Page images
PDF
EPUB

A STUDY IN AMERICAN FOREIGN RELA

TIONS AND DIPLOMACY

First treaty with France 1778. Franklin our
first great diplomat. Difficulty with Genet,
1793. Treaty of Peace, 1783-Commissioners
Adams, Franklin, and Jay. The X. Y. Z. epi-
sode, 1796-98. Jay's treaty with England, 1794
-the first party struggle over foreign affairs.
Livingston and Monroe buy Louisiana, 1803.
Gallatin, Adams, Clay, Russell, and Bayard
make treaty, 1814, with England. Webster-
Ashburton treaty of 1842, settles issues with
England. The Clayton-Bulwer treaty, 1853,
yet under discussion. Florida treaty, 1819;
Mexican War ends 1848, with treaty securing
California, etc.

CHAPTER IX

A STUDY IN AMERICAN FOREIGN RELA

[ocr errors]

TIONS AND DIPLOMACY

INCE 1815 the development of American political history has been only slightly modified by foreign influences. To a great extent the reason for this may be found in the geographical situation of the United States. Separated by wide oceans from any other important nation, they have been enabled to pursue a self-directive course, almost as freely as if located on an island in the midst of the sea. American diplomatic history may be said to begin on November 29, 1775, when a motion was made to appoint a committee to correspond with "our friends in England and elsewhere." At the moment of writing this introduction our nation is in the midst of the excitement due to the Cuban question, and the imminence of war with Spain on account of it. In 1775 Spain looked upon us as a band of rebels, if she condescended to think of us at all. Now the United States has more than four times the population, and many times the wealth, of the haughty nation which then owned and controlled the larger part of this western hemisphere The importance and complexity of the problems arising from our foreign relations in 1776 were almost as nothing compared with those that confront us to-day; yet it is undoubtedly true that the course of our development then was much more influenced by our diplomatic policy than it is now. The really great problems are internal ones, and the Amer

ican people should ever remember this. The diplomatists as well as the statesmen of the Revolutionary period were men of vigor and power. Franklin, Jay, J. Adams, and Jefferson proved themselves able to meet on equal terms the best men that France and England possessed. A little later we find Clay, J. Q. Adams, and especially A. Gallatin, contending with the English ambassadors over the terms of the treaty of peace in 1814, and winning for our nation a decided victory. Monroe and Adams in the events connected with the promulgation of the so-called Monroe doctrine proved themselves able and skilled diplomatists. Webster, in the Webster-Ashburton treaty of 1842, gained the good will of Europe for the skill and dignity with which he managed the American cause.

It is possible in one article to touch only a very few of the many events in which our nation has come into contact with other nations. I have chosen to take a few important points and give them a fuller treatment, rather than to attempt to cover the whole ground. The reader, therefore, must remember that these extracts do not touch even many of the most interesting questions which have confronted our statesmen in the past. Yet it is hoped that they may arouse an interest so that more of the documentary matter pertaining to our external relations may be called for and used.

November 29, 1775, congress passed the following resolution, which may be said to be the first word ever uttered by the American people with regard to foreign affairs:

Resolved, That a committee of five be appointed for the sole purpose of corresponding with our friends in Great Britain, Ireland, and other parts of the world; and that they lay their correspondence before Congress when directed.

The members chosen were Mr. Harrison, Dr. Frank

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

or goods contraband of war. But she further contends, that her subjects cannot renounce their allegiance to her, and contract a new obligation to other sovereigns. I do not mean to go into the general question of the right of expatriation. If, as is contended, all nations deny it, all nations at the same time admit and practice the right of naturalization. Great Britain herself does this. Great Britain, in the very case of foreign seamen, imposes, perhaps, fewer restraints upon naturalization than any other nation. subjects cannot break their original allegiance, they may, according to universal usage, contract a new allegiance. What is the effect of this double obligation? Undoubtedly, that the sovereign, having possession of the subject, would have the right to the services of the subject.—Ibid, p. 307.

Then, if

If Great Britain desires a mark by which she can know her own subjects, let her give them an ear mark. The colors that float from the mast-head should be the credentials of our seamen. There is no safety to us, and the gentlemen have been shown it, but in the rule, that all who sail under the flag (not being enemies) are protected by the flag. It is impossible that this country should ever abandon the gallant tars, who have won for us such splendid trophies.-Ibid, p. 308.

The disasters of the war admonish us, we are told, of the necessity of terminating the contest. If our achievements by land have been less splendid than those of our intrepid seamen by water, it is not because the American soldier is less brave. On the one element, organization, discipline, and a thorough knowledge of their duties, exist, on the part of the officers and their men. On the other, almost everying it to be acquired. We have, however, the that our country abounds with the richest hat in no instance, when engaged in ms been tarnished.-Ibid, p. 312. Chairman, which existed for de

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors][merged small]
« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »