Annexation of Santo Domingo/Dominican Republic – Historical What-If

One of the reasons I find diplomatic history particularly intriguing is it is often littered with the great “what-ifs” of history – failed deals, odd offers, strange plans that never quite make it to fruition.  One that I recently found out about, while reading Lester Langley’s The Banana Wars: An Inner History of American Empire, 1900-1934, was that in 1870 there was a fairly serious effort by the President of the Dominican Republic at the time to sign a treaty annexing the Dominican Republic directly to the United States.  It passed the Congress of the Dominican Republic but not the United States Senate, due to several issues.  Grant spoke about it in his 1870 State of the Union address where he advocated for Congress to grab the Dominican Republic:

“During the last session of Congress a treaty for the annexation of the Republic of San Domingo to the United States failed to receive the requisite two-thirds vote of the Senate. I was thoroughly convinced then that the best interests of this country, commercially and materially, demanded its ratification. Time has only confirmed me in this view. I now firmly believe that the moment it is known that the United States have entirely abandoned the project of accepting as a part of its territory the island of San Domingo a free port will be negotiated for by European nations in the Bay of Samana. A large commercial city will spring up, to which we will be tributary without receiving corresponding benefits, and then will be seen the folly of our rejecting so great a prize. The Government of San Domingo has voluntarily sought this annexation. It is a weak power, numbering probably less than 120,000 souls, and yet possessing one of the richest territories under the sun, capable of supporting a population of 10,000,000 people in luxury. The people of San Domingo are not capable of maintaining themselves in their present condition, and must look for outside support. They yearn for the protection of our free institutions and laws, our progress and civilization. Shall we refuse them?

The acquisition of San Domingo is desirable because of its geographical position. It commands the entrance to the Caribbean Sea and the Isthmus transit of commerce. It possesses the richest soil, best and most capacious harbors, most salubrious climate, and the most valuable products of the forests, mine, and soil of any of the West India Islands. Its possession by us will in a few years build up a coastwise commerce of immense magnitude, which will go far toward restoring to us our lost merchant marine. It will give to us those articles which we consume so largely and do not produce, thus equalizing our exports and imports. In case of foreign war it will give us command of all the islands referred to, and thus prevent an enemy from ever again possessing himself of rendezvous upon our very coast. At present our coast trade between the States bordering on the Atlantic and those bordering on the Gulf of Mexico is cut into by the Bahamas and the Antilies. Twice we must, as it were, pass through foreign countries to get by sea from Georgia to the west coast of Florida.

San Domingo, with a stable government, under which her immense resources can be developed, will give remunerative wages to tens of thousands of laborers not now upon the island. This labor will take advantage of every available means of transportation to abandon the adjacent islands and seek the blessings of freedom and its sequence–each inhabitant receiving the reward of his own labor. Porto Rico and Cuba will have to abolish slavery, as a measure of self-preservation, to retain their laborers.

San Domingo will become a large consumer of the products of Northern farms and manufactories. The cheap rate at which her citizens can be furnished with food, tools, and machinery will make it necessary that contiguous islands should have the same advantages in order to compete in the production of sugar, coffee, tobacco, tropical fruits, etc. This will open to us a still wider market for our products. The production of our own supply of these articles will cut off more than one hundred millions of our annual imports, besides largely increasing our exports. With such a picture it is easy to see how our large debt abroad is ultimately to be extinguished. With a balance of trade against us (including interest on bonds held by foreigners and money spent by our citizens traveling in foreign lands) equal to the entire yield of the precious metals in this country, it is not so easy to see how this result is to be otherwise accomplished.

The acquisition of San Domingo is an adherence to the “Monroe doctrine;” it is a measure of national protection; it is asserting our just claim to a controlling influence over the great commercial traffic soon to flow from west to east by way of the Isthmus of Darien; it is to build up our merchant marine; it is to furnish new markets for the products of our farms, shops, and manufactories; it is to make slavery insupportable in Cuba and Porto Rico at once, and ultimately so in Brazil; it is to settle the unhappy condition of Cuba and end an exterminating conflict; it is to provide honest means of paying our honest debts without overtaxing the people; it is to furnish our citizens with the necessaries of everyday life at cheaper rates than ever before; and it is, in fine, a rapid stride toward that greatness which the intelligence, industry, and enterprise of the citizens of the United States entitle this country to assume among nations.

In view of the importance of this question, I earnestly urge upon Congress early action expressive of its views as to the best means of acquiring San Domingo. My suggestion is that by joint resolution of the two Houses of Congress the Executive be authorized to appoint a commission to negotiate a treaty with the authorities of San Domingo for the acquisition of that island, and that an appropriation be made to defray the expenses of such a commission. The question may then be determined, either by the action of the Senate upon the treaty or the joint action of the two Houses of Congress upon a resolution of annexation, as in the case of the acquisition of Texas. So convinced am I of the advantages to flow from the acquisition of San Domingo, and of the great disadvantages–I might almost say calamities–to flow from nonacquisition, that I believe the subject has only to be investigated to be approved.”

It is also interesting to read because this passage shows that even in 1870 the US government was concerned about the expansion of European influence in the Caribbean region – only five years after the US Civil War had ended.  When this speech was given part of the South was still under military government.

But think about it for a moment – can you imagine a United States in which the land that was the Dominican Republic was instead a part of the United States?


Sources: Wikipedia Entry on the Annexation of Santo Domingo, Online transcript of Ulysses Grant’s 1870 State of the Union Address, Lester Langley’s The Banana Wars: An Inner History of American Empire, 1900-1934

The Fist – President Obama’s speech on Afghanistan – 1 December 2009

The fist must be deployed no matter how much one might personally like the person giving a comment that is based on questionable (or downright bad) history, even in the case of President Barack Obama.  In his speech at West Point outlining the changes in policy Obama intends to implement regarding the United States and its military presence in Afghanistan Obama included the following comment:

“For unlike the great powers of old, we have not sought world domination.  Our union was founded in resistance to oppression. We do not seek to occupy other nations.  We will not claim another nation’s resources or target other peoples because their faith or ethnicity is different from ours.”

I am afraid that the history of the United States simply does not bear up to this comment when our actions are compared to our peer nations at any point that I know of in our history as a nation, sadly I am no expert but from what I do know of United States history and the history of the various Great Powers in existence and operation during our own history, the breakdown is roughly as follows:

1781 – 1880s:  The United States expands territory under its direct political, economic and cultural control through a policy of continued expansion in a western direction.  These territories are acquired through a combination of diplomatic efforts and the use of military force, during this period as a matter of policy the United States government assumes semi-complete control over the affairs of the various Native American/American Indian groups residing on territory later claimed by the United States government.  Key acquisitions include the Louisiana Purchase from Napoleon I of France in 1803.  Acquisition of Florida from Spain in exchange for the cancellation of debts owed by Spain to the United States government/United States government assuming debt owed by Spain to United States nationals, 1819.  United States gaining one half (roughly) of disputed Oregon Territory from Great Britain, 1846.  United States gaining southwestern territories including California, New Mexico, Arizona, and part of Colorado as war concessions from the Republic of Mexico, 1848.

In each of the above cases the United States either used military force or threatened to use military force to gain territory from established, and diplomatically recognized, nations of equal sovereignty.  (In the case of Florida the United States had already in the past sent military forces into the territory and in regards to Louisiana the United States had already engaged in limited schemes to try and spark revolt in the territory from earlier Spanish control.)  In addition to this the United States government through diplomatic pressure and brute military force either subjugated or expelled native tribal groups from their long-standing association with certain territories.  Granted the United States would sign treaties with tribal chiefs or leaders, in some cases making said leaders up from whole-cloth to validate its actions, but this is not that different from the techniques used by European Great Powers in their own territorial gains in Southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent, and Africa.

As well the policy of the United States federal government, as well as that of many state governments during this period was decidedly opposed to the idea of allowing native tribal religions or social structures to survive, it was the policy of many levels of government in the United States to “civilize” native peoples, a war on cultural and religion if ever there was one.

1880s – 1930s: The United States government engages in direct colonial/imperial acquisitions of territory including the annexation of Hawaii in 1900, a sovereign kingdom nation previously recognized by the United States government as well as other national governments, as well as the seizure of former colonial possessions held by Spain after the Spanish-American war of 1898.  These newly gained territories included Puerto Rico, Guam, Cuba and the Philippines.  Of these territories the United States still holds Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and Guam.  The Philippines was not granted full independence until after World War II and were not granted Commonwealth status until the 1930s.  In fact the United States was gaining these territories at the same time that the various Great Powers of the world President Obama is probably speaking of, Great Britain, France, Germany, and Japan, and the United States was gaining these territories using the same methods employed by other Great Powers.  The United States also directly intervened in the internal affairs of many nations in the Caribbean during this same period, using military force to modify or suppress local rebellions in many Caribbean republics or dictatorships.  As well the United States engaged in one of its most brutal and prolonged military campaigns from 1900 through 1904 in the Philippines, suppressing a local uprising that attempted to militarily defeat the United States through irregular warfare and establish an independent Philippine republic.

It was not until the 1930s that the United States, under President Roosevelt, undertook a new direction in its relations with its neighbors in the Caribbean, the Good Neighbor policy, and renounced the use of force to defend United States interests in the Caribbean, Central America, and South America.  However at the same time Great Britain and France had also begun to reduce their use of military force to intervene in colonial affairs.  Which makes our policy not exceptional but instead more of a reflection of the general shift in diplomacy in the 1930s, the recognition by many of the Great Powers of a need to shift their focus from gaining territory through military force to working with local populations and leaders to maintain the empires held, a policy also followed by the United States with our, admittedly, smaller imperial territorial holdings.

1930s – 1940s: The period of the infamous land grabs by Germany, Italy, Romania, Hungary, the Soviet Union, and Japan in a bid to redefine the global balance of power militarily, economically, and culturally.  The United States did not engage in such antics but, at the same time the various Great Powers in operation at the time did not recognize territorial changes through the use of arms.  It may be a fine point but the territorial shifts of the 1930s were achieved through diplomacy and consent, the actual seizure of territory by force was, broadly stated, rejected diplomatically and resisted militarily.  Land seized by the Soviet Union is an interesting case, it was not actually seized but instead ideologically loyal puppet states were installed to rule over the territories in compliance with the policies of the Soviet Union.

1950s – 1990s: the United States and the Soviet Union engage in a mutual dance for dominance stretching across a span of forty years roughly and the globe, known collectively as the Cold War.

So overall President Obama your statement does not appear, after analysis, to truly be accurate against the lens of history.  Unless you are speaking of quite ancient empires in which case you are correct but one could also argue the United States had not engaged in such behaviors of rape, conquest, and devastation such as Rome, the Persians, or the Huns engaged in because, in large part, we were not on the scene yet as a nation.