Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States: Inter-American Affairs, 1831–1860. Selected and arranged by William R. Manning, Division of Latin American Affairs, Department of State. Volume VI, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, France; Volume VII, Great Britain; Volume VIII, Mexico, 1831–1848 (Mid-Year). (Washington: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. 1935; 1936; 1937. Pp. xxxii, 735; xxxi, 785; xliii, 1106. $5.00 each.)

1947 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 32-64 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lewis Hanke

The period 1939–1945 saw an unprecedented expansion of Latin American studies in the United States. This was partly due to the wartime activities of such government agencies as the Department of State and the Office of the Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs, and to the rising interest in the area approach to academic studies. This development would not have been possible, however, without the continuous concern of the foundations, which had helped to organize scholars in the field on a national basis, had stimulated research in relatively neglected fields, and had provided funds for the compilation and publication of certain basic bibliographical tools. Nor would this expansion have been more than a wartime boom had not the scholars and universities of the country been attracted to Hispanic studies since George Ticknor and William H. Prescott first disclosed their importance over a century ago, and to the Latin American field more particularly since 1900. The expansion was based upon solid elements.


1947 ◽  
Vol 4 (01) ◽  
pp. 32-64
Author(s):  
Lewis Hanke

The period 1939–1945 saw an unprecedented expansion of Latin American studies in the United States. This was partly due to the wartime activities of such government agencies as the Department of State and the Office of the Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs, and to the rising interest in the area approach to academic studies. This development would not have been possible, however, without the continuous concern of the foundations, which had helped to organize scholars in the field on a national basis, had stimulated research in relatively neglected fields, and had provided funds for the compilation and publication of certain basic bibliographical tools. Nor would this expansion have been more than a wartime boom had not the scholars and universities of the country been attracted to Hispanic studies since George Ticknor and William H. Prescott first disclosed their importance over a century ago, and to the Latin American field more particularly since 1900. The expansion was based upon solid elements.


2009 ◽  
Vol 83 (4) ◽  
pp. 731-758 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cyrus Veeser

In the late 1800s, Latin American modernizers faced major obstacles to economic growth. In the Dominican Republic, elites embraced concessions as a policy to attract foreign capital to infrastructure, industry, and cash-crop agriculture. In contrast to Mexico, where concessions were public and impersonal but failed to create viable firms, Dominican concessions were public, yet corrupt, formally opposed to monopoly, yet prone to convey exclusive privileges. Dominican modernizers recognized that concessions created “monopolies that are always a hateful tyranny,” yet found no better way to attract investment. Only after the United States took control of Dominican finances in 1905 were the “burdensome” contracts canceled as an “impediment to future progress.”


1937 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-30
Author(s):  
Alice M. Morrissey

In April, 1917, when the Balfour mission visited the United States to arrange for American cooperation with the Allies, Frank L. Polk, Counsellor for the Department of State, jocosely said, “You will find that it will take us only two months to become as great criminals as you are.” Polk’s forecast has become common opinion, while American disclaimers of participation in crime are forgotten. The truth is that the United States continued to insist that certain Allied practices were illegal and refused to cooperate in them. On two separate occasions the Department of State informed members of the Balfour mission that the American attitude toward certain belligerent maritime measures remained unchanged. Mr. Lester H. Woolsey, then Law Adviser, later Solicitor, for the Department of State, wrote in a memorandum summarizing the attitude taken by American representatives in oral discussions with the British: “Great Britain has heretofore attained the objects set forth… through her exercise of belligerent maritime measures, depending upon the prize court to condemn property violating those measures. The United States regards certain of the measures in question as illegal; …” A few days later Mr. Woolsey, in discussing two proposals for bunker control suggested to him by the British, said:


1931 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 436-446 ◽  
Author(s):  
Quincy Wright

The announcement on November 4, 1929, that Great Britain intended to recommend Iraq for admission to membership in the League of Nations in 1932 has presented some interesting constitutional questions to the Permanent Mandates Commission, as well as the unusual spectacle of a great Power seeking to convince a skeptical outside body that its dependency is ripe for independence. Heretofore, dependencies that wanted independence have usually had to fight for it, as did the United States, the Latin American States, Belgium, and the various successors to the Ottoman, Romanoff and Hapsburg Empires. It is true, Colombia and Panama, Sweden and Norway, Denmark and Iceland have separated without war but with some heartburnings. British statesmen experienced in the loss of colonies by violence, talked freely in the mid-nineteenth century of the natural destiny of colonies to drop from the mother tree when ripe, and in the twentieth century they have acquiesced in a status of virtual independence for the dominions, soon to include India. They have rationalized this “ climbing process” as one “ common to all the communities which form part of the Empire. Each of them, whether the population is predominantly white or predominantly colored, is gradually, as it develops in strength and capacity, passing upward from the stage in which the community is wholly subject to control exercised from London to that in which the measure of control diminishes, and so on to that in which the control has ceased entirely.”But this was after the event. Before it, history records military episodes in Ireland, India, South Africa, and even Canada.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document