James G. Blaine and Latin America (review)
In the modern study of international relations, David Healy regrets the overemphasis on “non-state factors,” such as cultural and intellectual considerations or the emergence of a global economy. He feels that diplomatic historians have lost sight of the formal relations between sovereign states and especially of the personalities of agents conducting these relations. “In the end,” he says, “someone must act or react, and it makes a difference who that someone is” (p. 2). The present book reflects this approach, studying an important American statesman and his dealings with a part of the world not yet appreciated by most of his countrymen. James G. Blaine would not seem to be a likely subject for a test case. Although he served twice as secretary of state (1881 and 1889–92), he was best known as an enthusiastic and controversial party politician and perennial presidential hopeful over the course of two decades: the “Mr. Republican” of his generation. Democrats caricatured him in cartoons as “the tattooed man,” covered with slogans about his corruption and political deals. He knew little about Latin America or diplomacy. During his first brief term in office, his inexperience, impulsiveness, and bad judgment worked against American interests more often than not. However, when he reentered the state department, his presidential ambitions had cooled, and he had learned some caution. As a result, he accomplished more in hemispheric relations. But he was dogged by ill health (he died after only three years in office), and President Benjamin Harrison kept a closer rein on his activities than had James A. Garfield, his earlier chief. It would be fair to say that in Blaine’s short career as director of Latin American policy, he had few good opportunities to show real leadership. Nevertheless, David Healy goes far to enhance Blaine’s reputation as a hemispheric leader. Although Blaine left behind few personal papers, Healy uses correspondence in other collections, articles in friendly newspapers, and other such memorabilia to present a colorful and well-rounded sketch of Blaine the man. The rest of the book relies heavily on official correspondence with agents in the field— the dry bones of diplomacy. This part will be invaluable to anyone writing a complete study of Blaine, the political epitome of the late nineteenth century. Here and there, and especially in his conclusion, Healy goes further and builds Blaine up as a determined and farsighted policy maker who looked forward to the United States as a hemispheric—even a world—power. During Blaine’s first term in office it might be more reasonable to see him as trying to create a diplomatic record to strengthen his eventual run for the presidency. His later Latin American policy was more statesmanlike, but rather than pursuing a long-term goal, he was usually reactive and experimental, as were most other foreign policy leaders of the decades between the Civil War and the twentieth century.