Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m8s7h Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T12:57:53.611Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The World Crisis and the Good Neighbor Policy in Panama, 1936-41

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 December 2015

Lester D. Langley
Lester D. Langley*
Affiliation:
Central Washington State College, Ellensburg, Washington
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The 1936 Hull-Alfaro treaty, which fulfilled New Deal pledges to Panama, represented also the impact of Panamanian nationalism. For thirty years following the 1903 isthmian revolution, Panama remained a subject of American Canal policy. In 1921, for instance, the Panamanian government hurried troops to the Costa Rican boundary in order to compel a favorable decision in a long-standing border dispute. The Department of State, however, had decided that Panamanian military action against Costa Rica was unjustifiable. Arguing that hostilities between Panama and Costa Rica endangered Canal security, a warning was sent to Panama City, followed by the cruiser Sacramento. This act of “gunboat diplomacy” was castigated throughout Panama, but the Panamanian government withdrew its troops. Similarly, Panamanians voiced charges of economic domination, even exploitation, by arguing that the Canal failed to satisfy the republic's commercial aspirations. In 1903, Panamanians had welcomed military intervention by the United States on the grounds that it would be followed by technological intrusion capable of building the canal. By the late 1920's, however, it was obvious to many Panamanian critics that the profits of the isthmian waterway were returned to the United States. The American government strictly limited the operation of Panamanian merchants inside the Canal Zone. Moreover, the more desirable positions in Zone employment, the so-called “gold roll” jobs, were invariably meted out to Americans. Those Panamanians who found employment in the Zone were usually grouped with imported West Indian Negroes on the “silver roll,” a term referring to unskilled positions. Racial antagonism between West Indians and Panamanians resulted from economic competition.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Americas , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , October 1967 , pp. 137 - 152
Copyright
Copyright © Academy of American Franciscan History 1967

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Pimentel, Ernesto Castillero, Panamá los Estados Unidos (Panamá, 1964), pp. 156–7.Google Scholar

2 Roberts, George, Investigación económica de la República de Panamá (Panamá, 1933), p. 13 Google Scholar; Castillero, P., Panamá y los EE. UU., p. 266–7Google Scholar; Fábrega, Octavio, in Panama City University, Los canales internacionales (Panama, 1957), p. 131–33.Google Scholar

3 Provisions of the treaty are in Department of State, Treaty Series 945 (Washington, 1939) ; see also Junta Nacional de Cincuentenario, Documentos fundamentales para la historia de la nación panameña (Panamá, 1953).

4 Treaty Series 945, 20.

5 Antonio B. González, Minister to Panama, to Hull, November 24, 1934, 711.1928/296, State Department Correspondence, National Archives; Castillero, P., Panamá y los EE. UU., p. 280.Google Scholar

6 Panamanian Treaty Commission Notes, May 21, 1934, 711.1928/436½. A distinguished diplomat, Alfaro’s views may be further explored in his books, Los acuerdos entre Panamá y los Estados Unidos (Panamá, 1948), and Medio siglo de relaciones entre Panamá y los Estados Unidos (Panamá, 1959).

7 William C. Burdett, chargé d’affaires, to Hull, January 14, 1935, in Department of State, Foreign Relations, 1935 (4 vols.; Washington, 1953), IV, 890.

8 Castillero, P., Panamá y los EE. UU., pp. 281–2Google Scholar; editorials, Listín, Diario, Panama American, March 4, 1936,Google Scholar clippings in State Department files; New York Times, December 23, 24, 1936.

9 Ibid., March 18, 1936; Literary Digest, CXXI (March 14, 1936), 7.

10 Brooklyn Times-Union, quoted in ibid.; Samuel G. Inman in the New York Times, May 1, 1936.

11 Padelford, Norman J., “American Rights in the Panama Canal,” American Journal Of International Law, 34 (July, 1940), 442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12 New York Times, April 30, 1936; Langer, William L. and Gleason, S. Everett, The Challenge to Isolation, 1937–1940 (2 vols.; New York, 1964), I, 39 Google Scholar; Hull Memo, September 21, 1937, 711.1928/655.

13 Sumner Welles, Memo, June 10, 1939, 711.1928/802; William Dawson, ambassador to Panama, to Hull, July 20, 1939, 711.1928/806.

14 Quoted in the New York Times, November 29, 1937.

15 Frank Corrigan, chargé d’affaires in Panama, to Hull, January 15, 1938, 711.1928/688.

16 Senate Executive Report, No. 5, 76th Cong., 1st sess., 4–5.

17 Foreign Minister of Panama to Hull, February 1, 1939, Treaty Series 945, 65–66.

18 Historical Section, Panama Canal Department, Department of the Army, “History of the Panama Canal Department,” I, 38–39, unpublished study, Office of the Chief of Military History (OCMH), Washington, D. C. For permission to use these studies, the author is grateful to Dr. Stetson Conn, OCMH.

19 Panama Canal Department, “An Integrated History of the Panama Canal Department,” I, 14–15, unpublished study, OCMH; Conn, Stetson, Engelman, Rose, and Fairchild, Byron, Guarding the United States and Its Outposts (Washington: Department of the Army, 1964), pp. 4, 301–302.Google Scholar

20 Report, 1939 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1939), 2.

21 Hull’s fears are expressed in two memoranda in the Hull papers: “German Menace in the Other American Republics,” n.d., and “Totalitarianism in Latin America,” n. d., Manuscript Division, Library of Congress.

22 Hull Memo, n. d., Hull Papers; Roosevelt, to Welles, , December 23, 1937, Foreign Relations 1937, 5, 439 Google Scholar; Hall, Melvin and Peck, Walter, “Wings for the Trojan Horse,” Foreign Affairs, 19 (January, 1941), 363–4,CrossRefGoogle Scholar covers SCADTA’s activities.

23 New York Times, September 20, 1939; June 16, 1940; Panama Canal Department, “Integrated History,” I, 55–56; Historical Section, Caribbean Defense Command, Department of the Army, “Air Plans and Plans and Measures Adopted Against Air Attack,” 13–14, unpublished study, OCMH.

24 Defense Message, in the New York Times, January 13, 1939; Watson, Mark S., Chief of Staff: Prewar Plans and Preparations (Washington, 1950), pp. 458–9.Google Scholar

25 Historical Section, Panama Canal Department, “Panama Mobile Force and Security Command,” I, 23, unpublished study, OCMH.

26 Watson, , Chief of Staff, p. 460.Google Scholar

27 Panama Canal Department, “History of the Panama Canal Department,” I, 60–61, 129–130, 143, OCMH.

28 Foreign Relations, 1904, 544.

29 Conn, Stetson and Fairchild, Byron, The Framework of Hemisphere Defense (Washington, 1960), pp. 11, 213Google Scholar; Panama Canal Department, “Acquisition of Lands in the Panama Canal Zone,” unpublished study, OCMH. Elaboration of Panama’s views on the subject may be found in Castillero P., Panamá y los EE. UU. and Reyes, Ernesto Castillero, El Canal de Panamá (Panamá, 1963).Google Scholar

30 Woodring to Hull, September 8, 1939, 71 IF. 1914/126; Dawson to Hull, November 9, 1939, 711F. 1914/129; Dawson to Hull, March 20, 1940, 711F. 1914/135.

31 Text, quoted in Panama Star and Herald, October 3, 1940, clipping in State Department files; Ernesto, Castillero P., ed., Galería de presidentes, 1903–53 (Panama, 1953), p. 50.Google Scholar

32 Wright, Almon R., “Defense Sites Negotiations between the United States and Panama, 1936–1948,” Department of State Bulletin, 27 (August 11, 1952), 214 Google Scholar; Dawson to Hull, October 15, 1940, 711F. 1914/151.

33 Memo, Dawson, November 9, 1940, FR 1940, 5, 1076–79Google Scholar; Ministro de relaciones exteriores, Memoria, 1940 (Panamá, 1940), 313–14.

34 Dawson to De Roux, Latin American Division, State Department, to Dawson, V, 1082–3; Laurence Duggan, Latin American Division, State Department, to Dawson, November 26, 1940, 711F. 1914/159½.

35 Dawson, to De Roux, , November 25, 1940, Foreign Relations, 1940, 5, 1079–82.Google Scholar

36 Bonsai Memo, December 17, 1940, 711F. 1914/160.

37 Panama Canal Department, “Acquisition of Lands,” 106; Conn, Stetson et al., Guarding the United States and its Outposts, pp. 306–8Google Scholar; Panama Canal Department, “History of the Panama Canal Department,” II, 7.

38 Dawson to Hull, October 5, 1940, 819.00 Arias, Arnulfo/49.

39 Dawson to Duggan, February 17, 1941, 711F. 1914/193; Finley to Bonsal, February 28, 1941, 711F. 1914/214.

40 Dawson, to Hull, February 14, 1941, Foreign Relations 1941, 7, 427.Google Scholar

41 Hull to Dawson, February 17, 1941, ibid., 429.

42 Finley Memo, March 8, 9, 10, 1941, 711F. 1914/237½ and 235. Van Voorhis’ remarks are in Panama Canal Department, “Acquisition of Lands,” 48–9; El Panamá América, March 5, 1941, clipping in State Department files.

43 Bonsai Memo, June 4, 1941, 711F. 1914/286.

44 Wright, , “Defense Sites Negotiations,” 215–6; Wilson to Bonsai, September 11, 1941, 711F. 1914/381.Google Scholar

45 Wright, , “Defense Sites Negotiations,” 216.Google Scholar

46 New York Times, October 10, 1914.

47 Wilson to Hull, June 30, 1941, 711.19, 268; Hull Memo, “Current and Prospective Situation by Republics,” n. d., Hull Papers, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress.

48 Castillero, P., Galería de presidentes, pp. 73–4.Google Scholar