The United States and Latin AmericaLatané, John Holladay
History
The United States and Latin America
Latané, John Holladay
Latin America -- Foreign relations -- United States; United States -- Foreign relations -- Latin America
Finally, on December 16, 1865, Seward addressed what was practically an
ultimatum to France. He pointed out the likelihood that Congress, then
in session, would direct by law the action of the executive on this
important subject, and stated that:
It has been the President's purpose that France should be
respectfully informed upon two points, namely: First, that
the United States earnestly desire to continue and to
cultivate sincere friendship with France. Second, that this
policy would be brought into imminent jeopardy, unless
France could deem it consistent with her interest and honor
to desist from the prosecution of armed intervention in
Mexico, to overthrow the domestic republican government
existing there, and to establish upon its ruins the foreign
monarchy which has been attempted to be inaugurated in the
capital of that country.
In conclusion he added:
It remains now only to make known to M. Drouyn de Lhuys my
profound regret that he has thought it his duty to leave the
subject, in his conversation with you, in a condition that
does not authorize an expectation on our part that a
satisfactory adjustment of the case can be effected on any
basis that thus far has been discussed.
As late as November 29, 1865, the French government, through the Marquis
de Montholon, still insisted on recognition of Maximilian by the United
States as the only basis for an arrangement for the recall of the French
troops.[233]
The formal reply to Mr. Seward's note of December 16 was received
through the Marquis de Montholon, January 29, 1866. M. Drouyn de Lhuys
still insisted that the French expedition had in it nothing hostile to
the institutions of the new world, and assuredly still less to those of
the United States. He called attention to the fact that the United
States had acknowledged the right of France to make war on Mexico, and
continued: "On the other part, we admit, as they do, the principle of
non-intervention; this double postulate includes, as it seems to me, the
elements of an agreement." He also contended that the right to make war
implied the right to secure the results of war; that they had to demand
guarantees, and these guarantees they could not look for from a
government whose bad faith they had proven on so many occasions; that
they found themselves engaged in the establishment of a regular
government, which showed itself disposed to keep its engagements; that
the Mexican people had spoken, and that the Emperor Maximilian had been
called to the throne by the will of the people of the country.[234]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account