[422 protect the rights and safety of its citizens stands apart from the principle of non-intervention as a general right, to be exercised in Latin-America as well as elsewhere. On certain occasions, when the United States seemed to depart from its policy of non-intervention, its action was later reversed or the act of the intervening official was disavowed. The Chile-Peruvian war and the Egan asylum case were examples. Again and again the United States had refused to take part in joint representations to Latin-American states. The zealous desire to protect American rights has sometimes led to excessive claims, such as that of Admiral Benham regarding contraband in the Brazilian naval revolt. But the mere enunciation of a position does not suffice to establish it. This was so even with President Monroe's famous declaration of 1823; and it must be so with recent proposals, such as that of President Wilson, to extend the Monroe Doctrine to the world. The effect of such proposals must await the test of history. The cases examined abundantly establish the principle of non-intervention as a definite policy. CHAPTER III INTERVENTION IN CUBA 1 THE most striking departure from the American policy of non-intervention in relation to American states and territory was the Cuban intervention. The importance of Cuba to the interests of the United States has been realized from the beginning. The desire to secure the island as a part of the United States, in case it should pass from Spanish control, was shown in the attitude of American statesmen in early times. Jefferson advocated the acquisition of Cuba by peaceful means. The Jefferson Cabinet on October 22, 1808, unanimously agreed that while the United States would be content that the island should continue under Spanish rule, French or British rule would be frowned upon. In 1822 a rumor prevailed that Great Britain was secretly negotiating with Spain for the cession of the island. This Canning denied. War between France and Spain led John Quincy Adams, as Secretary of State, to declare that the ultimate annexation of Cuba was essential to the preservation of the Union, although at the time inopportune. The United States, he said, was unalterably opposed to French or British encroachments. Mr. Randall was commissioned special agent to Cuba to report on political conditions and to observe the objects and move 2 3 'Ford, Jefferson's Writings, vol. x, pp. 159, 257-258, 278. Ibid., vol. i, p. 334. 'Moore, J. B., Digest of International Law, vol. vi, pp. 379-380. * 44 Br. and Fr. State Papers, p. 138. 425] 139 ments of foreign agents there.1 Henry Clay, as Secretary of State, directed the American ministers to Spain, France and Great Britain to inform the governments of those countries of the unwillingness of the United States to acquiesce in the transfer of Cuba to any other power.2 Mexico and Colombia, seeking to aid Cuban independence, planned expeditions for that purpose. Colombia complied with Clay's request to suspend operations until the Congress of Panama could be consulted, but Mexico refused unreserved acceptance of the suggestion.3 Opposition to apprehended European intervention in Cuba was the central theme of our early Cuban relations. In refusing, in 1825, a proposal of Canning that the United States join France and Great Britain in disclaiming any intention to occupy Cuba, Clay gave as a reason that Spain, thinking her colonies safe, might prolong the colonial wars in America, and that American policy was opposed to such action. The French government rejected a similar proposal from Great Britain. The supposed danger that Spain might cede or lose Cuba to some European power caused Secretary of State Van Buren in 1829 to argue for continued Spanish control. Cuban subjection to a state of South America, he thought, would lead to European control, and the emancipation of slaves in Cuba would prejudice the interests of the slave-holders of the South. Confidential reports to the Department of State from what was supposed to be a trustworthy source indicated the existence on the part of the British ministry and certain abolition societies of 1 Moore, J. B., Digest of International Law, vol. vi, p. 384. 2 Ibid., vol. vi, p. 447; Am. State Papers, For. Rel., vol. v, pp. 855-856; II Gallatin's Writings, p. 346. 3 44 Br. and For. State Papers, p. 44; 26 ibid., p. 1152. *Moore, J. B., Digest of International Law, vol. vi, p. 457. |