Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T08:37:13.008Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Revolution and Recognition: A British Perspective On Isthmian Affairs During the 1920s

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 December 2015

Richard V. Salisbury
Richard V. Salisbury*
Affiliation:
Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, Kentucky
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

With the end of the First World War, American hegemony in the Western Hemisphere appeared to be an unquestioned fact of international life. The defeat of Germany, in combination with the wartime weakening of Great Britain and France, had created a situation whereby the major economic and political competitors of the United States were unable, at least in the short-run, to exercise the degree of influence they had enjoyed in the years before 1914. Given the strategic considerations involving the isthmian canal route, the circum-Caribbean region was the area within the Western Hemisphere where the influence of the United States was especially strong, a point born out by the existence of virtual American protectorates in Cuba, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Panama, and Nicaragua. Accordingly, when viewed from an immediate post-World War I perspective, one might have anticipated that the United States would have had relatively little difficulty in maintaining a regional Pax Americana.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Americas , Volume 48 , Issue 3 , January 1992 , pp. 331 - 349
Copyright
Copyright © Academy of American Franciscan History 1992

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 an overview of Great Britain’s declining role in Latin America, see Bethell, Leslie, “Britain and Latin America in Historical Perspective,” in Bulmer-Thomas, Victor, (ed.), Britain and Latin America: A Changing Relation (Cambridge, 1989), pp. 1–24.Google Scholar

2 For an analysis of the intense competition in Central America involving, among others, the United States, Spain, Mexico, and various isthmian anti-imperialist elements, see Salisbury, Richard V., Anti-Imperialism and International Competition in Central America, 1920–1929 (Wilmington, Delaware, 1989).Google Scholar

3 For information on the pre-World War I relationship between Great Britain and the United States in Latin America, see Smith, Joseph, Illusions of Conflict: Anglo-American Diplomacy Toward Latin America, 1865–1896 (Pittsburgh, 1979),Google Scholar passim; Kneer, Warren G., Great Britain and the Caribbean, 1901–1913: A Study in Anglo-American Relations (East Lansing, 1975),Google Scholar passim; and Healy, David, Drive to Hegemony: The United States in the Caribbean, 1898–1917 (Madison, 1988), pp. 3–4,Google Scholar 34–35, 81, 93–94, 106.

4 Tulchin, Joseph S., The Aftermath of War: World War 1 and U.S. Policy Toward Latin America (New York, 1971), pp. 38–40 Google Scholar; Rippy, J. Fred, British Investments in Latin America, 1822–1949 (Minneapolis, 1959), pp. 77, 105–09Google Scholar; Thorpe, Rosemary, “Latin America and the International Economy from the First World War to the World Depression,” in Bethell, Leslie, (ed.), The Cambridge History of Latin America (Cambridge, 1986), 4, pp. 57–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5 Jack Proby Armstrong to Lord George Curzon, May 12, 1920, F.O. 371/4443, Public Record Office, Kew Gardens (hereafter cited as PRO).

6 Hugh Gaisford to Foreign Office, June 6, 1920, F.O. 371/4443, PRO.

7 Horace James Seymour’s minute on Gaisford to Foreign Office, June 6, 1920, F.O. 371/4443, PRO. Foreign Office personnel, upon receipt of correspondence, appended observations or minutes to this correspondence. The policy making process in the Foreign Office developed, to a great extent, out of the consensus found in these minutes.

8 Sir Auckland Geddes to Foreign Office, June 5, 1920, F.O. 371/4443; Lawrence Lockhart’s minute on Geddes to Foreign Office, June 18, 1920, F.O. 371/4443, PRO.

9 Gaisford to Foreign Office, June 20, 1920, F.O. 371/4444; Seymour’s minute on Gaisford to Foreign Office, F.O. 371/4444, PRO.

10 Geddes to Foreign Office, June 22, 1920, F.O. 371/4444; Foreign Office to Gaisford, June 29, 1920, F.O. 371/4444; Gaisford to Foreign Office, July 8, 1920, F.O. 371/4444, PRO.

11 Rowland Sperling’s minute on Geddes to Foreign Office, June 22, 1920, F.O. 371/4444, PRO.

12 A. Percy Bennett to Lord Curzon, February 18, 1920, F.O. 371/4535; Constantine Graham to Foreign Office, June 12, 1920, F.O. 371/4535, PRO.

13 Sperling’s minute on Graham to Foreign Office, May 11, 1920, F.O. 371/4535, PRO.

14 Graham to Foreign Office, June 12, 1920, F.O. 371/4535, PRO.

15 Graham to Foreign Office, July 1, 1920, F.O. 371/4535, PRO.

16 Seymour’s minute on Graham to Foreign Office, July 1, 1920, F.O. 371/4535, PRO.

17 Sperling’s minute on Graham to Foreign Office, July I, 1920, F.O. 371/4535, PRO. For additional information regarding Sperling’s anti-American attitude, see Kneer, , Great Britain and the Caribbean, p. 158.Google Scholar

18 Foreign Office to Geddes, July 8, 1920, F.O. 371/4535; Geddes to Foreign Office (no date), F.O. 371/4535, PRO.

19 Geddes to Foreign Office, July 22, 1920, F.O. 371/4535, PRO.

20 Foreign Office to Geddes, July 24, 1920, F.O. 371/4535, PRO.

21 Seymour’s minute on Geddes to Foreign Office, August 6, 1920, F.O. 371/4536, PRO.

22 George Lyall to Lord Curzon, November 2, 1923, F.O. 371/8434, PRO.

23 Lyall to Foreign Office, February 11, 1924, F.O. 371/9517, PRO.

24 William Richard Connor Green’s minute on Lyall to Foreign Office, February 11, 1924, F.O. 371/9517; Sperling’s minute on Lyall to Foreign Office, February 11, 1924, F.O. 371/9517, PRO.

25 Foreign Office to Lyall, February 16, 1924, F.O. 371/9517, PRO.

26 Sir Esme Howard to Foreign Office, March 11, 1924, F.O. 371/9517, PRO.

27 Foreign Office to Howard, March 13, 1924, F.O. 371/9517, PRO.

28 Foreign Office to Lyall, March 13, 1924, F.O. 371/9517, PRO.

29 Howard to Foreign Office, March 18, 1924, F.O. 371/9517, PRO.

30 Charles Dodd’s minute on Howard to Foreign Office, March 18, 1924, F.O. 371/9517, PRO.

31 Lyall to Foreign Office, June 23, 1924, F.O. 371/9518, PRO.

32 Ibid.

33 Although not a signatory of the Washington pacts, the United States government, in an effort to promote isthmian peace and stability, indicated that it would observe the de jure recognition provisions of the treaties. For further information on the development of isthmian recognition policy, see Salisbury, Richard V., “Domestic Politics and Foreign Policy: Costa Rica’s Stand on Recognition, 1923–1934,” Hispanic American Historical Review, 54, No. 3 (August 1974), pp. 453–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Stansifer, Charles L., “Application of the Tobar Doctrine to Central America,” the Americas, 23, No. 3 (January 1967), pp. 257–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

34 Howard to Foreign Office, January 23, 1926, F.O. 371/11120, PRO.

35 Harold Patteson to Foreign Office, January 16, 1926, F.O. 371/11120, PRO.

36 Thomas M. Snow’s minute on Howard to Foreign Office, January 23, 1926, F.O. 371/11120, PRO.

37 Robert L. Craigie’s minute on Howard to Foreign Office, January 23, 1926, F.O. 371/11120; Robert G. Vansittart’s minute on Howard to Foreign Office, January 23, 1926, F.O. 371/11120, PRO.

38 Foreign Office minute, Sir Austen Chamberlain, February 2, 1926, F.O. 371/11120, PRO.

39 Vansittart’s minute of February 3, 1926 on Foreign Office minute, Sir Austen Chamberlain, February 2, 1926, F.O. 371/11120, PRO.

40 Patteson to Foreign Office, May 3, 1926, F.O. 371/11120, PRO.

41 Craigie’s minute on Patteson to Foreign Office, May 3, 1926, F.O. 371/11120; John W. Field’s minute on Patteson to Foreign Office, May 3, 1926, F.O. 371/11120, PRO.

42 Snow’s minute on Patteson to Foreign Office, May 3, 1926, F.O. 371/11120, PRO.

43 Patteson to Foreign Office, June 27, 1926, F.O. 371/11120, PRO.

44 Craigie’s minute on Patteson to Foreign Office, June 27, 1926, F.O. 371/11120; Vansittart’s minute on Patteson to Foreign Office, June 27, 1926, F.O. 371/11120; Patteson to Foreign Office, August 23, 1926, F.O. 371/11120, PRO.

45 Patteson to Foreign Office, November 12, 1926, F.O. 371/11120, PRO.

46 Snow’s minute of November 13, 1926 on Patteson to Foreign Office on November 12, 1926, F.O. 371/11120, PRO.

47 Ibid.

48 Snow’s minute of November 15, 1926 on Patteson to Foreign Office, November 12, 1926, F.O. 371/11120, PRO.

49 Ibid. Craigie’s minute of November 15, 1926 on Patteson to Foreign Office, November 12, 1926, F.O. 371/11120, PRO.

50 Foreign Office to Patteson, November 15, 1926, F.O. 371/11120, PRO.

51 Patteson to Foreign Office, November 16, 1926, F.O. 371/11120, PRO.

52 Snow’s minute on Patteson to Foreign Office, November 16, 1926, F.O. 371/11120, PRO.

53 Craigie’s minute on Patteson to Foreign Office, November 16, 1926, F.O. 371/11120; Craigie to Henry G. Chilton, December 9, 1926, F.O. 371/11120, PRO.

54 Craigie to Patteson, December 9, 1926, F.O. 371/11120, PRO.

55 Foreign Office to Board of Trade and Admiralty, December 16, 1926, F.O. 371/11120, PRO.

56 For additional information on the Mexican-Nicaraguan connection, see Salisbury, Richard V., “Mexico, the United States, and the 1926–1927 Nicaraguan Crisis,” Hispanic American Historical Review, 66, No. 2 (May 1986), pp. 319–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

57 Craigie’s minute on Parliamentary Question, December 15, 1926, F.O. 371/11120, PRO.

58 Foreign Office to Patteson, December 30, 1926, F.O. 31120, PRO.

59 Patteson to Foreign Office, January 3, 1927, F.O. 371/11969, PRO.

60 Craigie’s minute of January 6, 1927 on Patteson to Foreign Office, January 3, 1927, F.O. 371/11969; Craigie’s minute of January 7, 1927 on Howard to Foreign Office, January 6, 1927, F.O. 371/11969; Snow’s minute of January 5, 1927 on Patteson to Foreign Office, January 3, 1927, F.O. 371/11969; Snow’s minute of January 7, 1927 on Howard to Foreign Office, January 6, 1927, F.O. 371/11969, PRO.

61 Howard to Foreign Office, January 11, 1927, F.O. 371/11969; Cyril James Torr’s minute of January 13, 1927 on Howard to Foreign Office, January 11, 1927, F.O. 371/11969; Vansittart’s minute of January 14, 1927 on Howard to Foreign Office, January 11, 1927, F.O. 371/11969, PRO.

62 Patteson to Foreign Office, February 14, 1927, F.O. 371/11969, PRO.

63 Snow’s minute of February 15, 1927 on Patteson to Foreign Office, February 14, 1927, F.O. 371/11969, PRO.

64 Vansittart’s minute of February 16, 1927 on Patteson to Foreign Office, February 14, 1927, F.O. 371/11969, PRO.

65 Foreign Office to Patteson, February 17, 1927, F.O. 371/11969; Foreign Office to Howard, February 17, 1927, F.O. 371/11969, PRO.

66 Patteson to Foreign Office, February 17, 1927, F.O. 371/11969, PRO.

67 Snow’s minute of February 18, 1927 on Patteson to Foreign Office, February 17, 1927, F.O. 371/11969; Vansittart’s minute of February 18, 1927 on Patteson to Foreign Office, February 17, 1927, F.O. 371/11969; Chamberlain’s minute of February 18, 1927 on Patteson to Foreign Office, February 17, 1927, F.O. 371/11969, PRO.

68 Vansittart’s minute of February 21, 1927 on Foreign Office minute of February 19, 1927, F.O. 371/11969; Chamberlain’s minute of February 21, 1927 on Foreign Office minute of February 19, 1927, F.O. 371/11969; Vansittart to Admiralty, February 22, 1927, F.O. 371/11969, PRO. For information on the actual visit of the British vessel to Corinto, see Admiralty to Foreign Office, May 3, 1927, F.O. 371/11970, PRO.

69 Foreign Office to Howard, February 22, 1927, F.O. 371/11969, PRO.

70 Vansittart’s minute of February 25, 1927 on Foreign Office minute of February 23, 1927, F.O. 371/11969; British Library of Information (New York) to Foreign Office, March 18, 1927, F.O. 371/11970, PRO.

71 Howard to Foreign Office, February 24, 1927, F.O. 371/11969; Howard to Foreign Office, February 25, 1927, F.O. 371/11970, PRO.

72 Foreign Office to Howard, March 2, 1927, F.O. 371/11969, PRO.

73 Howard to Chamberlain, February 25, 1927, F.O. 371/11970; Snow’s minute on Howard to Chamberlain, February 25, 1927, F.O. 371/11970; Vansittart’s minute on Howard to Chamberlain, February 25, 1927, F.O. 371/11970, PRO.

74 Vansittart’s minute of March 23, 1927 on Howard to Chamberlain, February 25, 1927, F.O. 371/11970; Vansittart’s minute of February 26, 1927 on Howard to Foreign Office, February 25, 1927, F.O. 371/11969, PRO.

75 Chamberlain to Howard, April 4, 1927, F.O. 371/11970, PRO.

76 Craigie’s minute of October 4, 1928 on British Library of Information (New York) to Foreign Office, August 27, 1928, F.O. 371/12747, PRO.

77 Geoffrey H. Thompson’s minute of June 7, 1928 on British Library of Information (New York) to Foreign Office, May 2, 1928, F.O. 371/12727, PRO.

78 Craigie’s minute of June 14, 1928 on British Library of Information (New York) to Foreign Office, May 2, 1928, F.O. 371/12727, PRO. The term “City of London” refers to London’s financial district. For further analysis of Great Britain’s declining financial role in Latin America during the 1920s see Bethell, , “Britain and Latin America in Historical Perspective,” pp. 15–17 Google Scholar and Thorpe, , “Latin America and the International Economy,” pp. 63–65.Google Scholar

79 Patteson to Foreign Office, February 9, 1928, F.O. 371/12746, PRO.

80 Hugh London to Chamberlain, July 13, 1928, F.O. 371/12746; Arthur Vivian Burbury’s minute of August 28, 1928 on London to Chamberlain, July 13, 1928, F.O. 371/12746, PRO.

81 Leonard H. Leach to Sir John Simon, March 19, 1934, F.O. 371/17497, PRO.

82 Having reviewed diplomatic correspondence in the National Archives of Costa Rica, Mexico, Spain, and the United States, the author can attest to the accessibility, breadth, and organization of the Public Record Office holdings as well as the institution’s extended working day and pleasant physical environment.