Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-9pm4c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T02:30:00.025Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ideals and Realities in the Wilson Administration’s Relations with Honduras

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 December 2015

George W. Baker
George W. Baker*
Affiliation:
East Carolina College, Greenville, North Carolina
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Unlike the Latin American policies of his predecessors, that of Woodrow Wilson was an unusual compound of ideals and realities. Wilson himself provided the first ingredient by repudiating the “Big Stick ”diplomacy of Theodore Roosevelt and the “Dollar Diplomacy ”of William Howard Taft and promising instead hemispheric friendship based upon mutual respect. Wilson proposed that the United States encourage its neighbors to become strong constitutional and democratic states and then join with it to form a confraternity for peace which the world could see and imitate. As a means to this goal, Wilson formulated a Pan American Pact to provide mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity. Although this pact was to founder upon the rock of Chilean national self-interest, its promise of a hemispheric partnership was an important step towards true Pan-Americanism.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Americas , Volume 21 , Issue 1 , July 1964 , pp. 3 - 19
Copyright
Copyright © Academy of American Franciscan History 1964

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For a useful collection of Wilson’s foreign policy statements, see Robinson, Edgar E. and West, Victor J., The Foreign Policy of Woodrow Wilson (New York, 1918)Google Scholar.

2 Notter, Harley, The Origins of the Foreign Policy of Woodrow Wilson (Baltimore, 1937), p. 537.Google Scholar

3 For a brief, excellent account of Bryan as secretary of state, see Challener, Richard, “William Jennings Bryan,” in Graebner, Norman A. (ed.), An Uncertain Tradition (New York, 1961), pp. 79–100 Google Scholar.

4 White to Bryan, March 21, 1913, Foreign Relations, 1913, p. 591; Myers to Bryan, April 20, 1913, Department of State, Decimal File (hereafter cited as D.S. File) 815.00/1474a, National Archives; White to Bryan, April 24, 1913, D.S. File 815.00/1483; Alberto Membreño to Bryan, May 17, 1913, D.S. File 815.00/1490.

5 White to Bryan, May 29, 1913, D.S. File 815.00/1503; White to Bryan, August 28, 1913, D.S. File 815.00/1509; White to Bryan, September 8, 1913, D.S. File 815.00/1529.

6 State Department Memorandum by Long, February 10, 1914, D.S. File 815.77/259; The New York Times, April 5, 1914, IV, 3:5.

7 Bryan to Jonathan Ewing, March 9, 1914, Ewing to Bryan, March 12, 1914, D.S. File 815.77/213a.

8 Kepner, Charles D. and Soothill, Jay, The Banana Empire (New York, 1935), pp. 100–124 Google Scholar; Jones, Chester L., The Caribbean Since 1900 (New York, 1936), pp. 165–168 Google Scholar.

9 The best background study is still Munro’s, Dana G. The Five Republics of Central America (New York, 1918)Google Scholar; correspondence is in Foreign Relations, 1911, pp. 296–304; Callcott, Wilfrid, The Caribbean Policy of the United States (Baltimore, 1942)Google Scholar.

10 Seymour, Charles (ed.), The Intimate Papers of Colonel House (4 vols.; Boston, 1926–1928), I, 209–234.Google Scholar

11 Bryan, William Jennings and Bryan, Mary, Memoirs of William Jennings Bryan (Philadelphia, 1925), pp. 386–387 Google Scholar.

12 Bryan to Wilson, August 6, 1913, Bryan to Wilson, February 21, 1914, The Papers of William Jennings Bryan, Library of Congress.

13 Ewing to Bryan, September 30, 1914, D.S. File 815.00/1550.

14 Ewing to Bryan, December 30, 1914, D.S. File 815.00/1563; Ewing to Bryan, January 15, 1915, D.S. File 815.00/1567; Ewing to Bryan, March 31, 1915, D.S. File 815.00/1581.

15 For a brief, excellent account of Lansing, see Smith, Daniel M., “Robert Lansing,” in Graebner (ed.) An Uncertain Tradition, pp. 101–127 Google Scholar.

16 Lansing to Leavell, August 20, 1915, D.S. File 815.00/1607.

17 Lansing to Ewing, September 1, 1915, Lansing to Attorney General James C. McReynolds, September 1, 1915, D.S. File 815.00/1609.

18 Wilson to Lansing, September 2, 1915, D.S. File 815.00/1610½.

19 Deutsch, Hermann B., The Incredible Yanqui: The Incredible Career of Lee Christmas (New York: 1931)Google Scholar.

20 Ewing to Lansing, September 25, 1915, D.S. File 815.00/1619; Lansing to Ewing, September 28, 1915, D.S. File 815.00/1626; Ewing to Lansing, October 7, 1915, D.S. File 815.00/1629; Ewing to Lansing, November 2, 1915, D.S. File 815.00/1632.

21 State Department Memorandum by Long, November 3, 1915, D.S. File 815.00/1637.

22 State Department Memorandum by Wright, May 1, 1916, D.S. File 815.00/1671.

23 State Department Memorandum by Warren Robbins, November 3, 1916, D.S. File 815.00/1703.

24 Willing Spencer to Lansing, October 31, 1916, D.S. File 815.00/1692.

25 Ewing to Lansing, January 4, 1916, Foreign Relations, 1916, pp. 391–392; Ewing to Lansing, January 2, 1917, Foreign Relations, 1917, pp. 834–835.

26 See correspondence in Foreign Relations, 1917, Supplement I, pp. 222–237, 276–284.

27 Leavell to Lansing, November 6, 1917, D.S. File 815.00/1736.

28 Sanso, Aro (pseudonym of Ismael Mejía Deras), Bonilla, Policarpo, algunos apuntes biográficos (México, 1936), pp. 409–412 Google Scholar.

29 Curtis to Lansing, June 15, 1918, D.S. File 763.72/10637; Curtis to Lansing, July 19, 1918, Foreign Relations, 1918, Supplement I, Vol. I, 710–711; Curtis to Lansing, July 20, 1918, D.S. File 763.72/10931; Martin, Percy A., Latin America and the World War (Baltimore, 1925), pp. 502–503 Google Scholar.

30 Munro, Dana G., “Pan Americanism and the War,” North American Review, 208 (November, 1918), pp. 710–721 Google Scholar; and Barrett, John, “What the War Has Done to the Monroe Doctrine,” Current Opinion, 65 (November, 1918), pp. 291–293 Google Scholar.

31 Foreign Relations Papers, The Paris Peace Conference, I, 223–225.

32 Commission to Negotiate Peace to Frank Polk, January 10, 1919, ibid., p. 233.

33 Baker, Ray Stannard, American Chronicle (New York, 1945), p. 452 Google Scholar.

34 State Department Memorandum: Report on Various Latin American Countries, May 23, 1919, D.S. File 810.00/10; Burnett, P.M., Reparation at the Paris Peace Conference from the Standpoint of the American Delegation (2 vols.; New York, 1940), II, 584 Google Scholar.

35 T. Sambola Jones to Lansing, March 31, 1919, D.S. File 763.72119/4646; Kelchner, Warren H., Latin American Relations with the League of Nations (Boston, 1930), pp. 10–15 Google Scholar; the anti-gringo attitude as the basis for joining the League may be vividly een in Ugarte, Manuel, “Latin America after the War,” Living Age, 310 (July 2, 1921)Google Scholar.

36 Aro Sanso, Policarpo Bonilla, pp. 520–524 and appendix.

37 Miller, David Hunter, The Drafting of the Covenant (2 vols.; New York and London, 1928), II, 715–717 Google Scholar; D.S. File 810.00/10; The New York Times, June 14, 1919, 2:5.

38 Even before the conference, Lansing had anticipated such opposition to a possible abridgement of the Monroe Doctrine when he learned that Wilson was seeking equality for the Latin American nations in the League. Memorandum of December 18, 1918, and entry of January 31, 1919, Desk Diary, The Lansing Papers, Library of Congress. Beveridge, A.J., “Pitfalls of a ‘ League of Nations,’ ”The North American Review, 209 (March, 1919), p. 312 Google Scholar; Wilson defended his views on the Monroe Doctrine for the Foreign Relations Committee in August, 1919, and for the people at Omaha, September 8, 1919, and at Helena, September 11, 1919. Baker, Ray S. and Dodd, William, The Public Papers of Woodrow Wilson (6 vols.; New York, 1925–1927), V, 577; VI, 38, 131Google Scholar. Lansing ako affirmed for the Senate that the Monroe Doctrine was still “a regional understanding.” Senate Document, 106, 68th Congress, p. 155.

39 The New York Times, June 24, 1919, p. 1; Zamora, Juan C., “Honduras, the Monroe Doctrine, and the League of Nations,” Cuba Contemporánea, 20 (May-August, 1919), pp. 541–542 Google Scholar.

40 Memorandum by Lansing, May 8, 1919, Lansing Papers; Entry of May 6, 1919, Lansing Desk Diary; The Paris Peace Conference, 1919, V, 481 Google Scholar.

41 T. Sambola Jones to Polk, February 17, March 20, 1919, Foreign Relations, 1919, II, 374–377; Memorandum by Hallett Johnson, March 21, 1919, D.S. File 815.00/1822.

42 Jones to Lansing, May 1, 1919, D.S. File 815.00/1844; Jones to Lansing, May 5, 1919, D.S. File 815.00/1850.

43 Jones to Lansing, July 21, 1919, D.S. File 815.00/1891.

44 Lansing to Wilson, July 25, 1919, Wilson Papers, L. C.

45 Lansing to Wilson, August 29, 1919; Wilson to Lansing, September 1, 1919, D.S. File 815.00/2090.

46 Hallett Johnson to Phillips, September 4, 1919, D.S. File 815.00/1986.

47 Correspondence is in Foreign Relations, 1919, II, 384–389.

48 Memorandum by Hallett Johnson, October 3, 1919, Lansing Papers; Charge Lawton to Lansing, October 30, 1919, Foreign Relations, 1919, II, 394.

49 Young earned his Ph. D. at Princeton in 1914 and taught there for three years. In 1917, he won the attention of the State Department by his advisory work on taxes for the Mexican government. Lansing to Lawton, December 15, 1919, Foreign Relations, 1920, II, 872; Rowe to Colby, May 25, 1920, D.S. File 815.51/398Google Scholar.

50 Willing Spencer to Secretary of State Hughes, Charles E., August 37, 1921, Foreign Relations, 1921, II, 247–248 Google Scholar.

51 Correspondence is in Foreign Relations, 1917, pp. 760–778; see also Unsettled Boundary Disputes in Latin America, Foreign Policy Association, Information Service, V, No. 26 (1930)Google Scholar.

52 Breckinridge Long to Joseph Tumulty, May 8, 1918, Wilson Papers.

53 Correspondence is in Foreign Relations, 1917, pp. 764–801, and Foreign Relations, 1919, pp. 85–95; see also entry of December 30, 1918, Diary, Polk, The Papers of Frank Polk, Yale University Library Google Scholar.

54 Entries of May 4, May 20, 1918, Diary of Chandler P. Anderson, Anderson Papers, L. C.; Hallett Johnson to Polk, March 7, 1919, Polk Papers.

55 Manuel Estrada Cabrera to Wilson, November 30, 1918, Wilson Papers, entry of November 30, 1918, Anderson Diary.

56 Entry of April 16, 1919, Polk Diary.

57 Entry of June 12, 1919, Anderson Diary.

58 Anderson reported in his diary that Jordan Stabler of the Latin American Division said that the Department was no longer interested in the dispute since the mediation had only been undertaken because of the World War. Anderson even believed that Lansing was prone to take advantage of the Honduran revolution to force a speedy resolution of the boundary question. Lansing refuted both of these charges when Anderson consulted him. Entry of September 30, 1919.

59 Entry of January 5, 1920, Lansing Desk Diary.

60 Entry of March 1, 1920, Anderson Diary; Entry of March 4, 1920, Polk Diary.

61 Anderson was not only representing Guatemala in its dispute with Honduras, but also Nicaragua in its dispute with Honduras and Costa Rica in its dispute with Panama. Entry of December 16, 1920, Anderson Diary.

62 The United States tried again to arbitrate in 1923 and failed. In 1930 the United States obtained an arbitral treaty between Honduras and Guatemala and a special tribunal composed of Chief Justice Charles E. Hughes, Dr. Bello Codesido of Chile, and Dr. Castro Ureña of Costa Rica settled the boundary by equally dividing the territory between the parties in dispute. Fisher, F.C., “The Arbitration of the Guatemala-Honduran Boundary Dispute,” American Journal of International Law, XXVII (July, 1933)Google Scholar.

63 Correspondence is in Foreign Relations, 1918, pp. 11–20.

64 Entries of November 25, 1918, and March 1, 1920, Anderson Diary; Hallett Johnson to Polk, March 7, 1919, Polk Papers; Moore, John B., The Collected Papers of John Bassett Moore (7 vols.; New Haven, 1944), V, 118–187 Google Scholar; two further attempts, in 1931 and 1939, to settle the boundary dispute failed, and the issue is still pending.