This will be a short account of the origin, growth, and death of the great parliament of Castile, the Cortes. That sounds a bit dramatic, but there’s nothing to be done about it, for the history of the Cortes of Castile has the elements of a proper tragedy: the self-destruction of a nation by pride, parochialism, and arrogance. One of my colleagues, now deceased, used to account for the aberrations of Spanish collective behavior by ascribing them to “Spanish individualism.” I can only guess that what he had in mind was that Spaniards, when they act in groups, act differently from the rest of us—in which he was certainly correct. Now, when group actions become consistent, formalized, and ritualistic, I call that pattern of conduct an institution, regardless of whether or not someone has taken the trouble to codify it. Institutions, then, have their origin and their being in the minds of men acting collectively.

The contest between monarchy and representative institutions had a unique outcome in the Netherlands in the sixteenth century as a result of several factors. The most obvious of these is the fact that their rulers had inherited a royal title in Castile and Aragon. The financial and administrative institutions of the modern state which the monarchs attempted to introduce into their possessions in the Low Countries were therefore bound to be regarded as foreign importations. They conflicted with the representative institutions which had grown up in the Netherlands as elsewhere in Europe during the Middle Ages. The chief of these, the Estates-General, continued to flourish in the Low Countries long after they had entered upon hopeless decline in France and Spain. Moreover, the wealth of the Low Countries, industrially, commercially, and financially the most advanced region of sixteenth-century Europe, made them an attractive target for the Hapsburg bureaucracy, harried as it was by the gargantuan task of financing the wars of Charles V and Philip II.

The Spanish Empire in America was thoroughly different in development from the Spanish possessions in Europe. Naples, Sicily, and the Netherlands were European states with populations of cultural background at least equal to the Spanish, with the same religion, with systems of law recognized as of equal merit, and with governmental institutions the monarch was sworn to uphold. There could be no massive penetration of such states by Spanish population and customs. Indeed, during the reign of Charles V, his subjects could not be certain where the empire had its seat; so that the anger of the Spanish at Charles’ Flemish favorites arose more from their fear of colonial status than from annoyance at the painfully generous gifts made from their pockets. It was only in the reign of Philip II that the center of one Hapsburg empire was firmly set in Spain.

During the course of the eighteenth century two savants of Anglo-Saxon parentage reached something close to renown in the River Plate area, which then comprised what is actually Argentina, Paraguay, Bolivia, and Uruguay. These men were Isaac Newton and Benjamin Franklin.

The British mathematician and philosopher was held in high esteem between the years 1730 and 1780. His popularity was due, in part at least, to the Jesuit professor of mathematics in Córdoba, who had formerly been Newton’s favorite student: the physician Thomas Falkner.

The civil conflict within Mexico, 1910 to 1911, brought an active intervention from the United States. It was an interference that both elicited a sharp diplomatic exchange, and tested the neutrality statutes of the United States for clarity and sincerity. Among the members of the Taft Cabinet, there was disagreement on the interpretation of these statutes. The state governments, at best, gave official approval to the confused federal policy. American citizens along the Mexican border boldly assisted the revolutionary government of Francisco Madero, while ignoring the neutrality statutes of the United States. The purpose of this paper is to present the various interpretations of neutrality that arose in the State Department’s “Instructions” to its officers, the official correspondence between Cabinet officers, and the formal replies to the protesting Mexican government.

The people of the United States are very much interested in Latin America because of the deep roots which bind this continent to the Western World. The Latin American continent is one of the largest Christian areas of the world. The events of the past several decades have significantly increased the importance of Latin America to the United States and the Western World. In the unfortunate event of another war, the South American continent may very well become the refuge of Western civilization.