Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T17:42:37.449Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

European Possessions in the Americas

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

E. Taylor Parks
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The United States of 1783 was composed of thirteen former English colonies and their hinterland extending to the Mississippi River. Except on the Atlantic side, the new republic was surrounded by European possessions. In fact, the remainder of the New World was claimed by European nations. It was inevitable, therefore, that the United States from the beginning would concern itself with these European possessions.

The degree of concern has been determined largely by three factors: (1) the geographic location of the areas, (2) their economic and strategic value, and (3) the relative power and prestige of their current or prospective possessors. As regards the geographic location of the areas, the interest of the United States has expanded roughly in broad concentric arcs: (a) contiguous continental lands (Florida, Louisiana, Texas, California, Oregon Territory); (b) Alaska, Central America, and the Caribbean; (c) South America and off-shore islands; and (d) the Antarctic. This expansion of interest has been concomitant with the territorial and economic growth of the United States, the development of ever-more-rapid means of transportation and communication, and the changing concepts of national defense.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Inter-American Studies , Volume 4 , Issue 3 , July 1962 , pp. 395 - 405
Copyright
Copyright © University of Miami 1962

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 The no-transfer principle was not a part of the original Monroe Doctrine. It was stated on numerous occasions (1823, 1825, 1840, 1841, 1843, 1848) without reference to the Doctrine. President Polk (1845) implied a connection between the two. Slowly during the 1860's, the two became linked together. Finally, President Grant and Secretary Fish (1870) succinctly stated the no-transfer principle and tied it to the Monroe Doctrine. Between 1867 and 1895, this principle was the most used one of the three.

2 Perkins, Dexter, The Monroe Doctrine, 1826-1867 (Baltimore, 1933), pp. 59, 61Google Scholar.

3 The message contained a vague statement which might be so interpreted as to cover the Río de la Plata situation.

4 Texas was annexed by Congressional Joint Resolution in 1845; the Oregon Question was settled in 1846; California and the great Southwest were acquired by treaty in 1848.

5 Both nations based their claims on discovery before 1823. Forces of both nations visited the island in 1897-1898. An Arbitration Convention of March 2, 1909, referred the dispute to the King of Italy. The arbitral award of January 28, 1931, declared the island to have been French since 1858. When the Mexican press raised the issue of violation of the Monroe Doctrine, Secretary Stimson thought that the French claim antedated 1823.

6 The United States purchased the Russian colony of Alaska in 1867.

7 United States position on the eve of the fall of France was expressed in equally strong terms in notes to Germany and Italy (June 17, 1940): “… in accordance with its traditional policy relating to the Western Hemisphere, the United States would not recognize any transfer, and would not acquiesce in any attempt to transfer, any geographic region of the Western Hemisphere from one non-American power to another non-American power” (Department of State Bulletin, June 22, 1940, pp. 681-682).

8 Report of the Delegation of the United Nations … (Washington, D. C , 1948), pp. 85-86.

9 This recommendation was not to be applicable to the “occupied territories” in dispute between certain American and European nations.

10 Fourth Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs of American States: Report of the Secretary of State, March 26-April 7, 1951 (Washington, 1953), pp. 15-16, 71-72.

11 Resolutions XCVI, XCVII, and XCVIII; Report of the Delegation of the United States of America … Tenth Inter-American Conference, Caracas, Venezuela, March 1-28, 1954 (Washington, D. C , 1955), pp. 10-11.

12 Ibid., pp. 63-64.

13 Statement of Ambassador John M. Cabot at Caracas, ibid., p. 64.

14 Department of State Bulletin, September 5, 1948, p. 301.

15 Ibid., June 2, 1958, pp. 910-911.

16 Ibid., pp. 911-912.

17 Senate Executive B, 86th Congress, 2d Session.