Course 2, Volume 1A. American Foreign Policy in Growth and Action Page: 28
This book is part of the collection entitled: National WASP WWII Museum and was provided to The Portal to Texas History by the National WASP WWII Museum.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY IN GROWTH AND ACTION
concerned ... with that . . . practical application of
the Monroe doctrine the disregard of which by an
European power is to be deemed an act of unfriend-
liness toward the United States. The precise scope
and limitations of this rule cannot be too clearly
apprehended. It does not establish any general pro-
tectorate by the United States over other American
states. It does not relieve any American state from
its obligations as fixed by international law nor
prevent any European power directly interested from
enforcing such obligations or from inflicting merited
punishment for the breach of them. It does not con-
template any interference in the internal affairs of
any American-state or in the relations between it and
other American states. It does not justify any attempt
on our part to change the established form of govern-
ment of any American state or to prevent the people
of such state from altering that form according to
their own will and pleasure. The rule in question
has but a single purpose and object. It is that no
European power or combination of European powers
shall forcibly deprive an American state of the right
and power of self-government and of shaping for it-
self its own. political fortunes and destinies. . . . Today
the United States is practically sovereign on this
continent, and its fiat is law upon the subjects to
which it confines its interposition. Why? It is not
because of the pure friendship or good will' felt for
it. It is not simply by reason of its high character as
a civilized state, nor because wisdom and justice
and equity are the invariable characteristics of the
dealings of the United States. It is because, in addi-
tion to all other grounds, its infinite resources com-
bined with its isolated position render it master of the
situation and practically invulnerable as against any
or all other powers. . . . It seems therefore quite
impossible that this position of Great Britain should
be assented to by the United States, or that, if such
position be adhered to with the result of enlarging
the bounds of British Guiana, it should not be re-
garded as amounting, in substance, to an invasion
and conquest of Venezuelan territory....
Secretary Olney's strained interpretation of the
Monroe Doctrine found favor in America but
did not provoke the British to early
Olney strains action. After four months of delay,
the Monroe Lord Salisbury, Britain's Prime
Doctrine Minister and Foreign Minister, re-
plied in two notes on November 26,
1895. He asserted that the Monroe Doctrine was
not applicable to the Venezuelan situation, that
the doctrine was not recognized in international
law, and that it was not relevant to the boundary
question. President Cleveland drafted a message
to Congress, criticizing Lord Salisbury's stand and
recommending the creation of a commission to
investigate the situation.PRESIDENT CLEVELAND'S MESSAGE TO
CONGRESS, WASHINGTON, DECEMBER 17,
1895: . . . If a European power, by an extension of
its boundaries, takes possession of the territory of
one of our neighboring Republics against its will and
in derogation of its rights, it is difficult to see why
to that extent such European power does not thereby
attempt to extend its system of government to that
portion of this continent which is thus taken. . . .
Practically the principle for which we contend . . .
may not have been admitted in so many words to
the code of international law, but since in interna-
tional councils every nation is entitled to the rights
belonging to it, if the enforcement of the Monroe
Doctrine is something we may justly claim it has its
place in the code of international law as certainly
and as securely as if it were specifically mentioned.
. . . Assuming . . . that the attitude of Venezuela
will remain unchanged, the dispute has reached such
a stage as to make it now incumbent upon the United
States to take measures to determine with sufficient
certainty for its justification what is the true divi-
sional line between the Republic of Venezuela and
British Guiana. . . . When [the investigation com-
mission's] . . . report is made and accepted it will
. . . be the duty of the United States to resist by
every means in its power as a willful aggression
upon its rights and interests the appropriation by
Great Britain of any lands or the exercise of govern-
mental jurisdiction over any territory which after
investigation we have determined of right belongs to
Venezuela....
Cleveland's message, which practically insisted
that the United States decide what the boundary
line was to be, received loud acclaim in the Con-
gress and from the country. The
Britain seeks British, while alarmed by the Presi-
agreement dent's belligerent message and its
with the warm reception in the United
United States States, refused to get too upset over
the matter. Occupied with the Boer
troubles in South Africa, as well as with the ill-
considered action of the German Kaiser in con-
gratulating President Kruger of the Boer republic
on his capture of the Jameson raiders, the British
were in a conciliatory mood toward the United
States. They provided the American boundary
commission with data and agreed
Britain accepts to a treaty with Venezuela, which
the Monroe was signed February 2, 1897. This
Doctrine arranged for the submission of the
boundary dispute to an arbitration
board. The board decided, October .3, 1899, that
the line would be substantially that which Britain28
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Matching Search Results
View 159 pages within this book that match your search.Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
Air University (U.S.). Extension Course Institute. Course 2, Volume 1A. American Foreign Policy in Growth and Action, book, April 1959; Alabama. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth1077937/m1/42/?q=%22~1%22~1: accessed July 16, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting National WASP WWII Museum.