Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 December 2015
For nearly three decades after the turn of the twentieth century, the United States took upon itself the policing of the Caribbean and Central America. Under an expanded interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine known as the Roosevelt Corollary, American policymakers justified numerous military interventions in those small republics until Monroeism became a synonym in Latin America for imperialism and expansionism. By 1930, this policy of attempted hegemony by force was a failure: Public opinion at home and abroad had opposed the “big stick” concept of hemispheric relations almost from the beginning; the interventions seldom achieved their nebulous goals.
1 Plesur, Milton, America’s Outward Thrust: Approaches to Foreign Affairs, 1865–1890 (DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 1971), 231 Google Scholar; Dozer, Donald Marquand, The Monroe Doctrine: Its Modern Significance (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1965), 15 Google Scholar; Perkins, Dexter, A History of the Monroe Doctrine (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1955), 189, 202, 206–207, 234.Google Scholar
2 See Dozer, Monroe Doctrine, 16, and Alvarez, Alejandro The Monroe Doctrine (New York: Oxford University Press, 1924), 103–104 Google Scholar; Perkins, , Monroe Doctrine, 231–232.Google Scholar
3 Perkins, Monroe Doctrine, 241,243,246; Munro, Dana G. Intervention and Dollar Diplomacy in the Caribbean, 1900–1921 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1964), 532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4 U.S., Department of State, Office of the Solicitor, , Right to Protect Citizens in Foreign Countries by Landing Forces, by Clark, J. Reuben Jr. (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1912)Google Scholar; Perkins, , Monroe Doctrine, 249 Google Scholar, 254–255, 265–266; Bingham, Hiram “Should We Abandon the Monroe Doctrine?” Journal of Race Relations, 4 (January, 1914), 334–358 Google Scholar; Bailey, Thomas A., “Lodge Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine,” Political Science Quarterly, 48 (June, 1933), 226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5 Adler, Selig, The Isolationist Impulse (London: Abelard-Schuman Limited, 1957), 182 Google Scholar. Even such later internationalists as Henry Prather Fletcher believed that the Monroe Doctrine forbade American participation in world affairs, and that the League could destroy the Doctrine. Note dated Aug. 7, [1919?], Papers of Henry Prather Fletcher (Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.), box 18. Fletcher subsequently became an adviser to the United Nations.
6 Munro, , Intervention, 344–345, 534–535, 543.Google Scholar
7 Dozer, , Monroe Doctrine, 19–22 Google Scholar; Garner, James Wilford “The Recrudescence of the Monroe Doctrine,” Political Science Quarterly, 45 (June, 1930), 234–236 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Perkins, , Monroe Doctrine, 324 Google Scholar, 331; Mecham, J. Lloyd, A Survey of United States-Latin American Relations (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1965), 103–105 Google Scholar; see Scott, J.B., ed., The International Conferences of American States, 1889–1928 (Washington, D.C.: The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1931)Google Scholar; see also Inman, Samuel Guy, Problems in Pan Americanism (New York: George H. Doran Company, 1925).Google Scholar
8 Hughes, Charles Evans “Observations on the Monroe Doctrine,” American Journal of International Law, 17 (1923), 615ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hughes, , “The Monroe Doctrine After 100 Years,” Current History, 19 (October, 1923), 102–113 Google Scholar. The important addresses of the Secretary (1921–1925) are in his Pathway to Peace (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1925).
9 Feis, Herbert The Diplomacy of the Dollar: First Era, 1919–1932 (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1950), 26 Google Scholar, 29, 65–66; Ellis, L. Ethan, Frank B. Kellogg and American Foreign Relations (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1961), 8 Google Scholar; Perkins, , Monroe Doctrine, 383–384 Google Scholar; Dozer, , Monroe Doctrine, 20.Google Scholar
10 Ellis, , Kellogg, 8 Google Scholar; Wood, Bryce, The Making of the Good Neighbor Policy (New York: Columbia University Press, 1961), 17 Google Scholar; Connell-Smith, Gordon, The Inter-American System (London: Oxford University Press, 1966), 319.Google Scholar
11 Ellis, , Kellogg, 58–59 Google Scholar; Annunciata Schultejann, Sister Mary, “Henry L. Stimson’s Latin American Policy, 1929–1933” (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C., 1967), 14 Google Scholar; Munro, Dana G., “The Establishment of Peace in Nicaragua,” Foreign Affairs, 11 (1933), 696–705 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wood, , Good Neighbor Policy, 13, 21–23.Google Scholar
12 U.S., Department of State, Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, 1928, Vol. I (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1942), 573.
l3 Mecham, , U.S.-Latin American Relations, 107 Google Scholar; Hughes, Charles Evans, Our Relations to the Nations of the Western Hemisphere (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1928), 83–84 Google Scholar; Ellis, , Kellogg, 86 Google Scholar, 100; Leopold, Richard W., The Growth of American Foreign Policy (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1962), 458–459.Google Scholar
14 Ferrell, Robert H., Peace in Their Time: The Origins of the Kellogg-Briand Pact (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1952), 228–229.Google Scholar
15 Kellogg to Borah, Aug. 2, 1928, Borah to Kellogg, July 28, 1928, Kellogg to Borah (telegram), Aug. 2, 1928, Papers of William Edgar Borah (Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.), box 542; Ferrell, , Peace, 198 Google Scholar, chs. 12, 13 passim; Vinson, John Chalmers, William E. Borah and the Outlawry of War (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1957), 166ffGoogle Scholar; The Washington Post, April 9, 1929, 1; Garner, , “Recrudescence,” 258.Google Scholar
16 Ellis, L. Ethan, Republican Foreign Policy, 1921–1933 (New Burnswick: Rutgers University Press, 1968), 269–270 Google Scholar; The New York Times, Sep. 23, 1928, V, 3, 23. Ellis described Kellogg as having “one eye on the Pact” in his request for the Memorandum.
17 U.S., Department of State, Memorandum on the Monroe Doctrine, by Clark, J. Reuben Jr. (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1930), 9 Google Scholar; Ferrell, Robert H., “Repudiation of a Repudiation,” Journal of American History, 51 (March, 1965), 669 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; O’Neill, Anna A. had served as assistant solicitor prior to entering the office of the Undersecretary. She held a law degree and had been in the Department since 1915. U.S., Department of State, Register, January, 1929 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1929), 191.Google Scholar
18 Memorandum, ix.
19 Ibid., ix–xiii.
20 Ibid., xiii–xv. The shallowness of the history in the letter should not draw too much fire. Clark was restricted in space and nothing much had been done on its early history at this date. Perkins had just completed his Monroe Doctrine, 1823–1826.
21 Right to Protect Citizens, 9, 21–22. This is the subject of the only footnoting in the covering letter. Memorandum, xviii–xix.
22 Memorandum, xix.
23 Ibid., xx.
24 Ibid., xix.
25 Ibid., xx–xxiii.
26 Ibid., xxiii–xxiv.
27 Ibid., xxiv–xxv.
28 Vinson, , Borah, 164–167 Google Scholar; U. S., Senate, Hearings Before the Committee on Foreign Relations, on the General Pact for the Renunciation of War (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1928); The New York Times, Dec. 15, 1928, 1, April 10, 1929, 3; see Perkins, , Monroe Doctrine, 342 Google Scholar, and Ellis, , Kellogg, 101 Google Scholar; Calcott, Wilford Hardy, The Western Hemisphere (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1968), 249 Google Scholar, said that Kellogg ordered the Memorandum with no other thought than to convince the Senate that the Pact needed no Monroe Doctrine reservation; U.S., Congress, Senate, 70 Cong., 2nd sess. (Jan. 3, 1929), Congressional Record, 1062ff.
29 Vinson, , Borah, 167 Google Scholar; Perkins, , Monroe Doctrine, 341–342 Google Scholar; Cong. Ree. (Jan. 3, 1929), 1067–1070, (Jan. 4, 1929), 1121.
30 Cong. Rec. (Jan. 5, 1929), 1188.
31 Ibid. (Jan. 10, 1929), 1456–1457.
32 Ferrell, , Peace, 240 Google Scholar; Cong. Rec. (Jan. 12, 1929), 1617–1621, 1723–1725, (Jan. 15, 1929), 1730.
33 The New York Times, Jan. 6, 1929, 2; Panama American, Jan. 11, 1929, 2; The New York Times, Jan. 12, 1929, 16; see also the Times, Jan. 18, 1929, 7, and Feb. 7, 1929, 20.
34 Foreign Relations, 1929,1, 698–719; The New York Times, June 24, 1930, 6.
35 Ferrell, , “Repudiation,” 669 Google Scholar; Schultejann, , “Stimson’s Latin American Policy,” 21, 86.Google Scholar
36 The Washington Post, April 9, 1929, 1.
37 The New York Times, April 10, 1929, 3.
38 Garner, , “Recrudescence,” 258 Google Scholar, Hoover said in 1947 that he knew of the existence of the Clark Memorandum before he took office. See DeConde, Alexander, Herbert Hoover’s Latin American Policy (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1951), 49.Google Scholar
39 See The New York Times, April 30, 1929, 12; Aug. 16, 1929 , 8; Aug. 30, 1929, 9; Oct. 4, 1929, 15; Nov. 19, 1929, 32; Dec. 22, 1929, II, 2. See also New Republic, Jan. 30, 1929, 287.
40 For a good example, see The New York Times, March 4, 1930, 3.
41 Dozer, Donald Marquand, Are We Good Neighbors?: Three Decades of Inter-American Relations, 1930–1960 (Gainesville: University of Florida Press, 1959), 12–13 Google Scholar, surveyed fifteen Latin American newspaper articles between March 29 and August 17, 1930, and found them enthusiastic over the Memorandum. They saw it as an indication that the Monroe Doctrine had become “a historical relic” and interventionism was dead.
42 Cong. Rec. 71 Cong., 2nd sess. (March 15, 1930), 5356.
43 United States Daily, March 5–8, 1930; see Toynbee, Arnold J., Survey of International Affairs, 1930 (London: Oxford University Press, 1931), 371.Google Scholar
44 Ferrell, , “Repudiation,” 670.Google Scholar
45 The New York Times, March 16, 1930, X, 3, 9. See also Outlook and Independent, March 26, 1930, 492–493.
46 The New York Times, June 24, 1930, 6.
47 Foreign Relations, 1929,1, 719.
48 Diary, Stimson, Papers of Henry D. Stimson (Sterling Memorial Library, Yale University, New Haven), Feb., 1931 Google Scholar. This is the only reference to the Clark Memorandum in Stimson’s journal. See also Schultejann, , “Stimson’s Latin American Policy,” 87.Google Scholar
49 Foreign Relations, 1929, I, 719; Stimson, Henry L., “The United States and the Other American Republics,” Foreign Affairs, 9 (April, 1931), 2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; New Republic, Aug. 26, 1931, 31–32; Ferrell, , “Repudiation,” 671 Google Scholar; DeConde, , Hoover’s Latin American Policy, 49.Google Scholar
50 New Left historian Green, David, The Containment of Latin America (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1971), 13 Google Scholar, believed Hoover’s later claim that he had accepted the Clark Memorandum. Since the Memorandum reserved the “right of pre-emptive intervention under the ‘doctrine of self-preservation,’ ” said Green, Hoover thus “indicated that there would be no fundamental change in the U.S. approach to inter-American political problems.” But even Green later admitted that there certainly was a shift to non-intervention, so Hoover’s actual timidity about the Clark paper may have come because he did not want to indicate that there would be no change.
51 It is fairly clear that Hoover’s policies with regard to Latin American affairs developed in their basics before the Memorandum was written. See Hoover, Herbert, Addresses Delivered During the Visit… to Central and South America, November-December, 1928 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1929)Google Scholar. See also DeConde, Alexander “Herbert Hoover’s Good Will Tour,” Historian, 12 (1950), 167–181 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Ferrell, , “Repudiation,” 672.Google Scholar
52 Ferrell, , “Repudiation,” 673.Google Scholar
53 Pratt, Julius W., A History of United States Foreign Policy (New York: Prentice-Hall, 1933), 7 Google Scholar; Rout, Leslie B. Jr., The Politics of the Chaco Peace Conference (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1970), 39 Google Scholar; Traphagen, Jeanne C., “The Inter-American Diplomacy of Frank B. Kellogg” (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, 1956), 11.Google Scholar
54 Ferrell, , “Repudiation,” 673.Google Scholar
55 The New York Times, Oct. 28, 1928, X, 13.
56 Memorandum, xxiv.
57 Hughes, , “Observations on the Monroe Doctrine,” 626.Google Scholar
58 Dozer, , Monroe Doctrine, 23 Google Scholar; Wood, , Making of the Good Neighbor Policy, 6 Google Scholar; Pratt, , U.S. Foreign Policy, 7 Google Scholar; Schultejann, , “Stimson’s Latin American Policy,” 83 Google Scholar; Herring, Hubert, A History of Latin America (3rd ed.; New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1968), 913 Google Scholar; Leopold, , American Foreign Policy, 468 Google Scholar; Connell-Smith, , Inter-American System, 78.Google Scholar
59 Ellis, , Republican Foreign Policy, 214–227 passim.Google Scholar
60 See Perkins, , Monroe Doctrine, 373.Google Scholar
61 Stimson, Henry L., “Bases of American Foreign Policy During the Past Four Years,” Foreign Affairs, 11 (April, 1933), 394–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
62 DeConde, , Hoover’s Latin American Policy, 48–49 Google Scholar; Schultejann, , “Stimson’s Latin American Policy,” 254.Google Scholar
63 Ferrell, , “Repudiation,” 673.Google Scholar
64 Mecham, , U.S.-Latin American Relations, 75.Google Scholar
65 Clark did not abrogate intervention as Hoover did in effect during his Latin American tour in the fall of 1928. See Cleven, N.A.N., “Mr. Hoover Concludes Good-Will Mission in South America,” Current History, 29 (1929), 852–855 Google Scholar; Cleven, , “President-Elect Hoover’s Visit to South America,” Current History, 29 (1929), 683–685.Google Scholar
