Chapter 12 11. The United States looks outward

Great Britain, with its powerful navy, and its fortified points near our coast, was without a doubt the most formidable of our possible enemies.Under such circumstances, reaching a sincere understanding with this country is one of the most important foreign interests of our country. It is not hard to find signs of a gradual change in American thinking and policy concerning their own relations with the outside world.For the past quarter of a century, the dominant notion of preserving the domestic market for domestic industry has successfully been affirmed in various polls and set the course of government.Employers and workers alike were led to view proposed economic measures from this point of view, hostile to any step that would facilitate the penetration of foreign producers into their own territories.With thoughts and eyes absolutely fixed on one side at all times, the inevitable consequence is that the danger of loss and the prospect of maintaining superiority for another quarter of a century are ignored .Although the rich resources of the United States have kept its exports at a high level, the reason for this gratifying situation is more due to the extremely rich gifts of nature to the United States than to other countries. Special requirements for protected manufacturing industries.

For almost a generation, American industry had been protected to such an extent that the practice had become a tradition, falling into the mold of conservatism.These industries are like modern ironclad ships, with thick armor but poor engines and artillery; good defense but weak attack power.Within the United States, the domestic market is well protected, but outside it, across the wide ocean, there are world markets, which can only be entered and occupied by vigorous competition, and the custom of resorting to legal protection is will not enhance competitiveness. Ultimately, though, the temperament of the American people does not inherently match this lazy attitude.Whatever the arguments for or against protectionism, it is entirely predictable that once opportunities for profit abroad are recognized, American businesses will fight to the death to acquire them.From this point of view, it is a very welcome and meaningful fact that a well-known and influential advocate of conservation policies was also a leader of the protectionist faction and an expert on the characteristics and public opinion of the times. An astute observer of the shift has turned in favor of a policy aimed at adjusting tariffs to allow U.S. businesses to expand to other parts of the world.People of all stripes can agree on what Mr. Blythe said in a recent speech: For a country as large as ours, it is not a good idea to just produce something that is only for our consumption or food. God's arrangement that people long for.In the face of these discourses of so shrewd and eminent a man, even the extremes of recent tariff legislation may reflect the changes taking place, and bring to mind the famous Continental system with which our own arrangements resemble.Napoleon struggled to maintain this closed system until the very fabric of the empire crumbled under the weight.

An interesting and meaningful feature of our changing attitudes is our turning our gaze outwards, not just inwards, for the welfare of the nation.Acknowledging the importance of distant markets and their relation to our vast productive capacities logically implies acknowledging the link linking products and markets: transportation.Production, marketing, and shipping together formed the chain of sea power that brought wealth and glory to England.Moreover, because shipping and markets, two of these three links, exist outside our borders, our acknowledgment of their importance cannot fail to draw attention to America's relationship to the world, which has nothing to do with the simple idea of ​​self-sufficiency. Don't.For these reasons, can't we talk about it?However, we will not understand these truths better until we realize the unique position of the United States, facing the ancient world of East and West, and America's coast is on the verge of the ocean.These oceans are equally important to America no matter which coast they border.

Even as our policies show signs of change, the world is in the midst of a profound, if not dangerous, upheaval.We don't want to worry about Europe's internal affairs.Even if there is turmoil in Europe, its effect on us is only partial and indirect.Europe's maritime powers, however, were not only intent on guarding against their land-based rivals, they also harbored a desire to commercially expand, colonize, and strengthen their influence afar.This will bring them, and already has them, on a collision course with ourselves, even if we do not currently have a policy of liberalization.Events in Samoa, seemingly trivial on the surface, clearly reflect the ambitions of European states.As a result, the United States also began to wake up from its sleep, realizing the interests closely related to its future.At present, internal troubles are intensifying on the Hawaiian Islands, and it should be our firm resolve not to allow other countries to have the same influence as the United States.All over the world, German commercial and colonial advances are colliding with other countries, German and Spanish disputes over the Caroline Islands, and British disputes over the division of New Guinea; Negotiating French suspicions; the Samoan affair; the German-American conflict over the islands of the Western Pacific; and the alleged expansion of German influence in Central and South America are all testaments to this.It is worth noting that despite differing opinions about the aggressive, martial ethos of the German Empire, German expansion is definitely believed to have resulted more from the national character of Germany than from the conscious policies of its government; German policy in this respect is not to guide but to follow the mood of the people.This is an even more terrifying situation.

Moreover, there is no good reason to believe that the world beyond European control has entered into lasting peace.The volatile political situation, as existed in the Mediterranean, Central America, and many of the Pacific islands, especially the Hawaiian Islands, combined with the military and commercial importance of most of these areas, bred dangerous quarrels of all kinds.It is safe and wise to plan ahead for this.There is no doubt that the general tendency of nations is to dislike war more than in the old days.If not less selfish and greedy than our predecessors, we seem to be less willing to see the hardship and pain caused by the loss of peace.However, in order to have the precious leisure and to enjoy the benefits of business in a leisurely way, it is necessary to insist on having the same strength as the opponent.It was the heightened vigilance of enemy states, not acquiescence in the status quo, that kept the size of European armies somewhat restrained.

On the other hand, neither provisions of international law nor adjudication based on an axiom can be relied upon to achieve a fair settlement of a dispute if they conflict with the strong political needs of one party who is in an opposing position. vulnerable.As far as the still pending dispute about the hunting of seals in the Bering Sea waters is concerned, no matter how we view our claims, according to the universally recognized norms of international law, our opinions are undoubtedly reasonable, just and in line with the overall interests of the world.However, when we try to make our claims into reality, we are not only at odds with our own strong nationalistic sensitivities about the dignity of the flag, but also with a nation driven by a powerful need and Our exceptionally weak and unprotected aspects collide with an extremely strong nation.Not only does Britain have a strong navy and our coast is long and poorly defended, the larger British colonies bear the brunt of Canada and think the power of the overlord is something they need and can count on, and that's a huge deal for Britain too commercial and political advantage.The dispute in question was between the United States and Canada, not between the United States and Great Britain, but the latter used it skillfully to promote emotional intimacy between itself and its colonies.As far as Great Britain alone is concerned, it can conveniently come to an equal arrangement with the United States which will advance the interests of both; For the sake of the most important link linking Great Britain with its colonies and maritime interests in the Pacific.In the event of war in Europe, the British navy might not be able to keep the sea routes open to the East via the Mediterranean.However, the British had an alternative line of communication by building strong naval bases at Halifax and Kitimat, linked by the Canadian Pacific Railway.This route was much better protected from attack by sea than the former and a third route via the Cape of Good Hope, and both bases were vital to British commerce and naval operations in the North Atlantic and Pacific.Regardless of how the above-mentioned disputes were ultimately resolved, Lord Salisbury's position could only lead to a strengthening of attachment and trust in the mother country in Canada and other large colonies.This sense of oneness and interdependence provided such a living spirit; without it, the emerging imperial federal system could only be a dead, dull thing.These awarenesses also influence normally non-emotional considerations of matters such as buying and selling, trade routes.

The above-mentioned dispute, which appears to be insignificant, is in fact important, sudden and involving other considerations beyond its own.It helps us to be convinced that there are many potential and as yet unforeseen dangers to the peace of the Western Hemisphere that accompany the opening of the canal through the Central American Isthmus.In general, it is obvious that the canal would alter the course of trade routes, thereby leading to a huge increase in commerce and shipping through the Caribbean Sea; a sea that is relatively deserted today would become a shipping hub like the Red Sea. Taoism has aroused the interest and ambition of maritime nations like never before.The commercial and military value of every point in this sea area will increase, and the canal itself will become the most pivotal strategic center.Like the Canadian Pacific Railway, the canal would link the two oceans; but, unlike the former, it would be entirely owned by belligerent states that controlled the seas by means of naval power, unless guaranteed in detail by treaty.In time of war, there is no doubt that the United States should control the Canadian railways, even if our hostile navies might act as a deterrent to our coast; but it is equally certain that the United States will be powerless to control the Central American canal.In terms of military affairs, as far as the current military and naval preparations of the United States are concerned, with European countries involved, the cutting of the isthmus can only be a disaster for the United States, and it is especially dangerous for the Pacific coast.The increasing lack of protection of one of our coasts would adversely affect the entire military situation.

While geographic proximity and abundant resources confer upon us certain inherently great advantages that, in other words, derive from our natural endowments rather than our intelligent preparations, the United States is woefully incapable, both in fact and in intention Exercising influence in the Caribbean and Central America commensurate with the scale of its interests in the region.We don't have, and what's worse, we don't want to have a navy that will weigh heavily in disputes with nations whose interests conflict with ours in the region.We do not have, and do not appear to be in a hurry to arrange, coastal defenses that would allow our Navy to more confidently carry out its mission at sea.In and around the Caribbean Sea, we have no territory as possessed by many other powers, which not only have a great natural advantage in controlling the sea, but also have, or are possessing, artificial strength in fortification and arming, which makes them Practically become indestructible.In contrast, we have not even begun to construct a Navy Pier in the Gulf of Mexico as our base of operations.Don't get me wrong though, I'm not sorry that we lack the means to build a navy as powerful as the major navies of the Continental states.I recognized the seldom-mentioned fact that, for all our country's large income surpluses, it remained poor for the length of its coast and its exposure.I regret that we have neither nor cared to secure our maritime borders and our navy to have the advantage that our geography would allow us to fight inescapable disputes such as our recent encounter over Samoa and the Bering Sea and the powers that at some point may play a significant role in the germination of disputes in the Caribbean or in the Sino-US canal area.Is the United States prepared to give Germany the Dutch stronghold of Curacao in front of the Atlantic outlets of the proposed Panama and Nicaragua Canals?Is the United States prepared to acquiesce in the purchase by some powerful country of Haiti of a naval base on the Windward Strait, through which our ships sail to the Isthmus?Is the United States acquiescing to a foreign power in granting protection to the Hawaiian Islands, the central stronghold of the Pacific Ocean, equidistant from San Francisco, Samoa, and the Marquesas, and an important stop on our lines of communication to Australia and China?Or is it conceivable that, should any of these problems arise, are we strong enough to make our policies and our rights such that the other side will immediately withdraw its pressing demands and back down with dignity?Is this the case in Samoa?What about the Bering Sea?

When weighing our needs for military preparations, it is perfectly reasonable to consider the remoteness from our shores of the major naval and military powers and the difficulty of acting over such long distances.It is equally appropriate, in forming our policy, to take account of the suspicion among European states, their consequent apprehension of provoking the animosity of a nation as powerful as ours, their apprehension of our future reprisals, their Incapacity to send a force to our shores without too much loss of influence in European affairs.In fact, it is a serious assessment of our own naval power to judge how forcefully Great Britain or France may act against our coasts without weakening their position in Europe or leaving their colonies and commerce without proper protection. starting point.If the latter outweighs the forces used against us by England and France, and if our coasts are secured so that our navy is free to strike where it wishes, we shall be able to preserve our rights: not only recognized by international law but also Rights upheld by a moral sense among nations, and there are rights equally practical which are not conferred by law, but rest upon a clear consideration of interests, upon the execution of policies which are manifestly necessary, upon self-preservation.If we are in a favorable position with regard to military power, we can fully assert our legitimate claims to sealing grounds.This is not because we can intercept foreign ships on the open ocean, but because of the obvious fact that our cities are protected from attack from the sea; Arbitrary actions in border areas.Diplomats, however, do not flaunt such unpleasant truths to each other's faces. What they are looking for is a compromise, and they will find it.

While our geographical advantages in the Western Hemisphere and the disadvantages a European nation has to contend with in acting against us are undeniable and inherent in the minds of statesmen, they are considered sufficient alone to guarantee our Security seems naive.Much more needs to be thrown into the balance to tip it in our favor.The aforementioned factors are only defensive, and only partially.Notwithstanding the distance, our shores are reachable; they are undefended, and can only temporarily check the attacking power.If Europe may have three months of peace, no maritime power will dare to use a considerable number of ships to support its demands, but it is true that it will not want these ships to sail for a year.

However, if our coast were as strong as it is today, passive defense in trade or war could only be a poor policy, so long as the world remained full of strife and prosperity and failure.There are battles all around us.The struggle for existence, the race to live, are words so familiar that we don't appreciate their meaning unless we stop to think about them.Everywhere, a country is always wary of other countries, and we ourselves are no more special than others.What is our protective arrangement but an organized war?It is true that we can only use certain procedures which all states today recognize as legitimate uses of state power, even if they would do them harm.Are our people so docile that they cannot act alone when their interests are at stake?Or so numb that they calmly accept the intrusion of others into areas where they have long believed their influence should prevail? Our self-inflicted isolation of markets and the reduction of our shipping interests over the past three decades coincides peculiarly with the remoteness with which our continent lives from the rest of the world.Before the author is a map of the northern and southern Atlantic, which shows the direction of the main trade routes and the proportion of traffic carried by them.Interestingly, I noticed that the relatively deserted areas were the Gulf of Mexico, the Caribbean Sea, and neighboring countries and islands.A broad transport belt extends from our North Atlantic coast to the English Channel, and another, equally broad, runs from the British Isles to the east, via the Mediterranean and Red Seas.This transport belt overflows the border of the Red Sea to indicate the size of the trade.The transport belt through the Capes of Good Hope and Cape Horn is one-fourth the width of the Red Sea zone, and they meet near the equator on the median line between Africa and South America.From the West Indies is a thin line marking the current volume of British trade with a region that, during the Napoleonic Wars, contained a quarter of the entire trade of the British Empire.The implication is real: Europe currently has few commercial interests in the Caribbean. Once the isthmus is cut through, the region's commercial isolation and neglect by other nations will be gone forever.Any ship using the canal, no matter where it comes from or where it is going, must pass through the Caribbean.Regardless of the effect on the adjoining continents and islands of the great demands that accompany maritime activities, great commercial and political interests would be concentrated around such a center of trade.In order to protect and develop their own interests, each country will seek support and influence methods in a sensitive area where the United States has always been wary of the invasion of European powers.Most Americans have only a very rudimentary understanding of exactly what the Monroe Doctrine meant, yet the familiar term has engendered a national sensitivity that is more likely to spark war than actual interests.Moreover, the moral authority of international law and its accepted principles has not been able to calm disputes arising from such sentiments, since the disputes are primarily about policies and interests rather than recognized rights.France and England have strengthened their ports to some extent, although their current importance is still limited.Both countries focus on the near future.Among the islands of the Caribbean and on the mainland, there are many significant points currently held by weak or unstable states.Is the United States happy to see them sold to some powerful opponent?But what right can the United States appeal to against such a transfer?It can have recourse only to one thing, and that is a sound policy backed by its power. Whether Americans like it or not, they must now start paying attention to the outside world.The country's growing production demands this.A growing public mood demands this too.The position of the United States between the two old worlds and the two oceans led to the same requirement, which was soon reinforced by the new passage linking the Atlantic and the Pacific.This trend will be maintained and strengthened by the increase of European colonies in the Pacific, the continuous progress of Japan, and the increasing inhabitation of the Pacific states of the United States by men with an enterprising spirit that continues to advance the country.Nowhere else in the United States will there be as much support for a vigorous foreign policy as it has among the populace west of the Rockies. As mentioned earlier, in the current situation where we are not prepared, a canal across the isthmus would bring military disaster to the United States, especially to the Pacific coast.Once the canal was built, the Atlantic coast would be no more exposed than it is today, and it would simply, along with the country it sits on, be more exposed to the dangers of foreign intervention and lack adequate means to counter them.The Pacific coast would be in greater danger, since the route between it and Europe would be greatly shortened by a passage which could be controlled by a more powerful maritime nation.The danger lies not only in the greater ease with which a hostile fleet can be dispatched from Europe, but also in the ability of some European power to keep on the Pacific coast a much stronger navy than before, which, if required, can be quickly dispatched. Much recalled to the country.However, if the great vulnerability of our Pacific ports is wisely managed by our government, our naval superiority in that region can be safeguarded.Because of the width and depth of the entrance, the two main centers of San Francisco and Puget Sound could not be effectively protected from torpedo boats; it follows that the fleet always had an unimpeded passage through the batteries.Therefore, relying on fortification alone cannot bring sufficient security to these two places.Although these installations are valuable to them, there should also be a coastal defense fleet, which will cooperate with the battery to counter the enemy.These ships should not be permitted to operate very far beyond the port for which they are appointed, and they are an indispensable part of the defense of that port.Within this limit, these ships can always give effective support to navies operating at sea when the situation of war makes the port a focus of hostility.By omitting the ability to sail long distances, a coastal defense vessel can be correspondingly enhanced in armor and firepower, that is, with greater defensive and offensive power, thereby increasing its ability to operate with it at a given moment The special value of the fleet.No foreign country, except Great Britain, has ports so close to our Pacific coast as to bring it within the range of operations of its coastal defense fleet, and it is doubtful whether Great Britain would deploy such a fleet on Vancouver Island.Once the Pacific coast of Canada was cut off, the United States had always been in a position to deliver such a blow, and Vancouver lost its main value to Great Britain.At this time, the owners of Halifax, Bermuda and Jamaica will defend Vancouver and Canada's Pacific coast by putting pressure on our Pacific coast.As far as the present state of our coastal defense is concerned, Britain can absolutely do this.What does all of Canada matter compared to our vulnerable big cities?Even if our coast is strengthened, England can do it, if our navy is not as strong as it is now planned.What harm can we do to Canada, so that it can be compared with that done to us by the cutting off of our coast commerce, and the blockade of Boston, New York, Delaware, and the Chesapeake Bay?Britain could indeed make such a blockade technically effective under somewhat vague provisions of international law, and neutral countries would accept it as such. The military needs of the Pacific states and their vital importance to our nation as a whole are only a matter of the future, but so near that we should plan for it at once.To measure the importance of the above, consider a state that includes only Washington, Oregon, and California in a state dominated by cities like San Francisco What role will the population of such maritime transportation hubs as the Pacific Ocean, Puget Sound, and Columbia River play in the Pacific.Can this role be downplayed because these people were bound to eastern society by ties of blood and tight political alliances?However, if this role is to be played without hindrance, it needs to be based on good military preparations. As the proverb says, there must be an iron palm inside a velvet glove.To do this three things are indispensable: first, to protect the principal ports by means of fortifications and coastal defense fleets.This will strengthen the defenses of the groups within these ports, bring them security and provide the necessary bases for all military activities.Second, strengthen the naval power.This bolsters offensive power, which alone enables a country to extend its influence outward.Thirdly, that the policy of our country should manifest such an inviolable determination that no foreign country will henceforth acquire a coaling station within three thousand miles of San Francisco. This distance includes Hawaii and the Galapagos Islands and China American coast.Fuel is the life of modern naval warfare, the food of ships, without which modern deep-sea behemoths cannot move a single step and do nothing.Consequently, some of the most important naval strategic considerations center on fuel issues.In the Caribbean and the Atlantic, we are confronted with many foreign coal-fired depots, prompting us to assert force, even as Carthage urged Rome, and we can no longer acquiesce in increasing Our dangers further scatter our strength. In conclusion, where Great Britain, with her great navy and fortified points near our shores, is doubtless the most formidable of our possible enemies, special mention must be made of a sincere agreement with this country. Understanding is one of the most important foreign interests of our country.These two nations no doubt sought their respective advantages, but both were governed by ideas of law and justice drawn from the same source and deeply rooted in their own natures.Whatever temporary deviations arose, a return to a common standard of rights was bound to follow.A formal alliance between the United Kingdom and the United States is unlikely, but a frank acknowledgment of similarities in temperament and outlook will inspire a sense of kinship, which in turn will foster cooperation that is mutually beneficial.If the two are less used to fussing over each other, a more stable emotion can develop powerfully.