In Reference to the Visit of Mr. Root, in the Chamber of Deputies
July 4, 1906
This speech, delivered before Mr. Root reached Buenos Ayres,
had an intimate relation to his reception.
Within a few weeks, Mr. President, Buenos Ayres will receive the visit
of an eminent personality of the United States, Mr. Elihu Root, who is
discharging in that country the duties of Secretary of State.
The Executive of the nation, having official knowledge of the visit of
Mr. Root, has already taken measures to entertain him and to make his
sojourn in the Argentine Republic agreeable; but it has appeared to me,
Mr. President, that the Chamber of Deputies should itself spontaneously
take an initiative in this manifestation, in view of the personality of
the man and the country he represents.
The United States are for us, as is well known, the cradle of our
democratic institutions; we are bound to them by those ties of
friendship and of interest that are known to all and which it would be
superfluous to enumerate; but apart from this, there exists between that
country and ours historic bonds that secure our profound sympathies.
It is beneficial from time to time to ascend the currents of history in
order to gather the lessons of the past which may serve us as a guide in
our constant march into the future. When we study in its annals the
action of the Government of the United States in the epoch of Argentine
independence, we encounter demonstrations of a solicitude, of an
affection, of a solidarity, of a participation in the struggles of
those heroic times, so marked that the Argentine spirit necessarily
feels itself impressed with the sentiment of intense gratitude and the
necessity of repaying in some way those manifestations now somewhat
forgotten.
It is of importance, Mr. President, that our people should know well the
other peoples with whom they exchange products, manufactures, and ideas,
especially when, in respect to the latter, those that they receive
surpass in quantity those they give. And if there is any country that
the Argentine people need to know well, any people, in its history, in
its methods, in its sentiments, and in its intentions, it is the United
States of America, the elder sister, the forerunner, and the model.
In the epoch of our independence, Mr. President, the public life of the
United States was constantly interested in the vicissitudes of the
struggle that these peoples waged for their independence on both slopes
of the Andes and in the regions of Venezuela. If you read the messages
of the Presidents of the United States you find in them, year after
year, words that prove the interest of that country in the destiny of
these countries. At a date as early as 1811, a message of President
Madison contained phrases full of sympathy for the great communities
which were struggling for their liberty in this part of the world; and
the attention of Congress was called to the necessity of being prepared
to enter into relations of government to government with them, as soon
as their independence should be sanctioned.
From the time in which Monroe, the author of the famous doctrine,
assumed the presidency of the republic, in all the messages at the
opening of Congress, there is a distinct reference to the struggle of
these nations for their independence, and in particular to the conflict
that developed in the Rio de la Plata and the victorious progress of the
arms of Buenos Ayres on this and on the other side of the mountains and
on the plateau of Bolivia.
In all these documents reference is made to independence as a probable
fact, which must necessarily at that time have exerted an influence in
favor of the cause of the patriots; and often the declaration was
repeated that, the colonies being emancipated, the United States did not
seek and would not accept from them any commercial advantage that was
not also offered to all other nations.
These manifestations which emanated from the Government and reflected
the movement of public opinion, found eloquent exponents in Congress
also.
In the records of the American Congress of 1817, one year after the
declaration of independence by the Congress of Tucuman, a famous debate
is recorded, begun by Henry Clay, the celebrated orator, who pleaded the
cause of Argentine independence in the most enthusiastic terms. In this
debate a Representative from New York also took a prominent part; this
Representative bore the same name as the envoy whom we are to receive
from the United States of America, Mr. Root.
Spain had complained of the expeditions that were fitted out in ports of
the United States to foment American revolution. The Government was
tolerant with these infractions of neutrality; popular sympathy made the
condemnation of such conspirators impossible. Spain, with whom the
United States had relations of great importance, and with whom they were
negotiating the cession of Florida, had protested to the Government
against these expeditions of its rebellious subjects. The President,
forced to do so, had sent to Congress a message requesting the enactment
of a law of neutrality. Clay and Root opposed it; and the latter said
that it was worth while to go to war with Spain if a demonstration in
favor of the liberty and independence of those countries could be made.
Later, during the administration of John Quincy Adams, these
manifestations of the American Government in favor of Argentine
independence are met with on every page of the records of Congress. In
1818, the first discussion took place in the American Congress--a
concrete discussion on the necessity of recognizing Argentine
independence. Henry Clay was, as always, the leader of this discussion,
following up the movements which, with extraordinary zeal, he had made
at reunions, in the press, and in Congress. He delivered a speech that
it is impossible for one to read without feeling his spirit moved on
observing the solicitude, the interest, with which at that early date
this apostle of democracy expressed himself in regard to the struggle of
these peoples to gain their independence.
All, without exception, pronounced themselves in favor of the
independence of these peoples, which they recognized in principle. But a
parliamentary question of privilege was raised, as to the prerogative of
the Executive, it being alleged that the initiative, proposed by Clay,
of naming a minister to these countries, encroached upon the functions
of the Executive when the latter believed it wise to send simply agents.
On this question opinion was divided, but not a single vote was cast
that did not express the warmest sympathy with the cause of the
patriots.
While such was the attitude of the American Congress, in the press and
in popular meetings manifestations of adhesion to the cause of the South
American independence appeared at every moment. But above all, the place
where traces of this determined action of the Government of the United
States in favor of Argentine independence are to be found is in the
records of the State Department at Washington, in which reference is
made to the activity of its representative in London, at that time the
famous statesman, Richard Rush. Rush was the minister of the United
States in London from the end of 1817, when he left the post of
Secretary of State. He began negotiations immediately with Lord
Castlereagh, Prime Minister of England, to induce the British Foreign
Office to enter upon a policy of frank adhesion to the emancipation of
these countries from the dominion of Spain. There we see, Mr. President,
how united the action of the United States was in this movement,
inspired by the most sincere democratic desires, by a true love of
liberty.
The Prime Minister of England received Mr. Rush's proposals coldly.
England had been appealed to by Spain to mediate between her and the
Holy Alliance, in order to obtain the submission of the rebellious
provinces; and England had indicated the advisability of acceding to
this reintegration of Spanish dominion, on the basis of the return of
these countries to a state of dependence, with the condition of a
general amnesty.
In the conference between Lord Castlereagh and Minister Rush, the latter
positively declared that the United States could never contribute to
such retrogression, and that the aims of their Government favored the
recognition of the complete independence of America. This was in 1818.
It would occupy much time, Mr. President, but would not be without
interest, to review in detail all the negotiations entered into by the
North American representative in London, from the time of Lord
Castlereagh to that of Canning, who succeeded him.
In February, 1819, Rush notified Castlereagh that the Washington
Government considered that the new South American states had established
the position obtained by the victory of their arms, and that President
Monroe had given an _exequatur_ to a consul from Buenos Ayres, and was
resolved at all hazards to recognize Argentine independence. Lord
Castlereagh declared himself openly at variance with the views of the
Government of the United States, and said that Great Britain had done
all that was possible to terminate the strife between Spain and her
colonies, but always on the basis of the restoration of the dominion of
the former. In 1819, then, the United States were the only nation that
insisted upon asserting the independence of our country.
Thanks to their attitude, all the attempts begun by the Holy Alliance to
suppress the movement for emancipation failed.
The death of Lord Castlereagh did not change the situation. Even the
acts of Canning, if examined, and if the negotiations of the then
American minister are analyzed, leave an impression of opposition,
because that great British Minister, who, according to history, clinched
as it were the independence of this country with his celebrated
declaration, was not always of the same way of thinking; and it was
necessary for the minister of the United States to inculcate in him the
policy of his country in order that he should decide to adopt a policy
openly favorable to South American independence. Such is the finding of
the most accurate of Argentine historians.
On March 8, 1882, President Monroe sent to the Congress of the United
States his celebrated message proposing the recognition of the Argentine
independence. In that message the President renewed his assurances of
sympathy for the cause of Buenos Ayres, and confirmed the entire
disinterestedness with which his Government espoused the cause of the
political integrity of the youthful nation. The House of Representatives
voted the recognition of Argentine independence unanimously, except for
one vote--that of Representative Garnett, who declared that he did not
object to the recognition, but that he considered it unnecessary, and he
cited in support of his view an opinion of Rivadavia. The United States
was, then, the first country after Portugal (which through motives of
special interest had recognized our independence), to make a similar
recognition; and England, which followed the United States, did not do
so until three years later, January 1, 1825.
Even after the recognition of Argentine independence by the United
States, conferences continued to be held in Europe to establish the
regime of the dominion of the mother country over the already
independent colonies. Then new conferences took place with Canning, in
which the minister of the United States confirmed anew the policy of his
country in the matter of the final recognition of the independence of
this republic. During that period, a document appeared that emanated
from John Quincy Adams, addressed to Rush, in which he declined to enter
into the plan for convoking a congress intended to treat of the
questions of South America, and stated that the United States would
never attend such a congress unless the South American republics were
first invited.
To accentuate the attitude of his Government, Mr. Adams adds that if the
congress were to take place, with intent hostile to the new republics,
the United States would solemnly protest against it and its calamitous
consequences.
The systematic and persistent action of the United States ended by
determining in Canning a policy favorable to South American
independence, and opposed to the intervention of any foreign power in
the destinies of the new republics.
Great Britain and the United States once in accord, after negotiations
in which Jefferson and Madison united their counsel to that of President
Monroe, these two patriots expressing themselves in terms of moving
eloquence in favor of the cause of emancipation, the question was
settled forever.
Some months afterward, December 2, 1823, President Monroe consummated
his action by sending to Congress the message that contains the
enunciation of his famous doctrine. "America for the Americans", Mr.
President, was a formula that, as I understand it, meant the final
consecration of the independence of the American nations; it was the
voice of the most powerful of them all, proclaiming to the world that
conquest in the domain of this America was at an end; it was
notification to the conquering powers of Europe that they should not
extend themselves to these continents because this extensive territory
was all occupied by free nations, outside of whose sovereignty not an
inch was vacant.
The independence of these republics having been settled on the field of
battle by the sole force of the republics, the declaration of the
American President was the culminating act of that grand epic. For the
United States it is a record of honor; for Europe it is an ultimatum.
The Monroe Doctrine exists today with all the force of a law of nations,
and no country of Europe has dared to dispute it.
It is fitting, Mr. President, to appreciate exactly the meaning of this
great act, of the splendid attitude, more fertile for the peace of the
earth and for its progress than all the conventions that European
nations have arranged from time to time in order to determine their
quarrels. The American President, in formulating this doctrine, decreed
peace between Europe and America, which seemed destined, the former to
assault always for conquest, the latter to fight always to defend its
frontiers. In short, the Monroe Doctrine has been the veto on war
between Europe and America; in its shadow these youthful nations have
grown until today they are sufficiently strong to proclaim the same
doctrine as the emblem on their shield. And the most glorious
characteristic of this doctrine is that it is a dictate of civilization,
in the nature of a magnificent hymn of peace, which can be chanted at
the same time by the European and the American nations, because it
avoided that permanent contention which would have subvened if the
system of conquest that Europe has developed in regard to certain
nations had been implanted here in the territory of South America.
Well, Mr. President, he who is coming to visit us is a conspicuous
citizen of that nation, and brings, as it is said--and I believe the
Foreign Office already is informed in regard thereto--a message of peace
and fraternity of utmost interest to our progress. We ought to take
advantage of this opportunity to give this envoy a reception worthy of
his people and worthy of himself.
I have privately communicated to the Minister for Foreign Affairs the
idea of this project, and I have had the pleasure to hear from his lips
the most complete adherence to my declaration that in addition to a bill
authorizing the expenses, there was the intention of preparing for Mr.
Root a manifestation emanating spontaneously from the Argentine
Congress. The Minister believes this demonstration to be the necessary
complement of the demonstration the national government is preparing for
this envoy from the great republic.
The historic facts I have recalled are a brief synthesis of an epoch
sufficient to warrant the Argentine people in associating themselves
with the Government and lending to the event their warm interest. I am
doubly pleased to have recalled this noble history on the Fourth of
July, the anniversary of the independence of the great republic of the
North.
I believe that for these reasons, gentlemen, you will lend your support
to this idea and fulfill the purpose for which it is presented.