Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T09:03:14.013Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Woodrow Wilson's Use of the Non-Recognition Policy in Costa Rica

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 December 2015

George W. Baker Jr.
George W. Baker Jr.*
Affiliation:
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Of all Woodrow Wilson's foreign policies, none is more deserving of criticism than his non-recognition policy. This policy, initiated by the President within a week after his accession to office on March 4, 1913, in response to the news of violent revolutionary disturbances in Mexico and Nicaragua, was primarily predicated on Wilson's assumption that the best way to prevent the recurrence of revolutions in Caribbean nations would be to warn all would-be revolutionists that they could expect no political or financial support from the United States. Ultimately he hoped that he could end the threat of revolution and induce all Latin American nations to abide by constitutional and democratic forms of government.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Americas , Volume 22 , Issue 1 , July 1965 , pp. 3 - 21
Copyright
Copyright © Academy of American Franciscan History 1965

References

1 For a good collection of Wilson’s early policy statements, see Robinson, E.E. and West, V.J., The Foreign Policy of Woodrow Wilson (New York, 1918)Google Scholar; on his reaction to the revolutions, see Houston, David F., Eight Years with Wilson’s Cabinet (2 vols.; Garden City, N. Y., 1926), I, 44.Google Scholar

2 Wilson, Charles, Empire in Green and Gold (New York, 1947), pp. 36 ff.Google Scholar; and Kepner, C.D. and Soothill, J.H., The Banana Empire (New York, 1935), pp. 40 ff.Google Scholar

3 For Costa Rican politics, see Munro, Dana G., The Five Republics of Central America (New York, 1918)Google Scholar and Jones, Chester L., Costa Rica and Civilization in the Caribbean (Madison, 1935)Google Scholar; also three dispatches of Chargé Mitchall Langhorne to William J. Bryan, dated May 27, 1913, July 15, 1913, and May 9, 1914, Department of State Papers, Decimal File (hereafter cited as D. S. File), 818.00/42, 44, and 45, National Archives.

4 Hale to Bryan, September 30, 1914, D. S. File 818.00/46. Dana Munro, a Latin American authority and later a member of the Latin American Division in Harding's administration, was then studying in Central America. Because he opposed Wilson’s Mexican policy and spoke freely on Costa Rican political affairs, Hale disapproved of him. Munro believed that Costa Rican political tranquillity rested upon the fact that land ownership was widespread and that the majority of whites were less susceptible to revolution. Hale to Bryan, October 30, 1914, D. S. File 818.00/47.

5 Costa Rican claims rested upon the Cañas Jérez Treaty of 1858 and the Grover Cleveland Award based upon that treaty. Wilson may have appeared to disregard Costa Rican claims, but in private he sincerely hoped to compensate it, once Nicaraguan affairs were settled. Wilson to Bryan, March 11, 1915, Bryan-Wilson Correspondence, National Archives.

6 Hale to Bryan, November 11, 1913; Samuel T. Lee (Consul at San José) to Bryan, November 22, 1913; Moore, John B. to Hale, , December 2, 1913, Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States (hereafter cited as Foreign Relations) (Washington, 1920), pp. 865–866 Google Scholar; The New York Times, December 13, 1913, 2: 4.

7 These treaties were designed to set into motion arbitration machinery to settle a dispute within a year. Meanwhile the two contending nations could not resort to force of arms and would have, it was anticipated, “cooled-off” while awaiting the arbitration decision. Foreign Relations, 1914, pp. 171–173.

8 Malloy, William, Treaties, Conventions, International Acts, Protocols, and Agreements between the United States of America and Other Powers, 67th Congress, 4th session, document number 348 (Washington, 1923), pp. 2547–2548.Google Scholar

9 For this speech, see Hale, to Lansing, May 2, 1916, Foreign Relations, 1916, p. 217.Google Scholar The White Award involved the decision rendered by Chief Justice Edward D. White on a boundary dispute betwen Costa Rica and Panama. Because Panama challenged the merit of the award which favored Costa Rica, Costa Rica was seeking American good offices to uphold the White Award.

10 Hale to Lansing, September 22 and November 4, 1916, D. S. File 818.00/49 and 51; Amasa Thornton to Lansing, December 4, 1916, Robert Lansing Papers, Library of Congress.

11 Hale, to Lansing, January 27, 1917, Foreign Relations, 1917, p. 301 Google Scholar; López, Jacinto, La Caida del Gobierno Constitucional en Costa Rica (New York, 1919), p. 9 Google Scholar; Alfaro, Carlos Monge, Historia de Costa Rica (San José, 1959), pp. 254–255 Google Scholar; Jones, , Costa Rica and Civilization in the Caribbean, p. 26.Google Scholar

12 State Department Memorandum by Jordan H. Stabler, January 29, 1917, D. S. File 818.00/81.

13 William Sulzer to Lansing, January 30, 1917, D. S. File 818.00/62; Samuel Untermyer to Lansing, January 31, 1917, D. S. File 818.00/64.

14 Hale to Lansing, January 30, 1917 (sent through Benjamin Jefferson in Managua), D. S. File 818.00/61.

15 Hale to Lansing, January 30, 1917, Foreign Relations, 1917, p. 304; González may have aroused some popular resentment when in his struggle with the powerful classes he resorted to restrictions on press and speech, but this was hardly enough to warrant a revolution. Jones, , Costa Rica and Civilization in the Caribbean, p. 27.Google Scholar

16 Lansing, Robert, War Memoirs (Indianapolis, 1935), pp. 308–309.Google Scholar

17 Rafael Oreamuno to Chandler P. Anderson, counselor of Costa Rica, February 2, 1917, Chandler P. Anderson Papers, Library of Congress.

18 Lansing to Hale, , February 5, 1917, Foreign Relations, 1917, p. 305.Google Scholar

19 Lansing to Wilson, February 7, 1917, D. S. File 818.00/105.

20 Wilson, to Lansing, February 7, 1917, Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States: The Lansing Papers, 1914–1920 (hereafter cited as The Lansing Papers) (2 vols.; Washington, 1939–1940), II, 518.Google Scholar

21 Lansing to Leavell, William R., February 9, 1917 (mutatis mutandis to Tegucigalpa, San Salvador, and Managua), Foreign Relations, 1917, p. 306.Google Scholar The British ambassador was also informed of this policy and Britain followed the American point of view in the affair. William Phillips to Stabler, February 17, 1917, D. S. File 818.00/77.

22 State Department Memorandum by Stabler, February 7, 1917, D. S. File 818.00/92.

23 Boaz W. Long to Lansing, February 17, 1917, D. S. File 818.00/97.

24 Entry of February 15, 1917, Anderson Diary.

25 Lansing to Wilson, February 19, 1917; Wilson, to Lansing, February 20, 1917, The Lansing Papers, 2, 519.Google Scholar

28 William G. McAdoo to Untermyer, February 19, 1917, D. S. File 818.00/108.

27 Lansing to Hale, , February 22, 1917, Foreign Relations, 1917, p. 308 Google Scholar; Anderson to Polk, February 21, 1917, Frank Polk Papers, Yale University Library; Stabler to Lansing, March 3, 1917, D.S. File 818.00/89; Quesada, Manuel Castro to Lansing, February 28, 1917, Foreign Relations, 1917, pp. 309–312.Google Scholar

28 Among Tinoco’s intermediaries were the minister of foreign affairs Carlos Lara, ex-president Cleto González Víquez, and Manuel Echeverría, a member of the Central American Court. Hale to Lansing, March 3, 1917, D.S. File 818.00/111.

29 State Department Memorandum by Warren D. Robbins, March 7, 1917, D. S. File 818.00/108.

30 Entry of March 10, 1917, Anderson Diary.

31 Juan Kumpel, González’s personal adviser, was of German extraction and was allegedly persuading González to the German cause. William J. Price, March 14, 1917, D.S. File 818.00/116.

32 Quesada, Castro to Lansing, February 28, 1917, Foreign Relations, 1917, pp. 309–312.Google Scholar

33 Hale to Lansing, March 15, 1917, D.S. File 818.00/116; Hale to Lansing, April 15, 1917, D.S. File 818.00/130.

34 Leo S. Rowe to Polk, March 27, 1917, Polk Papers.

35 Oreamuno to Anderson, March 27, 1917, Anderson Papers; Hale to Lansing, March 29, 1917; Foreign Relations, 1917, p. 330.

36 Stabler to Lansing, March 31, 1917, D.S. File 818.00/128; Hale, to Lansing, April 2, 1917, Foreign Relations, 1917, p. 321.Google Scholar

37 Anonymous, , “Costa Rica’s ‘Coup d’état,’” Literary Digest, 54 (March 24, 1917), 810 Google Scholar; The New York Times, January 31, 1917, 10: 5; Entry of April 6, 1917, Anderson Diary.

38 To be certain, Wilson did not have to fear the Central American nations, even if unified, but he would have been foolish to alienate them while fighting the World War. Tinoco to Wilson, , April 11, 1917, Foreign Relations, 1917, p. 322.Google Scholar

39 Hale to Lansing, April 15, 1917, D.S. File 818.00/130; Senate Resolution 362, in Congressional Record, 65th congress, 3rd session, p. 23.

40 Hale to Lansing, April 18, 1917, D. S. File 818.00/134.

41 Stewart Johnson to Lansing, April 20, 1917, D.S. File 818.00/136.

42 The company based its stand upon a Costa Rican law which forbade the use of private facilities for official communications and upon the fact that the district manager of the company was not available to decide upon the exceptional case. State Department Memorandum by Stabler, February 24, 1917, D. S. File 818.00/127; Keith to Rowe, April 13, 1917, and Rowe to Polk, April 26, 1917, D. S. File 818.00/156; Entry of May 3, 1917, Anderson Diary; William Penfield to Lansing, May 15, 1917, D. S. File 818.00/149.

43 Johnson to Lansing, April 30, 1917, Johnson, to Lansing, May 14, 1917, Foreign Relations, 1917, pp. 322–323 Google Scholar; Entry of May 14, 1917, Anderson Diary; Alfaro, Monge, Historia de Costa Rica, pp. 260–261.Google Scholar

44 Correspondence is in Foreign Relations, 1917, pp. 323–325; R. Fernández Guardia to Lansing, May 31, 1917, D.S. File 818.00/163; Johnson, to Lansing, June 2, 1917, Foreign Relations, 1917, p. 326.Google Scholar

45 Entry of April 28, 1917, Anderson Diary.

46 Dulles to Lansing, May 1, 1917, D. S. File 818.00/142.

47 Lansing enclosed both Dulles’ report and a letter of General E. H. Plummer who urged recognition of Tinoco because of the Canal Zone. Lansing to Wilson, May 23, 1917, D. S. File 818.00/200.

48 Wilson to Lansing, May 28, 1917, D. S. File 818.00/196.

49 Entry of May 28, 1917, Anderson Diary; State Department Memorandum by Stabler, June 12, 1917, D. S. File 818.00/184; State Department Memorandum by Dulles, May 29, 1917, D. S. File 818.00/197; Lansing to Johnson, May 29, 1917, D. S. File 818.00/162a; Johnson, to Lansing, June 15, 1917, Foreign Relations, 1917, pp. 327–328.Google Scholar

50 Johnson to Lansing, July 18, 1917, ibid., pp. 339–340.

51 Wilson to Lansing, July 21, 1917, D. S. File 818.00/306.

52 Johnson to Lansing, July 26, 1917, D. S. File 818.00/191.

53 Hale to Lansing, July 21, 1917, D. S. File 818.00/190.

54 Lansing to Charles Parmelee of the Justice Department, August 10, 1917, Lansing Papers.

55 Dulles to Charles Warren of the Justice Department, August 27, 1917, D. S. File 818.00/234a.

56 Office of Naval Intelligence to State Department, August 23, 1917, D. S. File 818.00/231.

57 Entry of September 11, 1917, Anderson Diary.

58 Lansing to Leavell, , September 21, 1917 (mutatis mutandis to Tegucigalpa, Managua, San Salvador), Foreign Relations, 1917, p. 343 Google Scholar; Johnson to Lansing, October 8, 1917, D. S. File 818.00/237.

59 Johnson to Lansing, October 21, 1917, D.S. File 818.00/244; Lodge to Lansing, November 13, 1917, D. S. File 818.00/258.

60 Johnson to Lansing, October 27, 1917, D.S. File 818.00/243; State Department Memorandum by Glenn Stewart, December 4, 1917, D. S. File 818.00/360; Johnson to Lansing, December 14, 1917, D. S. File 818.00/270; Senate Document, No. 77, 66th congress, 1st session.

61 Lansing to Senator Joseph Ransdell, December 24, 1917, D. S. File 818.00/302a.

62 Wilson, to Lansing, December 29, 1917, The Lansing Papers, 2, 521.Google Scholar

63 Lansing to Wilson, December 31, 1917, ibid., pp. 521-522; Wilson to Lansing, January 1, 1918, ibid., p. 522.

64 Polk to Wilson, July 18, 1918, Polk Papers; Entry of September 3, 1918, Josephus Daniels Desk Diary, Library of Congress; State Department Memorandum, September 19, 1918, D. S. File 818.00/4961/2.

65 Polk to Wilson, January 11, 1918, Woodrow Wilson Papers (hereafter cited as Wilson Papers), Library of Congress; Lansing to Wilson, May 15, 1918, D. S. File 818.00/ 492; Wilson to Lansing, May 20, 1918, D.S. File 818.00/493. It is important to add that the origin of the revolution has also been traced to the Costa Rica Oil Corporation which supported Tinoco because of González’ opposition to monopolistic concessions. State Department records did not allude to this corporation, nor did any American official mention it. de Cárdenas, Raúl y Echarte, , La Política de Los Estados Unidos en el Continente Americano (La Habana, 1921), p. 261 Google Scholar; and Alfaro, Monge, Historia de Costa Rica, pp. 255–256.Google Scholar

66 Johnson to Lansing, November 14, 1918; Lansing to Johnson, , November 26, 1918, Foreign Relations, 1918, pp. 272–275.Google Scholar

67 Entry of June 15, 1919, Polk Diary; Polk to Lansing, June 25, 1919, Lansing Papers.

68 Wilson to Lansing, June 27, 1919, Lansing Papers; Congressional Record, 65th congress, 3rd session, p. 23; Senate Document, 106, 66th congress, 1st session (Washington, 1919); Wilson to Lansing, August 5, 1919, D.S. File 818.00/807; Wilson to Lansing, August 8, 1919, Wilson Papers.

69 Chase to Lansing, August 11, 1919, and vice-consul Montgomery to Lansing, August 12, 1919, Foreign Relations, 1919, pp. 850–851; Alfaro, Monge, Historia de Costa Rica, pp. 273–274.Google Scholar

70 Lansing to Wilson, December 13, 1919, D.S. File 818.00/955a.

71 Polk to Wilson, March 4, 1920, D. S. File 818.00/963a.

72 Rowe to Colby, April 6, 1920, D. S. File 818.00/1027; Smith, Daniel M., “Bainbridge Colby and the Good Neighbor Policy, 1920–1921,” The Mississippi Valley Historical Review, 50, No. 1 (June, 1963), 56–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

73 Davis to Wilson, June 25, 1920, Wilson Papers; Colby, to Chase, August 2, 1920, Foreign Relations, 1920, 1, 834.Google Scholar