Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
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?