grounds for such intervention may be l)riefly summarized as follows:
First. In the cause of humanity and to put an end to the barbarities, bloodshed.
starvation, and horrible miseries now existing there, and which the parties to the
conflict are either unable or unwilling to stop or mitigate. It is no answer to say this
is all in another country, belonging to another nation, and is therefore none of our
business. It is specially our duty, for it is right at our door.
Second. We O\\ u it to our citizens in Cuba to afford them that protection and in
clemnity for life and property which no government there can or will afford, and to
that end to terminate the conditions that deprive them of legal protection.
Third. The right to intervene may be justified by the very serious injury to the
commerce, trade, and business of our people and by the wanton destruction of
property and devastation of the island.
Fourth, and which is of the utmost importance. The present condition of affairs
in Cuba is a constant menace to our peace, and entails upon this government an
enormous expense. With such a conflict waged for years in an island so near us and
with which our people have such trade and business relations; when the lives and
liberty of our citizens are in constant danger and their property destroyed and them
selves ruined: where our trading vessels are liable to seizure and are seized at our
very door by warships of a foreign nation: the expeditions of filibustering [freeboot
ingi that we are powerless to prevent altogether. and the irritating questions and en
tanglements thus arising—all these and others that I need not mention, with the
resulting strained relations. are a constant menace to our peace and compel us to
keep on a semi-war footing with a nation with which we are at peace.
These elements of clangc’r and disorder already pointed out have been strikingly
illustrated by a tragic event which has deeply and justly moved the American people.
I have already transmitted to Congress the report of the Naval Court of Inquiry on the
destruction of the l)attleship IIaine in the harbor of Havana during the night of the
15th of February. The destruction of that noble vessel has filled the national heart with
inexpressible horror. Two hundred and fifty-eight brave sailors and marines and two
‘James D. Richardson, ed Messages and Pape,s o/the Presidents (New York: Bureau of National I.itera—
tore. 1899). vol. 10. pp. 1 -i. 1U. passim.
officers of our Navy, reposing in the fancied security of a friendly harbor, have been
hurled to death, [andi grief and want brought to their homes and sorrow to the nation.
The Naval Court of Inquiry, which, it is needless to say, commands the unqual
ified confidence of the government, was unanimous in its conclusion that the de
struction of the Maine was caused by an exterior explosion—that of a submarine
mine.* It did not assume to place the responsibility. That remains to he fixed.
In any event, the destruction of the Maine. by whatever exterior cause, is a
patent and impressive proof of a state of things in Cuba that is intolerable. That con
dition is thus shown to be such that the Spanish government cannot assure safety
and security to a vessel of the American Navy in the harbor of Havana on a mission
of peace, and rightfully there.
[McKinley here refers to the offer by the Spanish minister to arbitrate the Maine,
and simply adds, “To this I have made no reply. “I
The long trial has proved that the object for which Spain has waged the war
cannot he attained. The fire of insurrection may flame or may smolder with varying
seasons, hut it has not been, and it is plain that it cannot he, extinguished by present
methods. The only hope of relief and repose from a condition which can no longer
be endured is the enforced pacification of Cuba. In the name of humanity, in the
name of civilization, in behalf of endangered American interests which give us the
right and the duty to speak and to act, the war in Cuba must stop.
The issue is now with the Congress. It is a solemn responsibility. I have ex
hausted every effort to relieve the intolerable condition of affairs which is at our
doors. Prepared to execute every obligation imposed upon me by the Constitution
and the law, I await your action.
Yesterday, and since the preparation of the foregoing message, official informa
tion was received by me that the latest decree of the Queen Regent of Spain directs
General Blanco, in order to prepare and facilitate peace, to proclaim a suspension of
hostilities, the duration and details of which have not yet been communicated to me.
This fact, with every other pertinent consideration, will, I am sure, have your just
and careful attention in the solemn deliberations upon which you are about to
enter. If this measure attains a successful result, then our aspirations as a Christian,
peace-loving people will be realized. If it fails, it will he only another justification for
our contemplated action.
[The president had prepared the foregoing war message a week or so before he
submitted it; the delay was primarily to permit US. citizens to flee Guba. Afew hours
before McKinley finally moved, cablegrams from Minister Stewart Woodjbrd in
Madrid brought the news that Spain, having already revoked reconcentration (the
policy of herding Cuban rebels into concentration camps), had met the rest of the
presidents demands by authorizing an armistice. So, at the end of a message that
urged wa,; McKinley casually tacked on the two fOregoing paragraphs hinting that
hostilities might be avoided. Eight days later a bellicose Congress overwhelmingly
passed what was in effect a declaration of way Several years after the event General
*Assuming that the outside-explosion theory is correct—and it has been seriously challenged—the Maine
might have been blown up by Cuban insurgents seeking to involve the United States in the war.
I /
urJcspiL’r
/
rttipir&
((rut
1Ix/Ja,131v/t,
iô,’u—iiijy
WzocUord to/cl the journalist and reJbrmer 0. 6. Ui/lard. ‘When Isent that last cable
to McKinley. I thought [should nake up the next morning to/hid in yseif acclaimed
all 01cr the United States fir hating achieved the greatest thplomatic victor)’ in our
historj’. “Instead, he learned of the war message. (0. G. l
illard. Fighting Years /New
7
}brk: Harcourt, Brace and 6o.. 19$9]. p. 136.)!
2. Professor Charles Eliot Norton’s
Patriotic Protest (1898)
Lovable and irnrnenselj’populai; Charles Eliot IYorton served for many years a! liar
,‘ard as professor of the history c?fthefine arts. A/ter u’ar broke out, he shocked pith
/ic opinion with a speech in Citmbridge zllgiiig )‘oung men not to enlist. The press
denounced hun as one of the “intellectual copperheads. lIcKinley had recom
mended war in the ill/crests of civilization: Norton here urges an opposite course.
Who had the sounder aiguinents? Wtis it more patriotic to protest than to acquiesce?
“
And now of a sudden, without cool deliberation, without prudent preparation,
the nation is hurried into war, and America, she who more than any other land was
pledged to peace and good will on earth, unsheathes her sword, compels a weak
and unwilling nation to a fight, rejecting without due consideration her [Spain’s]
earnest and repeated offers to meet every legitimate demand of the United States. It
is a bitter disappointment to the lover of his country; it is a turning hack from the
path of civilization to that of barbarism.
“There never was a good war,” said [Benjamin] Franklin. There have indeed
been many wars in which a good man must take part
But if a war he under
taken for the most righteous end, before the resources of peace have been tried and
proved vain to secure it, that war has no defense. It is a national crime. The plea that
the better government of Cuba, and the relief of the reconcentrados could only be
secured by war is the plea either of ignorance or of hypocrisy.
But the war is declared; and on all hands we hear the cry that he is no patriot
who fails to shout for it, and to urge the youth of the country to enlist, and to rejoice
that they are called to the service of their native land. The sober counsels that were
appropriate before the war was entered upon must give way to blind enthusiasm,
and the voice of condemnation must he silenced by the thunders of the guns and
the hurrahs of the crowd.
Stop! A declaration of war does not change the moral law. The Ten Command
ments will not budge” at a joint resolve of Congress.
No! the voice of protest, of
,
.
.
warning, of appeal is never more needed than when the clamor of fife and drum,
echoed by the press and too often by the pulpit. is bidding all men fall in and keep
step and obey in silence the tyrannous word of command. Then, more than ever, it
is the duty of the good citizen not to he silent, and spite of obliquity, misrepresen
tation, and abuse, to insist on being heard, and with sober counsel to maintain the
everlasting validity of the principles of the moral law.
Puhlic
2
Opinion
2- (June 23, 1898): 75—776.
U. JIJ ±&uute Ut&i 11i1JJ[LUt1Mrt
I /
/
C. The Debate over Imperialism
I. Albert Beveridge Trumpets Imperialism (l898)
AlbertJ. Beveridge delivered this famous speech, ‘The March of the Flag,” at Indi
anapolis on September J6 1898, before McKinley had decided to keep the Philip
pines. Born to an impoverished family, Beveridge had spent his youth at hard
manual labor but ultimately secured a college education with prizes won in orator
ical contests. The cadences of his spellbinding oratory were such that ‘Mr. Dooley”
(F P. Dunnej said you could waltz to them. The year after making this address Bev
eridge was elected to the US. Senatefrom Indiana at the remarka bly youthful age of
thirty-six. how convincing is his reply to the anti-imperialists’ warnings against the
annexation of noncontiguous territory and to their argument that no more land was
needed? What were his powers as a prophet?
Distance and oceans are no arguments. The fact that all the territory our fathers
bought and seized is contiguous is no argument. In 1819 Florida was further from New
York than Poilo Rico is from Chicago today; Texas, further from Washington in 1845
than Hawaii is from Boston in 1898; California, more inaccessible in 1847 than the
Philippines are now.
The ocean does not separate us from lands of our duty and
desire—the oceans join us, a river never to he dredged, a canal never to he repaired.
Steam joins us; electricity joins us—the very elements are in league with our
destiny. Cuba not contiguous! Porto Rico not contiguous! Hawaii and the Philip
pines not contiguous! Our navy will make them contiguous. [Admirals] Dewey and
Sampson and Schley have made them contiguous, and American speed, American
guns, American heart and brain and nerve will keep them contiguous forever.
But the Opposition is right—there is a difference. We did not need the western
Mississippi Valley when we acquired it, nor Florida, nor Texas, nor California, nor
the royal provinces of the far Northwest. We had no emigrants to people this impe
rial wilderness, no money to develop it, even no highways to cover it. No trade
awaited us in its savage fastnesses. Our productions were not greater than our trade.
There was not one reason for the land-lust of our statesmen from Jefferson to Grant,
other than the prophet and the Saxon within them.
But today we are raising more than we can consume. Today we are making more
than we can use. Today our industrial society is congested; there are more workers
than there is work there is more capital than there is investment. We do not need
more money—we need more circulation, more employment. Therefore we must find
new markets for our produce, new occupation for our capital, new work for our labor.
And so, while we did not need the territory taken during the past century at the time
it was acquired, we do need what we have taken in 1898, and we need it now.
Think of the thousands of Americans who will pour into Hawaii and Porto Rico
when the republic’s laws cover those islands with justice and safety! Think of the
tens of thousands of Americans who will invade mine and field and forest in the
.
C. M. Depew, ed.. The Library of Oratory (New York: The Globe Publishing company, 1902), vol. 14, pp.
1
i38—4o0.
i / 0
ceapier
/
mpzre ana LXpaflSlOfl,
i’9U-i9U9
Philippines when a liberal government, protected and controlled by this republic, if
not the government of the republic itself, shall establish order and equity there!
Think of the hundreds of thousands of Americans who will build a soap-and-water,
common-school civilization of energy and industry in Cuba, when a government of
law replaces the double reign of anarchy and tyranny!—think of the prosperous mil
lions that Empress of Islands will support w hen, obedient to the law of political
gravitation, her people ask for the highest honor liberty can bestow, the sacred
Order of the Stars and Stripes, the citizenship of the Great Republic!
What does all this mean for every one of us? It means opportunity for all the
glorious young manhood of the republic—the most virile, ambitious, impatient. mil
itant manhood the world has ever seen. It means that the resources and the com
merce of these immensely rich dominions will he increased as much as American
energy is greater than Spanish sloth; for Americans henceforth will monopolize
those resources and that commerce.
[The Treaty of Paris, by which the United States acquired the Philippines, re
ceived Senate approval by a close tote on Februaiy 6 18.99. The imperialists had lit
tle to add to the materialistic-humanitarian arguments presented by McKinley and
Beveridge. The anti-imperialists stressed the folly of annexing noncontiguous areas
in the tropics thickly populated by alien peoples. They also haiped on the folly of de
parting from the principles offreedom nd nonintervention as set forth in the Decla
ration of Independence, Washington Farewell Address, the Monroe Doctrine, and
the Emancipation Proclamation. Senator George F Hoar of Massachusetts assailed
the imperialists with these words: 7f you ask them what they wanl, you are answered
with a shout: ‘Three cheers/br the flag! Wiao will dare to haul it down? Hold on to
everything you can get. The United States is strong enough to do what it likes. The
Declaration q/Independence and the counsel ofWashington and the constitution qf
the United States have grown rusty and musty. They are for little countries and not
for great ones. There is no moral law for strong nations, America has outgrown
Americanism.
“
(Congressional Record, 55th cong., 3d sess., 118991 p. 495)1
2. Professor William Sumner Spurns Empire (1898)
The “magnificently bald” and ‘iron-voiced” Professor William G. Sumner of Yale was
an immensely popular lecturer and a leading anti—imperialist. Fearlessly outspoken,
he offended influential alumni by opposing tariffprotection and by turning a cyni
cal eye on the United Stat’ “civilizing mission” in the Philippines. The truth is that
the more obvious the natural resources of the islands became the less capable the in
habitants seemed oJ’seif-rule. The moral obligation of the “white man’s burden,”
which the British poet Kipling urged the United States to shouldeiç had many of the
earmarks of the loot sack.. The British welcomed Americans as fellow civilizers, no
doubt in part because imperialistic misery loved company. Why did Sumner believe
that the conquered peoples would he unlikely to accept US. rule, and that such rule
was a perversion ofAmerican principles?
W. G. Sumner. War and OtherEssaj’s (1919), pp. 303—305.
C. The Debate over iniperialism
I /y
There is not a civilized nation which does not talk about its civilizing mission
just as grandly as we do. The English, who really have more to boast of it in this
respect than anybody else, talk least about it. hut the Phariseeism with which they
correct and instruct other people has made them hated all over the globe. The
French believe themselves the guardians of the highest and purest culture, and
that the eyes of all mankind are fixed on Paris, whence they expect oracles of
thought and taste. The Germans regard themselves as charged with a mission, espe
cially to us •mericans, to save us from egoism and materialism. The Russians, in
their books and newspapers. talk about the civilizing mission of Russia in language
that might he translated from some of the finest paragraphs in our imperialistic
newspapers.
The first principle of Mohammedanism is that we Christians are dogs and infi
dels. fit only to be enslaved or butchered by Moslems. It is a corollary that vher—
ever Mohammeclanism extends it carries, in the belief of its votaries, the highest
blessings, and that the whole human race would be enormously elevated if Mo
hammedanism should supplant Christianity everywhere.
Io come, last, to Spain, the Spaniards have, for centuries, considered themselves
most
zealous and self-sacrificing Christians, especially charged by the Almighty,
the
on this account, to spread true religion and civilization over the globe. They think
themselves free and noble, leaders in refinement and the sentiments of personal
honor, and they despise us as sordid money-grabbers and heretics. I could bring
you passages from peninsular authors of the first rank about the grand role of Spain
and Portugal in spreading freedom and truth.
Now each nation laughs at all the others when it observes these manifestations
of national vanity. You may rely upon it that they are all ridiculous by virtue of these
pretensions. including ourselves. The point is that each of them repudiates the stan
dards of the others, and the outlvmg nations, which are to he civilized, hate all the
standards of civilized men.
We assume that what we like and practice, and what we think better, must come
as a welcome blessing to Spanish-Americans and Filipinos. This is grossly and obvi
ously untrue. They hate our ways. They are hostile to our ideas. Our religion, lan
guage, institutions, and manners offend them. They like their own ways, and if we
appear amongst them as rulers, there will be social discord in all the great depart
ments of social interest. The most important thing which we shall inherit from the
Spaniards will he the task of suppressing rebellions.
if the United States takes out of the hands of Spain her mission, on the ground
that Spain is not executing it well, and if this nation in its turn attempts to be school
mistress to others, it will shrivel up into the same vanity and self-conceit of which
Spain now presents an example. To read our current literature one would think that
we were alreadly well on the way to it.
Now, the great reason why all these enterprises which begin by saying to some
hOdly else, “We know what is goodl for you better than you know yourself and we
are going to make you do it. are false andi wrong is that they violate liberty; or. to
turn the same statement into other words, the reason why liberty, of which we
Americans talk so much, is a good thing is that it means leaving people to live out
their own lives in their own way, while we do the same.
15U
Chapter 27
Empire ciid Ii\bttiiSiOil. 1890—1909
If we believe in liberty, as an American principle, why do we not stand by it?
Why are we going to throw it away to enter upon a Spanish policy of dominion and
regulation?
3. William Jennings Bryan
Vents His Bitterness (I 90!)
In 7900 the Republican presideni McKinley. who ftitored keeping the Philippines.
(Igain ran against the Democrat 1ilham J. Bryan. u’hofat’ored gOing theiii inde
pendence. Republicans accused Bryan ofprolonging the insurrection by holding out
false hopes. One popular magazine published a picture of the Filipino leader on its
front coi’ei: u/tb the çiuerj’. W’l?o is behind Aguinaldo?” The curious reader lifted a
flap and suit the hank/ike /iatuires of Bryan. McKinley triumphed by ri handsome
margin, and J?epublicans misleading!) hailed the results as a national mandate to
retain the islands. 7he next year Bryan expressed his bitterness asfbllows, several
months after the I iited States had captured Aguinaldo. What is his strongest rebut
tal to Republican chauyes that the Democrats acre responsible /brprolonging the in—
suirrection. I-Iou’ good a prophet was Bryan?
In the campaign of 1900 the Republican leaders denied that their party contem
plated a permanent increase in the standing army. They asserted that a large army
was only necessary because of the insurrection in the Philippines, and they boldly
declared that the insurrection would cease immediately if the Republican ticket was
successful. The Democratic platform and Democratic speakers were blamed for the
prolongation of the war. “Just re—elect President McKinley,” they said, “and let the
Filipinos know they are not to have independence, and they will lay down their
arms and our soldiers can come home.
Well, the Republican ticket was elected, and the Filipinos were notified that they
were not to have independence. But a month after the election the Republicans
rushed through Congress a bill authorizing the President to raise the regular army to
100,000, and now, after a year has elapsed, the insurrection is still in progress and
the end is not yet. Some of the worst losses of the year have been suffered by our
troops within two months.
After the Republican victory made it impossible for the imperialists to blame the
anti-imperialists for the continuation of hostilities, the Republican leaders declared
that Aguinaldo. actuated by selfish ambition, was compelling his countrymen to
continue the war. But even after his capture and imprisonment—yes, even after his
captors had secured from him an address advising his comrades to surrender—the
insurrection continued.
I low long will it take the imperialists to learn that we can never have peace in
the Philippine Islands? That we can suppress open resistance is certain, although the
cost may l)e far beyond any gain that can he derived from a colonial government,
hut that we can ever make the Filipinos love us or trust us while we rule them
through a carpetbag government is absurd.
2
O
iiniiionei: \o\ ember 22. 1901
.1 1
C. The Debate over Imperialism
If the Republicans had read the speeches of Abraham Lincoln as much recently
as they did in former years. they would have known that hatred of an alien govern
ment is a natural thing and a thing to he expected everywhere. Lincoln said that it
was God himself who placed in every human heart the love of liberty.
4. The Nation Denounces Atrocities (1902)
Main’ of the Filipino tribes were simple peoples who knew little o,f so-called cii ‘ilized
u’ar,fare. Some of them would horribly mutilate and torture American captives,
sometimes fastening them down to be eaten alive by insects. The infuriated white sol—
die,:c retaliated b’ shooting a /eu’pnsoilevs and by administering the “water cure”
/drcimih buckets of dirty water into Filipinos. deflating them u’ith rfle butts, and
mepeating the pain/uI process. Iii certain areas the Americans herded the populace
into r€’concentratioii camps somewhat a/per the mnanmier of “Butcher” Wej’ler iii
Cuba. Genera/Jacob (“Hell RoariiigJake”) Smith was “admonished” by the Wir I)e—
partmentfdr an order (not carried out) to kill all males over ten years of age on the
island of Samac Hon sound is the parallel that the New York Nation here draws be
tueen 5panish behavior in Cuba and (1.5. behavior in the Philippines?
Even if the condemnation of l)arbarous warfare in the Philippines by the impe
rialist press is somewhat belated, we welcome it. as v e welcome everything that
compels Americans to give attention to a subject to which too many of them have
become increasingly indifferent. Silence, we know, is consistent with shame, and
may be one of the signs of its existence: and the fact that only a few of the more un
blushing or foolish newspapers have defended Gen. Smith’s policy of extermination
shows what the general sentiment is,
‘l’o allege the provocation which our soldiers had is to set up a defense whid’h
President Roosevelt brushed aside in ad’ ance, To fall hack on the miserable
sophistry that “war is hell” is only another way of making out those who engage in
that kind of war to be fiends. It is, besides, to offer an excuse for ourselves which
we did not tolerate h)r an instant in the case of Spanish atrocities. That is our pres
ent moral lmmiliation in the eyes of the world.
We madle war on Spain four years ago for doing the cry things of which we are
now guilty ourselves. As the Chicago .Veu’s pointedly observes, we are giving Spain
as good reason to interfere with us on the ground of immanity as we hadi to inter
fere with her. I)oubtless she wouldi interfere if she were strong enough and thought
she could acquire some islands in the virtuous act.
‘
,‘\Cltl()Il
(xew ‘iork)
—
(May 0, 1902):
Chapter 27
Empire and Expansion. 1890—1909
D. The Panama Revolution
I. john Hay Twists Colombia’s Arm (1903)
The Spanish-American Whi which netted ajhr-flung empire, increased public pres
sure/hr an isthmian canal. Nicaragua had long been the /ivored route, bitt in 102
Congress approved Colombia 4 Isthmus 0/Panama. Secretary of State Haj’, by threat
ening to revert to the Nicaragua route, finally secured a treaty from the reluctant
Colombian envoy in W?ishington. But the senate of colombia delayed ratification,
for it was dissatisfied with the rather ii iggardlv/inancial terms offered fOr this price
less asset—$10 million plus an annual pa yment of $250. 000. Secretary Hay there
upon sent the fOllowing telegram to the U.S. minister in Bogota, the capital of
colombia. Critics hare contended that this statement contains an intolerable threat
to a sovereign republic. Does it
I)epartment of State
Washington, June 9. 1903
The Colombian Government apparently does not appreciate the gravity of the
situation, The canal negotiations were initiated by Colombia, and were energetically
pressed upon this Government for several years. The propositions presented by
Colombia, with slight modifications, were finally accepted by us. In virtue of this
agreement our Congress reversed its previous judgment [favoring Nicaragua] and
decided upon the Panama route. If Colombia should now reject the treaty or unduly
delay its ratification, the friendly understanding between the two countries would
be so seriously compromised that action might he taken by the Congress next win
ter which every friend of Colombia would regret. Confidential. Communicate sub
stance of this verbally to the minister of foreign affairs. If he desires it, give him a
copy in form of memorandum.
Hay
[When the American envoy in Bogota conveyed this stern message to the foreign
ministet the latter asked whether the threat meant hostile measures against 6’olombia or the adoption of the Nicaragua route. The American a ‘as ii miable to answer Ac
tually. Secretary Hay took liberties with the truth when he stated that COlombia had
“energetically pressed” canal negotiations for several years. in ftict Washington had
done the pressing.]
2. Theodore Roosevelt Hopes for Revolt (1903)
The colombian senate unanimously re/ected the canal zone treaty on August 12,
1903. Among other motives, it hoped to secure fOr colombia an additional $40
‘J’hre%oi Relations oftbe (niied States. 1903 (Washington. D.C.: Government Printing Office. 1904).
P. 146.
2
F
rom The LelIe,:c 0/ Theodore Roo.cereit by E. F. Morrison. ed. Copyright © 1951 by the President and Fel
lows of 1-larvard College. Reprinted by permission of Harvard University Press.
ii.
iriei-’unatna evvtiiiiu,t
iI._,.,
million—the sum that ishington was proposing to pay the heirs of the French corn
panj’ that had started the canal in the 1870s. ihe Panamanians feared that the
L n ited States would n ou.’ turn to Nicaragua, as the lau required Roosevelt to do f
blocked, and thus deprive the Panamanians of the anticipated prosperity that the
canal would bring. They had revolted against colombia ‘s misrule fifty-three times in
the past fifty-seven years (by Roosevelts count), and they were now riper than ever
for rebellion. The following letter that Roosevelt sent to Dr. Albert Shaw, editor of the
Review of Reviews, is often cited as evidence that he connived at the revolt, Does it
thr that conclusion?
provide good supporting evidence 1
My dear Dr. Sliaw: I enclose you, purely for your own information, a copy of a
letter of September 5th from our Minister to Colombia. I think it might interest you
to see that there was absolutely not the slightest chance of securing by treaty any
more than we endeavored to secure. The alternatives were to go to Nicaragua,
against the advice of the great majority of competent engineers—some of the most
competent saying that we had better have no canal at this time than go there—or
else to take the territory by force without any attempt at getting a treaty.
I cast aside the proposition made at this time to foment the secession of
Panama. Whatever other governments can do, the United States cannot go into the
securing by such underhand means, the secession. Privately, I freely say to you that
I should be delighted if Panama were an independent State, or if it made itself so at
this moment: hut for me to say so publicly would amount to an instigation of revolt,
and therefore I cannot say it.
3. Official Connivance in Washington (1903)
The rebels in Panama, encouraged by Roosevelts ill-concealed angei revolted on
November 3, 1903. Under the ancient treaty of 1846 with Colombia, the United
States had guaranteed the neutrality of the isthmus, obviously against foreign in
vaders. In this case Roosevelt guaranteed the neutrality of the isthmus by having or
ders issued to the Nashville and other US. naval units to prevent colombian troops
from landing and crossing from the Atlantic port of ColOn to Panama City and
crushing the rebellion. On November 4, 1903, Panama proclaimed its indepen
dence. A little more than an hour afier receiving the news, Roosevelt hastily autho
rized defticto recognition, which u’as extended on November 6 1903. This unseemly
haste suggested improper connivance by Washington, and in response to a public de
mand Roosevelt sent thefollowing official documents to Congress. They consist of in
terchanges between Acting Secretaiy of State Francis B. Loomis (Hay was then
absent) and the US. mice-consul at Panama City, Felix Ehrman. What do these doc
uments suggest about US. complicit)’ in the Panamanian revolution?
Eoreigii Relations o,f the United States (‘iVashington. D.C.: Government Printing Office. 1903), p. 231.
3
/
f/!!(]J’(/ LItICI IZ..JJ&ttt.t(J1I.
105’(i—I’IU51
Mr. Loomis to Mr. Ehrman
l)epartment of State
Washington, November 3, 1903
(Sent 3:40 Pivi.)
Uprising on Isthmus reported. Keep Department promptly and fully informed.
Loomis, Acting
Mr. Ehrman to Mr. Hay
Panama, November 3, 1903
(Received 8:15 P.M.)
No uprising yet. Reported will he in the night. Situation is critical.
Eb rman
Mr. Ehrman to Mr. F-lay
Panama, November 3, 1903
(Received 9:50 nn.)
Uprising occurred [at Panama City] tonight, 6; no bloodshed. [Colomhianj Army
and navy officials taken prisoners. Government will be organized tonight, consisting
.
jrjeviun,oeL)uGtr1ne in we carwuean
103
three consuls, also cabinet. Soldiers changed. Supposed same movement will be ef
fected in ColOn. Order prevails so far. Situation serious. Four hundred [Colombian]
soldiers landed ColOn today [from] Barranquilla.
Ehrman
Mr. Loomis to IVr. Ehrman
Department of State
Washington, November 3, 1903
(Sent 11:18 P.M.)
Message sent to Nashville to ColOn may not have been delivered. Accordingly
see that following message is sent to Nashville immediately: Nashville, ColOn:
In the interests of peace make every effort to prevent [Colombian] Government
troops at ColOn from proceeding to Panama. The transit of the Isthmus must he kept
open and order maintained. Acknowledge.
(signed) Darling, Acting [Secretary of Navy]
Secure special train [to deliver message]. if necessary. Act promptly.
Loomis, Acting
[Resolute ac/ion hi’ Commander Hubbard oft/ac Nashville, in re.sponse to his in
structions from Wishington. thrced the Chlomhian troops to sail away from ColOn on
oi ‘em her 5. two days after the ret ‘olutionists seized Panama City.]
T
A
E. The Monroe Doctrine in the Caribbean
I. Roosevelt Launches a Corollary (1904)
The corrupt and bankrupt banana republics” of the C’arihbean were inclined to
overborron’, and Roosevelt heliet ed they could properly he “spanked” by Em / ropean
creditors. Bi it the British—Germa ii spanking of Venezi ida in 1902 resulted in the
sinking of Iwo ‘vOnezuelati gunboats and the bombardment of a /Ort and village.
Such interi ‘em itions jbreshadou ed a possibly permanent ]bothoid and a consequent
violation o/the Monroe Doctrine. Sensing this dangem; Roosevelt, in his annual mes—
sage to Congress of 1904, sketched out his frimous corollary to the Monroe Doctrine.
Monroe had in cf/Oct warned the European powers in 1823, “Hands oft: Roosevelt
was nou’ saying that since the United States would not permit the powers to lay their
hands on, he had an obligation to do so himself in short, he would intervene to keep
‘
‘A compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents (New York: Bureau of National Literature,
1906), vol. 16 (December 6, 1904), pp. 7054—7054.
1O()
7
Chapter 2
Empire and
hxpaiisinii.
1890—1909
lhe,,ifroin intervening. In the statement embodied in his annual message. hou’ does
heinstir this neu’ly announced US. role.
La/in Aiiiei’icaii
(mmmd u’hat assurances does hegii’e to the
countries.’
It is not true that the United States feels any land hunger or entertains any proj
ects as regards the other nations of the Western Hemisphere, save such as are for
their welfare. All that this country desires is to see the neighboring countries stable,
orderly, and prosperous. \ny country whose people conduct themselves well can
count upon our hearty friendship. If a nation shows that it knows how to act with
reasonable efficiency and decency in social and political matters, if it keeps order
and pays its obligations, it needl fear no interference from the United States.
Chronic wrongdoing, or an impotence which results in a general loosening of
the ties of civilized society, may in America, as elsewhere, ultimately require inter
vention by some civilized nation, and in the Western Hemisphere the adherence of
the United States to the Monroe l)octrine may force the United States, however re
luctantiv. in flagrant cases of such wrongdoing or impotence, to the exercise of an
international police l)I’. If every country washed by the Caribbean Sea would
show the progress in stable and just civilization which, with the aid of the Platt
amendment. Cuba has shown since our troops left the island, and which so many of
the republics in both Americas are constantly and brilliantly showing, all question of
interference by this Nation with their affairs would he at an end.
Our interests and those of our southern neighbors are in reality identical. They
have great natural riches, and if within their borders the reign of law and justice ob
tains. prosperity is sure to come to them. While they thus obey the primary laws of
civilized society. they may rest assured that they will be treated by us in a spirit of
cordial and helpful sympathy. \X
e would interfere with them only in the last resort,
7
and then only if it became evident that their inability or unwillingness to do justice
at home and abroad had violated the rights of the United States or had invited for
eign aggression to the detriment of the entire body of American nations. It is a mere
truism to say that every nation, whether in America or anywhere else, which desires
to maintain its freedom, its independence, must ultimately realize that the right of
such independence cannot be separated from the responsibility of making good
use of
it.
2. A Latin American Protests (1943)
Following up his neu’ corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, Roosevelt arranged with the
local authorities to take over and administer the customshouses of the bankrupt
Santo I)omingo. ihe Eiim’opeami creditors then had no real excimsejdr interfering, for
the)’ received their regmilam’ paj’mnemits. in his annual message o/’ 1905. Roosevelt
added a refinememit to his corolla,-)’ to the Monroe Doctri,ie to prerent European
creditors from;, taking om er ciistomnshouses (and perhaps staving), the United States
had an obligation to take o,’er the customshouses. In subsequent years, and pur
-Luis Quintanilla, A Latin American Speaks (‘5e York: The Macmillan company 1943), pp. 125—126. By
permission of ihe author.
I. Ihe Monroe Doctrine in the Caribbean
suant to the Roosevelt corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, the marines landed and
acted as international policemen, notably in Haiti, Santo Domingo, and Nicaragua.
The Latin Americans cherishing their sovereign right to revolution and disordei bit
terly resented this bayonet-enforced twisting of Monroe s’ protective dictum. Below,
an outspoken Mexican diplomat nit/a a Ph.D. from Johns Hopkins I ‘niversity, ex
presses his a ‘rath. It has been said that the Roosevelt corollary was so radically dif
fiarent from the original Monroe Doctrine (see Vol. j, p. 254) that the two should
never have been associated, Was Roosevelt corollary a logical extension or a radical
revision of the Monroe Doctrine?
No document has proved more harmful to the prestige of the United States in
the Western Hemisphere [than the Roosevelt Corollary]. No White House policy
could he more distasteful to Latin Americans—not e en, perhaps, outspoken impe
rialism. Latin Americans are usually inclined to admire strength, fr)rce, a nation muy
Moreover,
hombre [very manly]. This was imperialism without military glamour
it was a total distortion of the original Message. Monroe’s Doctrine was defensive
and negative: defensive, in that it was essentially an opposition to eventual aggres
sion from Europe; negative, in that it simply told Europe what it should not do—not
what the United States should do.
The Monroe Doctrine of later corollaries became aggressive and positive; ag
gressive, because, even s ithout actual European attack, it urged United States” pro
tection” of Latin America—and that was outright intervention; positive, because
instead of telling Europe what not to do, it told the United States what it should do
in the Western Hemisphere. From a case of America vs. Europe, the corollaries made
of the Doctrine a case of the United States s. America.
President Monroe had merely shaken his head, brandished his finger, and said
to Europe, “Now, now, gentlemen, if you meddle with us, we will not love you any
more,” while Teddy Roosevelt, brandishing a big stick, had shouted, “Listen, you
guys, don’t muscle in—this territory is ours,”
In still another corollary, enunciated to justify United States intervention [in
Santo Domingo], the same Roosevelt said: “It is far better that this country should
put through such an arrangement [enforcing fulfillment of financial obligations con
tracted by Latin American states] rather than to allow any foreign country to under
take it.” To intervene in order to protect: to intervene in order to prevent others
from so doing. It is the “Invasion for Protection” corollary, so much in the limelight
recently, in other parts of the world.
/Latin American bitterness against this perversion of’ the Monroe Doctrine fes
teredfor nearly three decades. A shatp turn for the better came in 1933, when Pres
ident Franklin D. Roosevelt, implementing a policy initiated by President Herbert
Hoovei formally renounced the doctrine of intervention in Latin America, Thus
what the first Roosevelt gave, the second Roosevelt took away.]
I 55
Chapter 27
Empire and Expaiisioii. 1890—1905)
F Roosevelt and Japan
I. President Roosevelt Anticipates Trouble (1905)
Secretary oJ S/ate John Ha)’. attempting to half European kiiid—gmhbing in China, had
induced the reluctant powers to accept his finned Open Door policy in 1899—1900. But
Russia’s continued encroachments on China Manchuria led to the exhausting Russo—
Japanese Wdr of 1904—1905 during which the underdog Japanese soundly thrashed
the Russian army and na?)’. Presideiit Roosei’elt. who u’asjhially drafled as peace
mediatoi; wrote the following letter to his close friend Senator Henry Cabot Lodge.
T’Ictoiy-drunk, lapan was becoming understandabti’ cocky, while the race-conscious
Cali/briifa legislature u’aspiypariiig to erect barriers against Japanese imln49rants. Why
did Roosc’ivlt regard the attitude of Cali/brnians as bigoted. /oohsh. and dangerous?
That Japan will have her head turned to some extent I do not in the least doubt,
and I see clear symptoms of it in many ways. We should certainly as a nation have
ours turned if we had performed such feats as the Japanese have in the past sixteen
months; and the same is true of any European nation. Moreover, I have no doubt
that some Japanese. and perhaps a great many of them, will behave badly to for
eigners. They cannot behave worse than the State of California, through its Legisla
ture, is now behaving toward the Japanese.
The feeling on the Pacific slope, taking it from several different standpoints, is as
foolish as if conceived by the mind of a Hottcntot. These Pacific Coast people wish
grossly to insult the Japanese and to keep out the Japanese immigrants on the
ground that the are an immoral. degraded. and worthless race and at the same time
that they desire to do this for the Japanese. and are already doing it for the Chinese,
they expect to be given advantages in Oriental markets; and with besotted folly are
indifferent to building up the navy while provoking this formidable new power—a
power jealous, sensitive, and warlike, and which if irritated could at once take both
the Philippines and Hawaii from us if she obtained the upper hand on the seas.
Most certainly the Japanese soldiers and sailors have shown themselves to be
terrible foes. There can he none more dangerous in all the world. But our own navy,
ship for ship, is I believe at least as efficient as theirs, although I am not certain that
our torpedo boats would be handled as well as theirs. At present we are superior to
them in number of ships, and this superiority will last for some time. It will of course
come to an end if Hale* has his way, but not otherwise.
I hope that we can persuade our people on the one hand to act in a spirit of
generous justice and genuine courtesy toward Japan. and on the other hand to keep
the navy respectable in numbers and more than respectable in the efficiency of its
units. If we act thus we need not fear the Japanese. But if. as Brooks Adams [a
prominent historian, whose work The Law of C’ivilization and Decay (1895) deeply
influenced Rooseveltl says, we show ourselves “opulent, aggressive, and unanned,”
the Japanese may sometime work us an injury.
From The let/eec of Theodore Roocet’elt by F. F. Morrison, ed Copyright © 1951 by the President and Fel
1
lows of Harvard College. Reprinted by permission of Harvard I nh ersitv Press.
Maine Senator Eugene I lale. chairman ol the Senate \aval Affairs Committee.
F Roosevelt and Japan
I S)
2. Japan Resents Discrimination (1906)
The San Francisco Board of Education precipitated a crisis in 1906 b). ordering all
Asian students to attend a special/i’ segregated school. The sensitive Japanese rose in
instant resentment aga inst what they regarded as a deliberate and insulting act qf
discrimination. The Tokyo Mainichi Shimbun, a reputable journal, reacted asfol
lows. lUbere u ‘as Japanese national pride most deeply wounded?
The whole world knows that the poorly equipped army and navy of the United
States are no match for our efficient army and navy. It will be an easy work to
awake the United States from her dream of obstinacy when one of our great admi
rals appears on the other side of the Pacific.
The present situation is such that
the Japanese nation cannot rest easy by relying only upon the wisdom and states
manship of President Roosevelt. The Japanese nation must have a firm determina
tion to chastise at any time the obstinate Americans.
Stand up, Japanese nation! Our countrymen have been HUMILIATED on the other
side of the Pacific. Our poor boys and girls have been expelled from the public
schools by the rascals of the United States, cruel and merciless like demons.
At this time we should be ready to give a blow to the United States. Yes, we
should be ready to strike the l)evil’s head with an iron hammer for the sake of the
worlds civilization.
Why do we not insist on sending [wariships?
3. The Gentlemen’s Agreement (1908)
The San Francisco school incident revealed anew that a municipalit.’ or a state could
mi ‘olve the entire nation in war. Roosevelt soothed the
Japanese. hut not the californians. by adopting the Asians’ side of the dispute. He pub
licly branded the action of the school board as a “wicked absurdity, “and he brought
that entire body to Washington, where he persuaded the members to come to terms. The
San Franciscans agreed to readmitJapanese children to the public schools on the con
dition that Roosevelt would arrange to shut off the influx offapanese immigrants. This
he did in the jdmous Gentlemen s Agreement, which consisted of an understanding
growing out of an extensive exchange qf diplomatic notes. These were officially sum
marized as/dliou s in the annual report of the US. commissioner-general of imm igra
tion. In ii ‘hat ways did these agreements leave the ,hi ndamental issues unresolved?
take legal action that might
In order that the best results might follow from an enforcement of the regula
tiOns, an understanding was reached with Japan that the existing policy of discour
aging the emigration of its subjects of the laboring classes to continental United
States should he continued and should, by cooperation of the governments, be
made as effective as possible.
This understanding contemplates that the Japanese Government shall issue pass
ports to continental United States only to such of its subjects as are non-laborers or are
T. A. Bailey, Theodore Roosevelt and the Japanese-American Crises (Stanford University Press, 1934),
2
p. 50, October 22, 1906.
Annual Report of the Secretary of Uommerce and Laho 1908 (1908), pp. 221—222.
3
I iU
Gaapter 2’
Empire aiidExpansioii. 7890—1909
laborers \vho. in coming to the continent, seek to resume a formerly acquired domi
cile, to join a parent. wife, or children residing there, or to assume active control of an
already possessed interest in a farming enterprise in this country; so that the three
classes of laborers entitled to receive passports have come to be designated former
residents’ ‘parents, wives, or children of residents,’ and “settled agriculturists”
With respect to Hawaii, the Japanese Government stated that, experimentally at
least, the issuance of passports to members of the laboring classes proceeding
thence would be limited to ‘former residents’ and “parents. wives, or children of
residents.” The said government has also been exercising a careful supervision over
the subject of the emigration of its laboring class to foreign contiguous territory
[Mexico, Canadal.
/7he h onor—sytem Gentiei ien s ilgreen wilt worked reasonably well un/il 7924,
when (dugress in a /11 0/pique slammed the door completely in the Jdces of the
Japanese. ‘[he resulting harvest o/’iii ciii had much to do with the tragic events that
e/’e;iIiiulll’ led to Pecil flarhor and WOrki War 11.1
Thought Provokers
I
Does the press in a democracy have an ethical resp )nsibility to pursue sober policies,
es en if such tactics lmrt circulation? this the pre” shown more responsibility in recent
years than in 1595?
2. 0-i’e patriotic Spaniards justified in resenting American attitudes and accusations in
1Sf”— I 595? Sly uld the t ‘nited States have accepted arbitration of the ilaine dispute?
.3. To what extent were the anti—imperialists idealists? Was there anything morally objec—
tionable in their attitude?
t. Would it has e been better to delay construction of the Panama Canal for ten years or so
rather than have the scandal that attended the Panama coup? Was the scandal necessary?
3. With reference to the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine. are nations entitled to
complete )vereignt\ if they tail to exercise it properly? When certain states of the
I nitecl States defaulted on their debts to British creditors in the 1530s, Britain did not at
tempt to take 05 cr American customshouses. Why? Are there different rules of interna
tional heha\ ior for small nations and large nations?
6. \X hv did Japan especially resent California’s discrimination in 1906, and why was the
Gentlemen’s Agreement better than exclusion by act of Congress?