Period 1898 to 1913 tically all terminable difficulties had been settled by the latter year. It was a period replete with new policies and with the development of old ones to suit new conditions, and over the whole period hung the uncertainty as to whether, should the opposing party come to power, these new departures would be confirmed, or dropped or changed. The administration of President Wilson does indeed bid fair to mark a turning point in international relationships, and to usher in a new period. Mainly, however, this diplomatic change has been the result of new factors introduced from the outside, of the great calamity of the present (1915) world war. The situation has altered, but American policy has remained comparatively unchanged. The traditional American policies have been maintained and the most of the new ideas introduced under McKinley, Roosevelt, and Taft, having been endorsed by the opposing party, are in fair way to become traditions. Those few which were reversed, as Secretary Knox's "dollar diplomacy" may be considered as still subjects of domestic controversy. In many respects the outstanding feature of this period was, as for that from 1815 to 1829, the clearing of the board of minor Routine and questions of all kinds,-boundaries, fisheries, citcommerce izenship, claims, and treaty interpretations,— some of them old problems, some new, but all interfering with cordial international relationships. Never before had we been quite so free from such food for quarrelling as we were by 1913. In this period, as in all others, diplomacy sought to aid commerce, its attempts were perhaps somewhat more positive than before, but were of such a character that it is difficult to estimate their effect. Much more spectacular was the expansion of territory. The new acquisitions were more remarkable for the novelty Expansion of of their characteristics than for their extent. territory For the first time we violated Jefferson's injunction to make no annexations that would require a navy for their defense. In the case of the Philippines there was the further novelty that we professed an intention of holding them only until they should be ready for independence. In reality far more important than the exten- Expansion of sion of our dominions was our entrance into influence the diplomacy of eastern Asia. Although still avoiding entangling alliances, we nevertheless engaged in the problems of the Far East as an equal participant with the great powers of Europe. Our purposes were limited to the preservation of the integrity of China and the open door for trade, ideas that appealed to the ideals of our own people, and were calculated to command the acquiescence if not the heartfelt approval of foreign nations. At the same time we cordially coöperated with other nations in general measures for the protection of commerce, for the peaceful settlement of international disputes, and for the humane conduct of war, if war must be. policy Our most striking single achievement was the settlement on a new basis, in accordance with our changed opinion, of the status of isthmian transit. Although Isthmian this determination of the question has proved its worth by allowing the actual construction of the longplanned canal, it can hardly be regarded as diplomatically satisfactory, or as likely to withstand the strain of a war to which we ourselves should be a party. In connection with the canal we have developed a distinct Caribbean policy, which has not been thoroughly differentiated from what we call the Monroe Doctrine, but which is actually different. Persistence of the Monroe Doctrine The Monroe Doctrine itself has continued its growth by accretion; even more than the Constitution has it been adjusted to meet new wants, while preserving the sanctity of an established and revered name. Although monarchy and republicanism cease to stand in such striking opposition as they did in 1823, the European system of alliances and balance of power is still a real something which we wish to avoid, and have thus far successfully avoided. Though our relations have grown, and will continue to grow, increasingly intimate, we have not become a part of the European system. It is, however, still a possibility, as it was in 1823, that we may by our own action or by the force of circumstances, become a member of it. It is still the wish of some European statesmen that this may become the case, and some Americans are not adverse to the idea. The fact that for ninety years, ever since our declaration against further colonization, there has been no establishment of new European colonies in America decidedly strengthens our continued insistence on ' that point. On the other hand, the fact that in the same ninety years the only colonies in America from which European authority has been removed are Alaska, Cuba, and Porto Rico somewhat deadens the force of Secretary Olney's declaration that all the colonies are destined to break off their dependence. Fortunately he set no date. If any new case should occur, we should probably still maintain the position announced by Polk in the case of Yucatan, that we could not with equanimity see even the voluntary passing of any American territory under European jurisdiction; and probably, we should also hold the position taken by Grant, that we should object to the transfer of any colony from one European power to another, at least where such transfer was likely to change the status of American affairs. The development of an American unity to confront the duality of Europe, which Adams and Clay planned, which Blaine did so much to promote, was pressed in this period with vigor and with some success, but must be held to be a long way from accomplishment. Our American policy is still the policy of the United States. New corol- The most important new features or corollaries of our policy were our announcements that, with a view to reducing the opportunity for European interference, we were willing, by mediation, advice, guardianship, and practical protectorates, to insure the carrying out by American governments of their general obligations to Europeans. To what extent we are ready to push this supervision is a matter to be determined in each case, but there can be no doubt that we would go farther within the region of our special interest, the Caribbean, than elsewhere. It is significant that the new corollary of the Wilson administration, to the effect that we will recognize only governments founded on justice and law, was not applied in the case of Peru, where a military government was promptly recognized at the very time when we were 'protesting against the government of Huerta in Mexico. ministration CHAPTER XXXIV MEXICO WHEN Woodrow Wilson became President, March 4, 1913, he found himself in a position somewhat similar to that of Wilson ad- Jefferson in 1801, of Jackson in 1829, and of Lincoln in 1861. Most of the diplomatic problems of the time had been set at rest, and policies for dealing with routine affairs had been adopted and were running smoothly. He called to the position of secretary of state William Jennings Bryan, who, being without experience in matters of state, would naturally be expected to be chiefly interested in the general politics of the administration. In selecting John Bassett Moore as counsellor of the state department, however, he secured the promise of sound judgment and continuity of action.1 Wilson at once reversed one policy of the previous administration by withdrawing the assistance of diplomacy to Change of Americans seeking concessions in China, and policy announced a new extension of the Monroe Doctrine by opposing concessions to foreign corporations by American nations. The second of these new departures promised to make up to the state department the loss of labor which the first might cause. Of the three unsettled and exciting questions left to him, two were the dispute with Great Britain concerning the canal toll, and that relating to the position of Japanese residents in this country. Both these matters he endeavored to settle by domestic action. In the interest of the second one, Secretary Bryan visited California and attempted to forestall action by her legislature, but this attempt failed, and the controversy con'Resigned March 4, 1914. |