We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
The role of Ambassador Henry Lane Wilson in the overthrow of President Francisco I. Madero of Mexico in February 1913 is one of the best-known and classic cases of interference in the affairs of a smaller nation by the envoy of a Great Power. Many readers may wonder why another treatment of this dramatic subject is necessary after nearly sixty years.
During its brief tenure of office, the Kennedy Administration introduced several changes in United States policy toward Latin America. One change had to do with recognition of governments (practically speaking, military regimes) that seized power by ousting constitutionally selected governments. The stance taken by the Kennedy Administration was that the United States would not recognize such regimes or extend assistance to them. The intent or objective of the policy was to encourage and protect democratic institutions and processes. President Kennedy regarded a democratic environment as essential for the attainment of the kind of change sought through the Alliance for Progress.
When the Spaniards first reached Mexico, one of the things which most impressed them was the existence of cities as large and as architecturally magnificent as any they had known in Europe. The growth and development of urban life has been examined in detail elsewhere, and for present purposes it is sufficient to note that, in areas where the techniques of intensive agriculture encouraged large nucleated settlements, the basic pattern of town life was established during the first millennium B.C.
From the 1890s until the Second World War the armed forces of Argentina underwent an extensive modernizing and professionalizing process, as did those of other major states of South America. During this period, foreign influence was exerted on the Argentine military establishment, which actively sought assistance from Europe and the United States. Germany was the dominant external actor and the strongest foreign military influence in Argentina.
Soon after Philip V assumed the Spanish throne in 1700, he began selling appointments of oidor, alcalde del crimen, and fiscal for the American audiencias. By 1750 he and his successor Ferdinand VI had sold about one-fourth of all appointments; the Crown added over 1,000, 000 pesos to the treasury by resorting to this expedient. Primarily through purchasing judicial appointments, numerous creoles (Spaniards born in America) entered these prestigious tribunals.
Essays in comparative history are risky ventures. Nowhere has this become more evident than in the literature on slavery. Yet comparisons continue to be made, implicitly if not explicitly. Post-abolition race relations is an area in which comparisons are equally tempting—indeed, virtually unavoidable— and equally difficult to handle. Perhaps by more careful attention to the framework of comparison we can begin to arrive at more testable hypotheses. In this paper an attempt is made to compare certain features of race relations since abolition in the United States and Brazil. The emphasis will be on differences.