The Withdrawal of the United States from Haiti, 1928-1934

1963 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 83-101 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald B. Cooper

The United States occupation of Haiti — despite benevolent intentions — was a thinly-disguised military dictatorship. The official view of the Department of State that the numerous U. S. officials there were merely advisers to the legitimate Haitian government, acting in accordance with limitations prescribed by treaty, was a polite fiction. It deceived no one, particularly the large number of Haitians who resented foreign experiments in benevolent despotism in their land.The real ruler of Haiti, as the system had evolved by the pivotal year of 1928 — the last “normal” year before the political crisis which precipitated withdrawal — was General John H. Russell, United States Marine Corps, the U. S. High Commissioner. The nominal ruler, President Louis Borno, generally relied upon his U. S. advisers. In Russell's own words “[Borno] has never taken a step without first consulting me.” When differences arose, usually as a result of pressures exerted on Borno by local politicians, General Russell was free to make appropriate concessions. But his will prevailed in any showdown conflict. The General was noted for his fairness, however, and his relations with Haitian officials were usually harmonious. Yet his military background, combined with his devotion to efficiency and economy, was not well-suited to preparing a dependent people for enlightened self-rule.

Significance He did not name a new prime minister. Over July 25-26, Saied dismissed Prime Minister Hicham Mechichi, dissolved his government, suspended parliament for 30 days, lifted parliamentary immunity and declared himself chief prosecutor, triggering Tunisia’s worst political crisis in a decade. Impacts The Ennahda party could be persecuted once again, this time on corruption charges, as the reconciliation offered excludes its members. Tunisia may become a new ideological battleground, pitting Turkey and Qatar against the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Saudi Arabia and Egypt. The EU, the United States and Algeria have some influence on Tunisia and could perhaps play a moderating role.


1969 ◽  
Vol 63 (2) ◽  
pp. 312-336

The material for this section is compiled by Stephen L. Gibson, attorney in the Office of the Legal Adviser, Department of State. Jerome H. Silber, of the Office of the General Counsel, Department of Defense, has provided material originating in that Department.


1947 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 32-64 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lewis Hanke

The period 1939–1945 saw an unprecedented expansion of Latin American studies in the United States. This was partly due to the wartime activities of such government agencies as the Department of State and the Office of the Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs, and to the rising interest in the area approach to academic studies. This development would not have been possible, however, without the continuous concern of the foundations, which had helped to organize scholars in the field on a national basis, had stimulated research in relatively neglected fields, and had provided funds for the compilation and publication of certain basic bibliographical tools. Nor would this expansion have been more than a wartime boom had not the scholars and universities of the country been attracted to Hispanic studies since George Ticknor and William H. Prescott first disclosed their importance over a century ago, and to the Latin American field more particularly since 1900. The expansion was based upon solid elements.


1911 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 414-432
Author(s):  
Gaillard Hunt

Having considered in former numbers of this Journal the sometime and occasional duties of the Department, including among them certain contingent duties which it has never been called upon to perform, we may now advance to a consideration of its habitual functions.The organic act of the Department prescribed that the Secretary of State should keep “ the seal of the United States.” It is the mark of the supreme authority of the United States, and before the government went into operation under the Constitution, was in the custody of the Secretary of Congress, being used to verify all important acts, whether executive or legislative; but the debate on executive departments in the first constitutional congress indicated that Congress did not contemplate keeping the seal any longer, and thought it would necessarily pass to the custody of the Executive. The President did, in fact, take it under his control as soon as he assumed office and before legal provision had been made for it.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document