The Politics of Intervention

(sharon) #1

118 THE POLITICS OF INTERVENTION



  1. Taft to Root, October 4, 1906, Root Papers.

  2. Taft to Charles P. Taft, October 4, 1906, Taft Papers.

  3. Taft to Roosevelt, October 3, 1906, Roosevelt Papers. The offi­
    cial account of the intervention was that Taft and Roosevelt realized
    compromise with the rebels would strengthen them and sanctify rebel­
    lion, but the alternative, war, would destroy the island's economic
    wealth and chance for peaceful development. It was Estrada Palma's
    stubbornness that forced the United States to occupy the island. Under
    the circumstances Cuba deserved one more chance as an independent
    country. New York Times, October 19, 1906.

  4. McCoy to Wood, October 18, 1906, Wood Papers. McCoy wrote
    substantially the same account to another Old Cuban Hand, Colonel
    Hugh L. Scott. McCoy to Scott, October 18, 1906, Scott Papers.

  5. McCoy to Wood, October 18, 1906, Wood Papers; Taft to
    Roosevelt, October 6, 1906, Roosevelt Papers; Times (London), October
    6, 1906; North American Review, CLXXXIII (October 16, 1906),
    812-15.
    The idea apparently was Root's and from the appearance of the
    marginal notes and blue-penciled marks in the manuscripts, it appears
    as if the Secretary of State personally did the editing. As a result of
    the disclosures, Mendez Capote and Juan O'Farrill fled to New York.

  6. Chapman, A History of the Cuban Republic, p. 219; Fitzgibbon,
    Cuba and the United States, 1900-1935, pp. 119-20; David A. Lock-
    miller, Magoon in Cuba (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1938), pp. 58-63; Albert
    G. Robinson, Cuba Old and New (New York, 1916), pp. 159-61;
    Carleton Beals, The Crime of Cuba (Philadelphia, 1933), pp. 203-7;
    Leland H. Jenks, Our Cuban Colony (New York, 1932), pp. 87-95;
    Howard C. Hill, Roosevelt and the Caribbean (Chicago, 1927), pp.
    88-105; Dana G. Munro, Intervention and Dollar Diplomacy in the
    Caribbean, 1900-1921 (Princeton, N.J., 1964), pp. 125-40; Ralph Eldin
    Minger, "William Howard Taft and the United States Intervention in
    Cuba in 1906," HAHR, XVLI (February, 1961), pp. 75-89; Leo J.
    Meyer, "Relations between the United States and Cuba, 1898-1917"
    (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Clark University, 1928); Dexter Per­
    kins, The United States and the Caribbean (Cambridge, Mass., 1947),
    p. 127; Philip G. Wright, The Cuban Situation and Our Treaty Rela­
    tions (Washington, D.C., 1931), pp. 31-33; Johnson, The History of
    Cuba, IV, pp. 260-64; Chester Lloyd Jones, The Caribbean Since 1900
    (New York, 1936), pp. 40-42; W. H. Callcott, The Caribbean Policy
    of the United States, 1890-1920 (Baltimore, 1942), pp. 231-35.
    Whether the Constitutional Army would have fought the Americans
    is a moot question. In an interview with Lockmiller in the 1930's,
    Guerra and Asbert said they would not have fought; Irene Wright,
    Willis Fletcher Johnson, and Sir William Van Home agree.

  7. M. J. Manduley to Sir William Van Home, September 15, 1906,
    Case 244/277, Num. File, 1906-1910, Vol. XXXVII, RG 59; Enrique
    Collazo, Cuba intervenida (Havana, 1910), pp. 121, 128-30; Enrique
    Jose Varona, Miranda en torno, pp. 23-24; Alexander Gonzalez to Wood,
    November 19, 1906, Wood Papers.

Free download pdf