Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Shibboleth and a War

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Monroe Doctrine and United States National Security in the Early Twentieth Century

  • 254 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter examines a moment in which the debate over the Monroe Doctrine’s meaning became particularly volatile after the publication of Hiram Bingham’s critique of the doctrine in 1913. The outbreak of the First World War the following year complicated the doctrine’s meaning even further. It was initially considered as a barrier that had warded off the conflict from the Americas. However, it soon became apparent that the belligerent nations had altered the fabric of international relations and that the doctrine had to be reshaped to meet security demands. The debate over the doctrine’s meaning was amplified as Americans sought to convince one another that either regional hegemony or inter-American cooperation was the core value that the nation needed to defend during the war.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    New York Times, December 22, 1911, 2.

  2. 2.

    Hiram Bingham to James Bryce, October 21, 1915, Reel 74, Viscount James Bryce Papers, Weston Library, University of Oxford.

  3. 3.

    First published as an article, Bingham soon expanded his critique in monograph form: Hiram Bingham, “The Monroe Doctrine: An Obsolete Shibboleth,” The Atlantic Monthly, June 1913, 721–734 and The Monroe Doctrine: An Obsolete Shibboleth (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1913).

  4. 4.

    U.S. Congress. House. Monroe Doctrine, 63rd Congress, 1st Session, Congressional Record, July 18, 1913, 2527–2531.

  5. 5.

    John Barrett to Francis Huntington-Wilson, January 20, 1914, Box 36, John Barrett Papers, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, DC; The Pan American Society of the United States: Secretary’s Report 1916–1917 (New York, NY: Pan American Society, 1917), 11–12.

  6. 6.

    Edith Phelps, ed., Selected Articles on the Monroe Doctrine (New York, NY: H. W. Wilson Company, 1915); Edwin Shurter and Carl Taylor, Both Sides of 100 Public Questions Briefly Debated with Affirmative and Negative References (New York, NY: Hinds, Noble & Eldredge, 1913), 55–57.

  7. 7.

    The five papers presented on the Monroe Doctrine were published in The Journal of Race Development and in an edited collection: George Blakeslee, ed., Latin America Clark University Addresses November, 1913 (New York, NY: G. E. Stechert and Company, 1914).

  8. 8.

    The conference proceedings were published in the AAPSS’s journal the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science.

  9. 9.

    Comments of Phillip Marshall Brown in “Statements, Interpretations, and Applications of the Monroe Doctrine and of More or Less Allied Doctrines,” Proceedings of the American Society of International Law at its Annual Meeting 8 (1914): 114. As per the norm, the proceedings of the meeting were published by the society.

  10. 10.

    Historians tend to pin this disjuncture on Wilson’s lack of knowledge relating to both foreign relations and the Latin American region, forcing him into following tried and tested policies: Alan McPherson, A Short History of U.S. Interventions in Latin America and the Caribbean (Chichester: Wiley Blackwell, 2016), 72–73; Brian Loveman, No Higher Law: American Foreign Policy and the Western Hemisphere Since 1776 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2010), 194–195; Michael Neagle, “US Policies Toward Latin America,” in A Companion to Woodrow Wilson, ed. Ross Kennedy (New York, NY: Wiley, 2013), 206–207; Kenneth Clements, Woodrow Wilson: World Statesman (Boston, MA: Twayne Publishers, 1987), 125. However, John Milton Cooper Jr. refutes the argument that Wilson was unprepared for the demands of foreign relations: John Milton Cooper Jr., The Warrior and the Priest: Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1983), 266.

  11. 11.

    Renowned Wilson scholar Arthur Link argues that the President and his cabinet were more concerned with reaping the benefits of inter-American cooperation without having to renounce interventionism: Arthur Link, Woodrow Wilson and the Progressive Era 1910–1917 (New York, NY: Harper and Row, 1954), 106.

  12. 12.

    William Raat and Michael Brescia argue that the revolution was “not simply a Mexican event, but an episode in the history of the United States as well”: William Raat and Michael Brescia, Mexico and the United States: Ambivalent Vistas (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 4th ed., 2010), 132.

  13. 13.

    “Outline of Mexican Trouble,” Henry Lewis Stimson Diaries, Reel 1 Volume 2, Manuscripts and Archives, Yale University Library. Whilst United States citizens lived all over Mexico, approximately twelve thousand lived in Mexico City by 1910: John Hart, Empire and Revolution: The Americans in Mexico Since the Civil War (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002), 271–272.

  14. 14.

    Lars Schoultz, Beneath the United States: A History of U.S. Policy Toward Latin America (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998), 236–237.

  15. 15.

    John Skirius, “Railroad, Oil and Other Foreign Investments in the Mexican Revolution, 1911–1914,” Journal of Latin American Studies 35, no. 1 (2003): 38; John Womack, “The Mexican Revolution, 1910–1920,” in The Cambridge History of Latin America, vol. 5, ed. Leslie Bethell (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), 93–94.

  16. 16.

    Oscar Colquitt to Woodrow Wilson, February 12, 1913 in United States Department of State, Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States 1913 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1920), 705.

  17. 17.

    Delbert Haff to Woodrow Wilson, May 12, 1913, in Woodrow Wilson, The Papers of Woodrow Wilson, vol. 27, ed. Arthur Link (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1978), 419–425.

  18. 18.

    “Suggestive Points on the Mexican Situation,” July 1913, Box 9, Philander Chase Knox Papers, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, DC.

  19. 19.

    Barrett’s proposal was sent to various politicians, including the President, and was published in the press: John Barrett to William Howard Taft, February 13, 1913, Box 34, Barrett Papers; New York Times, February 14, 1913, 1. Mexico had always held significance for Barrett and he had often expressed a desire to be appointed as Ambassador: John Barrett to Theodore Roosevelt, December 20, 1904, Box 21, Barrett Papers.

  20. 20.

    John Barrett to Woodrow Wilson, July 26, 1913, Box 35, Barrett Papers. Emphasis in original.

  21. 21.

    Barrett’s opinion on Bingham can be found in an untitled and undated memorandum in Box 96, Barrett Papers.

  22. 22.

    John Barrett to Romeo Ronconi, December 6, 1913, Box 35, Barrett Papers; John Barrett, “Pan-American Possibilities,” Journal of Race Development 5, no. 1 (1914): 19–29; John Barrett, “A Pan-American Policy: The Monroe Doctrine Modernized,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 54 (1914): 1–4.

  23. 23.

    John Barrett to George Peabody, April 7, Box 36, Barrett Papers.

  24. 24.

    Charles Sherrill, “The Monroe Doctrine from a South American Viewpoint,” The Journal of Race Development 4, no. 3 (1914): 322–323; George Blakeslee, “Should the Monroe Doctrine Continue to Be a Policy of the United States?” Proceedings of the American Society of International Law at Its Annual Meeting 8 (1914): 217–230; Address of John Latané in “Statements, Interpretations, and Applications of the Monroe Doctrine and of More or Less Allied Doctrines,” 113; Hiram Bingham, “Should We Abandon the Monroe Doctrine?,” The Journal of Race Development 4, no. 3 (1914): 353–354; George Tucker, “The Monroe Doctrine,” The Journal of Race Development 4, no. 3 (1914): 326–327; Comments of William Hoynes in Hiram Bingham, “The Latin American Attitude Toward the Monroe Doctrine,” Proceedings of the American Society of International Law at Its Annual Meeting 8 (1914): 200–201; Charles Adams Jr., “The Origin of the Monroe Doctrine,” Proceedings of the American Society of International Law at Its Annual Meeting 8 (1914): 26.

  25. 25.

    Comments of Archibald Coolidge in “Annual Banquet,” Proceedings of the American Society of International Law at Its Annual Meeting 8 (1914): 334.

  26. 26.

    Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Year Book, 5, 1916, 68; American Association for International Conciliation, Pan American Division Memorandum, April 1914; Aerial Age Weekly, September 27, 1915, 29.

  27. 27.

    Mark Petersen describes apolitical inter-American affairs, such as communication, housing, art, health, aviation, and patent protection, as “second dimension” Pan-Americanism, in contrast to “first dimension” Pan-Americanism that encompasses geopolitical considerations: Mark Petersen, “Argentine and Chilean Approaches to Modern Pan-Americanism, 1888–1930” (PhD diss., University of Oxford, 2014), 29–30.

  28. 28.

    John Barrett to J. A. Ryan, January 17, 1907, Box 26, Barrett Papers.

  29. 29.

    John Barrett to William Howard Taft, September 14, 1909, Box 29, Barrett Papers.

  30. 30.

    John Barrett to Nicholas Murray Butler, December 14, 1904, Box 21, Barrett Papers.

  31. 31.

    On working with academics, see “Memorandum for the Press,” February 3, 1907, Box 26, Barrett Papers.

  32. 32.

    John Barrett to James Brown Scott, April 8, 1914, Box 36, Barrett Papers.

  33. 33.

    Blakeslee, “Monroe Doctrine,” 218–220; Bingham, “Latin American Attitude,” 182; Barrett, “Monroe Doctrine Modernized,” 1; John Barrett to Joseph Tumulty, October 5, 1913, Box 35, Barrett Papers.

  34. 34.

    Ricardo Salvatore, Disciplinary Conquest: U.S. Scholars in South America, 1900–1945 (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2016), 2, 212.

  35. 35.

    Mark Berger, Under Northern Eyes: Latin American Studies and US Hegemony in the Americas, 1898–1990 (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1995), 2–29.

  36. 36.

    French Ensor Chadwick, “The Present Day Phase of the Monroe Doctrine,” The Journal of Race Development 4, no. 3 (1914): 314.

  37. 37.

    Address of John Foster in “Misconceptions and Limitations of the Monroe Doctrine,” Proceedings of the American Society of International Law at Its Annual Meeting 8 (1914): 125–126; Elihu Root, “The Real Monroe Doctrine,” Proceedings of the American Society of International Law at Its Annual Meeting 8 (1914): 20; William MacCorkle, “The Monroe Doctrine and Its Application to Haiti,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 54 (1914): 35–53; John Latané, “The Effects of the Panama Canal on Our Relations with Latin America,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 54 (1914): 84–91.

  38. 38.

    “The Panama Canal Controversy Between Great Britain and the United States,” January 12, 1913, Reel 1, John Foster Dulles Papers, Department of Rare Books and Special Collections, Princeton University.

  39. 39.

    Paxton Hibben, “The South American View as to the Monroe Doctrine,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 54 (1914): 63–65; William Hull, “The Monroe Doctrine: National or International?,” Proceedings of the American Society of International Law at Its Annual Meeting 8 (1914): 162–163; Charles Pepper, “The Meaning of the Monroe Doctrine,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 54 (1914): 114–116.

  40. 40.

    Comments of Charles Herrick in Bingham, “Latin American Attitude,” 196; Colby Chester, “The Present Status of the Monroe Doctrine,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 54 (1914): 21; Pepper, “Monroe Doctrine,” 113.

  41. 41.

    J. M. Callahan, “The Modern Meaning of the Monroe Doctrine,” The Journal of Race Development 4, no. 3 (1914): 365; Hull, “Monroe Doctrine,” 159; Joseph Wheless, “The Monroe Doctrine and Latin America,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 54 (1914): 73–75; U.S. Congress. House. Mexico and Asiatic Menace, 63rd Congress, 2nd Session, Appendix to the Congressional Record, March 27, 1914, 266.

  42. 42.

    Comments of Elihu Root in “Annual Banquet,” 327.

  43. 43.

    Michael Small, The Forgotten Peace: Mediation at Niagara Falls, 1914 (Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press, 2009); P. Edward Haley, Revolution and Intervention: The Diplomacy of Taft and Wilson with Mexico, 1910–1917 (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1970), 140–151.

  44. 44.

    “Mexican Question,” May 18, 1914, Box 305, Albert Jeremiah Beveridge Papers, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, DC.

  45. 45.

    “Statement of John Barrett,” April 27, 1914, Box 36, Barrett Papers; John Barrett to Henry White, July 15, 1915, Box 37, Barrett Papers.

  46. 46.

    James Slayden, “The A.B.C. Mediation,” American Journal of International Law 9, no. 1 (1915): 150.

  47. 47.

    New York Tribune, August 6, 1914, 8.

  48. 48.

    New York Times, August 16, 1914, 10.

  49. 49.

    Stephan Rinke, Latin America and the First World War, trans. C. Reid (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2017), 80.

  50. 50.

    Los Angeles Times, September 25, 1914, II4.

  51. 51.

    Francis Huntington-Wilson, “Pan-American Relations as Affected by the War,” Current History 2, no. 2 (1915): 351–357.

  52. 52.

    “Press Memorandum,” August 7, 1914, Box 37, Barrett Papers; “The South America-United States Situation as Affected by the European War,” August 8, 1914, Box 37, Barrett Papers.

  53. 53.

    “Memorandum,” October 16, 1916, Box 41, Barrett Papers.

  54. 54.

    Henry Fletcher to Robert Patchin, October 2, 1914, Box 3, Henry Prather Fletcher Papers, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, DC.

  55. 55.

    David Kennedy, Over Here: The First World War and American Society (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1980), 299–308; Donald Murphy, “Professors, Publicists, and Pan Americanism, 1905–1917: A Study in the Origins of the Use of ‘Experts’ in Shaping American Foreign Policy” (PhD diss., University of Wisconsin, 1970), 421–436.

  56. 56.

    Emily Rosenberg, Spreading the American Dream: American Economic and Cultural Expansion, 1890–1945 (New York, NY: Hill and Wang, 1982), 7.

  57. 57.

    John Barrett, “All America!” North American Review 192, no. 657 (1910): 178; Barrett, Pan American Union, 10.

  58. 58.

    Bulletin of the Pan American Union, December 1914, 929–931.

  59. 59.

    “Thanksgiving Statement,” November 24, 1915, Box 39, Barrett Papers; John Barrett to Editor of New York Times, December 3, 1915, Box 39, Barrett Papers; John Barrett, “Practical Pan-Americanism,” North American Review 202, no. 718 (1915): 413–423; John Barrett, “The Pan-American Union and Peace,” Advocate of Peace, January 1916, 7–8; New York Times, November 8, 1915, 5.

  60. 60.

    William Shepherd, “New Light on the Monroe Doctrine,” Political Science Quarterly 31, no. 4 (1916): 578–589; Leo Rowe, “Bringing the Americas Together,” Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science 7, no. 2 (1917): 272–278; Charles Sherrill, Modernizing the Monroe Doctrine (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 1916); New York Times, April 18, 1915, SM21; Washington Post, October 24, 1915, 17.

  61. 61.

    “The War and the Monroe Doctrine,” The Outlook, November 25, 1914, 654–655; “Pan-Americanism,” The New Republic, December 19, 1914, 9–10.

  62. 62.

    “The Call to the Western Hemisphere,” Advocate of Peace, January 1916, 3.

  63. 63.

    George Blakeslee, “The Panama Canal in Time of War,” The Outlook, August 25, 1915, 976.

  64. 64.

    Translation of article from La Union, March 7, 1916, Box 4, Fletcher Papers.

  65. 65.

    John Barrett to Charles Evan Hughes, July 24, 1916, Box 41, Barrett Papers. Emphasis in original.

  66. 66.

    Roland Usher, Pan-Americanism: A Forecast of the Inevitable Clash Between the United States and Europe’s Victor (New York, NY: Century Co., 1915), 5.

  67. 67.

    Ibid., 204–233.

  68. 68.

    Ibid., 294–300.

  69. 69.

    Ibid., 390–402.

  70. 70.

    Literary Digest, January 8, 1916, 51–53.

  71. 71.

    Walter Page to Woodrow Wilson, September 6, 1914, in Papers of Woodrow Wilson, vol. 31, 6–8; Walter Page to William Jennings Bryan, October 15, 1914, in Papers of Woodrow Wilson, vol. 31, 159–160; Walter Page to Edward House, September 22, 1914 in Walter Page, The Life and Letters of Walter H. Page, vol. 1, ed. Burton Hendrick (New York, NY: Doubleday, 1922), 328–335.

  72. 72.

    James Gerard to Edward House, August 3, 1915, in Papers of Woodrow Wilson, vol. 34, 238–239; James Gerard, My Four Years in Germany (New York, NY: Grosset and Dunlap, 1917), 152.

  73. 73.

    Washington Post, June 10, 1914, 3; New York Times, June 7, 1915, 10; Walter Lippmann, “What Program Shall the United States Stand for in Internal Relations?” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 66 (1916): 63; Diaries, vol. 2, November 24, 1914, Edward Mandell House Papers, Manuscripts and Archives, Yale University Library; W. E. Stokes to John Barrett, February 3, 1915, Box 38, Barrett Papers.

  74. 74.

    Alfred Thayer Mahan to Josephus Daniels, August 15, 1914, in Alfred Thayer Mahan, Letters and Papers of Alfred Thayer Mahan, vol. 3, ed. Robert Seager and Doris Maguire (Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 1975), 541–542.

  75. 75.

    Joseph Choate to James Bryce, January 10, 1915, Reel 70, Bryce Papers.

  76. 76.

    Philips O’Brien, “The American Press, Public, and the Reaction to the Outbreak of the First World War,” Diplomatic History 37, no. 3 (2013): 469–470.

  77. 77.

    In his classic history of United States foreign relations, Samuel Flagg Bemis argued that the Monroe Doctrine had “always applied to Canada in spirit if not in word”: Samuel Flagg Bemis, A Diplomatic History of the United States (New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 5th ed., 1965), 795. Indeed, in 1902 the Canadian Prime Minister Wilfrid Laurier claimed that the Monroe Doctrine protected Canada “against enemy aggression”: John Brebner, North Atlantic Triangle: The Interplay of Canada, the United States and Great Britain (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1966), 276–277; John Dickey, Canada and the American Presence (New York: New York University Press, 1975), 61.

  78. 78.

    Charles Fenwick, “Canada and the Monroe Doctrine,” The American Journal of International Law 32, no. 4 (1938): 782.

  79. 79.

    Heiko Meiertöns, The Doctrines of US Security Policy: An Evaluation Under International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 79; John Thompson and Stephen Randall, Canada and the United States: Ambivalent Allies (Athens: The University of Georgia Press, 4th ed., 2008), 5–6; Dexter Perkins, A History of the Monroe Doctrine (London: Longmans, 1960 [1955]), 356–357.

  80. 80.

    Alexander Miller, “The Monroe Doctrine from an English Standpoint,” North American Review 176, no. 558 (1903): 733; New York Times, August 24, 1902, 8.

  81. 81.

    Lewis Einstein, “The Anglo German Rivalry and the United States,” Box 17, Knox Papers.

  82. 82.

    New York Times, August 23, 1914, 6; Honolulu Star Bulletin, August 29, 1914, 9; Washington Herald, September 13, 1914, 22; New York Times, September 26, 1914, 2; Michael Kitchen, “The German Invasion of Canada in the First World War,” The International History Review 7, no. 2 (1985): 245–247.

  83. 83.

    The Manchester Guardian, August 31, 1914, 4.

  84. 84.

    New York Times, October 23, 1914, 4.

  85. 85.

    New York Times, October 24, 1914, 1.

  86. 86.

    New York Times, October 26, 1914, 4; Washington Post, October 26, 1914, 1.

  87. 87.

    The Sun, October 27, 1914, 8. For Dernburg’s review of the controversy a month later, see Bernhard Dernburg, “Germany and England: The Real Issue,” Saturday Evening Post, November 21, 1914, 25.

  88. 88.

    “Germany and the Monroe Doctrine,” The Outlook, November 4, 1914, 524; New York Times, October 26, 1914, 4; Los Angeles Times, November 8, 1914, 8; Washington Post, November 8, 1914, 13.

  89. 89.

    Phillip Jessup, Elihu Root, vol. 2 (New York, NY: Dodd, Mead & Company, 1938), 325.

  90. 90.

    New York Times, November 28, 1914, 12 and February 17, 1915, 10.

  91. 91.

    Literary Digest, November 14, 1914, 956.

  92. 92.

    New York Times, October 18, 1914,10 and December 6, 1914, 18; “The Monroe Doctrine,” Current History 5, no. 1 (1916): 154–163; Justus Doenecke, Nothing Less Than War: A New History of America’s Entry into World War I (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 2011), 36.

  93. 93.

    U.S. Congress. House. Naval Appropriation Bill, 63rd Congress, 3rd Session, Appendix to the Congressional Record, January 29, 1915, 903; U.S. Congress. House. The Naval Bill, 63rd Congress, 3rd Session, Appendix to the Congressional Record, January 29, 1915, 926–927.

  94. 94.

    Armin Rappaport, The Navy League of the United States (Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press, 1962), 44–52.

  95. 95.

    “Democratic Party Platform of 1912,” June 25, 1912, The American Presidency Project, https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/1912-democratic-party-platform; Perry Belmont, An American Democrat: The Recollections of Perry Belmont (New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 2nd ed., 1941), 500–501.

  96. 96.

    Seven Seas, September 1915, 5–10.

  97. 97.

    Seven Seas, August 1915, 6–9.

  98. 98.

    Albert Bushnell Hart, “Naval Defense of the Monroe Doctrine,” Addresses Before the Eighth Annual Convention of the Navy League of the United States Washington, DC April 10–13, 1916 (Washington, DC: Navy Printing Co., 1916), 24–36.

  99. 99.

    Joseph Choate to Stanwood Menken, January 21, 1916, Box 22, Joseph Hodges Choate Papers, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, DC; Hand Book of the American Defense Society (New York, NY: American Defense Society, 1918), 2; Robert Ward, “The Origin and Activities of the National Security League, 1914–1917,” Mississippi Valley Historical Review 47, no. 1 (1960): 51–65.

  100. 100.

    Stanwood Menken to John Barrett, November 15, 1916, Box 41, Barrett Papers.

  101. 101.

    “A Pan American Preparedness Appeal to Illinois,” February 20, 1916, Box 98, Barrett Papers.

  102. 102.

    Sea Power, August 1916, 22.

  103. 103.

    Ellen Wilson to Woodrow Wilson, August 19, 1913, in Papers of Woodrow Wilson, vol. 28, 194–195.

  104. 104.

    “A Draft Circular Note to the Powers,” October 24, 1913, in Papers of Woodrow Wilson, vol. 28, 31–432; Colonel House Diary, October 30, 1913, in Papers of Woodrow Wilson, vol. 28, 476–478; William Jennings Bryan to Woodrow Wilson, October 28, 1913, in Papers of Woodrow Wilson, vol. 28, 455–457; John Bassett Moore to Woodrow Wilson, October 28, 1913, in Papers of Woodrow Wilson, vol. 28, 487–463; Walter Page to Edward House, November 26, 1913, in Papers of Woodrow Wilson, vol. 28, 593–594; Walter Page to Woodrow Wilson, December 21, 1913, in Papers of Woodrow Wilson, vol. 29, 51–53.

  105. 105.

    “An Address on Latin American Policy in Mobile, Alabama,” October 27, 1913, in Papers of Woodrow Wilson, vol. 28, 448–452; Mark Gilderhus, Pan-American Visions: Woodrow Wilson in the Western Hemisphere 1913–1921 (Tuscon: University of Arizona Press, 1986), 17–18.

  106. 106.

    Neagle, “US Policies Toward Latin America,” 208–209.

  107. 107.

    William Hale, “Our Moral Empire in America,” The World’s Work, May 1914, 52–58.

  108. 108.

    “Present Nature and Extent of the Monroe Doctrine, and its Need of Restatement,” June 11, 1914, in United States Department of State, Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States: The Lansing Papers 1914–1920, vol. 2 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1940), 460–465; Robert Lansing to William Jennings Bryan, June 16, 1914, in FRUS Lansing Papers 1914–1920, vol. 2, 459–460. Emphasis in original.

  109. 109.

    Robert Lansing to Woodrow Wilson, November 24, 1915, in FRUS Lansing Papers 1914–1920, vol. 2, 466–467.

  110. 110.

    “Present Nature and Extent of the Monroe Doctrine,” November 24, 1915, in FRUS Lansing Papers 1914–1920, vol. 2, 468–470.

  111. 111.

    Robert Lansing to Joseph Choate, January 20, 1916, Box 15, Choate Papers.

  112. 112.

    “Consideration and Outline of Policies,” July 11, 1915, Reel 1, Robert Lansing Papers, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, DC.

  113. 113.

    Robert Lansing, Pan-Americanism (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1915).

  114. 114.

    “Message of the President of the United States to Congress,” December 7, 1915, in FRUS 1915, x–xi; New York Tribune, January 6, 1916, 1.

  115. 115.

    “Draft Articles for Proposed Pan-American Treaty,” January 29, 1915 in FRUS Lansing Papers 1914–1920, vol. 2, 472–473; “Draft Articles for Proposed Pan-American Treaty,” April 13, 1916, in FRUS Lansing Papers 1914–1920, vol. 2, 495–496.

  116. 116.

    Edward House to Robert Lansing, October 12, 1915, in FRUS Lansing Papers 1914–1920, vol. 2, 486–488.

  117. 117.

    Ross Kennedy, “Woodrow Wilson, World War I, and American National Security,” Diplomatic History 25, no. 1 (2001): 2–3.

  118. 118.

    “An Address in Chicago on Preparedness,” January 31, 1916, in Papers of Woodrow Wilson, vol. 36, 1916, 63–73.

  119. 119.

    William Jennings Bryan to Woodrow Wilson, April 3, 1915, in Papers of Woodrow Wilson, vol. 32, 1915, 474; William Jennings Bryan to Woodrow Wilson, April 21, 1915, in Papers of Woodrow Wilson, vol. 33, 1915, 52–60; William Jennings Bryan to Eduardo Suárez-Mujica, April 27, 1915, in Papers of Woodrow Wilson, vol. 33, 1915, 77–80; William Jennings Bryan to Eduardo Suárez-Mujica, April 29, 1915, in FRUS Lansing Papers 1914–1920, vol. 2, 482–484; Henry Fletcher to Robert Lansing, August 9, 1916, in FRUS Lansing Papers 1914–1920, vol. 2, 496–497; Diaries, vol. 2, March 29, 1916, House Papers.

  120. 120.

    William Sater, Chile and the United States: Empires in Conflict (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1990), 83–85.

  121. 121.

    Emily Rosenberg, “World War I and Continental Solidarity,” Americas 31 (1975): 313–334.

  122. 122.

    Gilderhus, Pan-American Visions, 156–157.

  123. 123.

    Greg Grandin, Empire’s Workshop: Latin America, the United States, and the Rise of the New Imperialism (New York, NY: Henry Holt and Company, 2007).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Nottingham, UK

    Alex Bryne

Authors
  1. Alex Bryne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Bryne, A. (2020). A Shibboleth and a War. In: The Monroe Doctrine and United States National Security in the Early Twentieth Century. Security, Conflict and Cooperation in the Contemporary World. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43431-1_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43431-1_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-43430-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-43431-1

  • eBook Packages: HistoryHistory (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation