Western Kentucky University TopSCHOLAR® Honors College Capstone Experience/Thesis Honors College at WKU Projects

2000 The Golden Fields of Santo Domingo: A Historical Analysis of America's Obsession with the During the Nineteenth century Dennis W. Pennington Western Kentucky University

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.wku.edu/stu_hon_theses Part of the Arts and Humanities Commons

Recommended Citation Pennington, Dennis W., "The Golden Fields of Santo Domingo: A Historical Analysis of America's Obsession with the Dominican Republic During the Nineteenth century" (2000). Honors College Capstone Experience/Thesis Projects. Paper 177. http://digitalcommons.wku.edu/stu_hon_theses/177

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by TopSCHOLAR®. It has been accepted for inclusion in Honors College Capstone Experience/ Thesis Projects by an authorized administrator of TopSCHOLAR®. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Golden Fields of Santo Domingo:

A Historical Analysis of America's Obsession

With the Dominican Republic

During the Nineteenth Century

Senior Honors Thesis

Western Kentucky University

Dennis W. Pennington

Fall 2000

Approved by I/drlai\ iIiI~ DEDICATION

This work is dedicated in loving memory ofmy mother, Sarah Pennington, who taught me the love ofreading, and to her mother, Bessie Hazlewood, who taught me the love of history, and to my grandmother, Thelma Pennington, who taught me the love ofmyself I will see you both when I get there, and have I got stories to tell you!

ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

With my hat offto Thoreau, no work ofthis magnitude is done alone. What began as a question on how to preserve an antique book has resulted in this work. For that inspiration, I am indebted to Drs. Robert Berkhofer and Patricia Minter ofthe History

Department at Western Kentucky University. But, I can't let Dr. Minter offthe hook that easily, because it is she who was also my faculty advisor for this project. I am indebted to her many hours oftirelessly laboring over my inability to put abstract ideas into concrete language, and I thank her from ofmy heart. Speaking oflanguage, I am also grateful to Walker Rutledge ofthe English Department for his grammar editing and basically having to put up with someone who thought that he could write in the first place.

To Dr. Marion B. Lucas ofthe History Department, my second reader, I thank you for your comments and suggestions.

No researcher is without his heroes, and mine have to be the staff at the

InterLibrary Loan Department ofthe Cravens Graduate Center and Library at Western

Kentucky University. Without them, the research would have been difficult, ifnot impossible, indeed. In particular, I would like to extend a special thank you to Debra Day, whose emails kept me on track when chaos was rampant.

iii Special thanks must go to the staff ofthe Western Kentucky Honors Program for their support, and, in particular, for their funding of such a project. To Dr. Doug

McElroy, Director ofthe Honors Program, and Lisa Beaty, faithful secretary, I thank you for putting up with my bad jokes, my always-inopportune crises, and for letting me do this in the first place.

I have seen the birth ofclassics in history: the publication ofthe historical research ofMr. Charles Callan Tansill sitting alongside the perfect companion, Melvin Knight, with his additional and valuable bibliography and commentary, and, ofcourse, the innumerable contributions ofMr. Howard H. Bell, Mr. William Javier Nelson, and Dr. Mary Treudley.

I had the honor ofreading the works ofMr. Samuel Hazard who, though possibly biased toward Dominican annexation, provided a wealth ofanthropological data and historical facts. But, there are a chosen few graduate students who would write ofthis time in history, and all, despite their political bias, told the story accurately, provided even more revealing bibliographies, and told the story with such conviction that it inspired me. To these people, I am deeply indebted and grateful.

Finally, to all my family and friends who, for over a year now, have been unable to have a conversation with me for more than fifteen minutes before I have to talk about

Santo Domingo or bat guano, thank you for your patience and support during my antisocial stages ofwriting.

As far as writing is concerned, I owe my last word to someone who can say it better than 1. I give you the words ofWilliam Henry Seward:

Most ofthe worldwould be surprised to know how few ofour thoughts are really original with ourselves. What we write and s£ry is, for the most part, a kind ofmosaic

iv interweaving ofideas andrecollections gathered out ofother people's talk or books. The combination and rearrangement ofthem is about all we can call 0111' own.

v TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction 1

A BriefHistory of Santo Domingo 5

United States Diplomacy Towards Santo Domingo And the Tripartite Intervention 35

The Interest ofthe Private Business Sector in the Affairs of Santo Domingo 44

The Alta Vela Affair, The American West India Company Fiasco, And Seward's Declaration ofWar on 82

Entangling Alliances 115

Obsession, Panic, and a Dangerous Legacy 156

Conclusion 186

Appendix 206

Bibliography 209

Endnotes 213

vi vii PREFACE

In this work, the term "Santo Domingo" denotes one ofthree places: Santo

Domingo City, the province of Santo Domingo, or the island country of Santo Domingo.

Early history is the history ofSanto Domingo City. In the seventeenth and early

eighteenth century, the term also meant the provincial division ofland in the southeastern

quadrant ofthe island that incorporated Santo Domingo City. When the Spanish were in

control ofmost, if not all, ofthe island, the name Santo Domingo designated this

kingdom. It not only included Santo Domingo City, the hub ofactivity in early Spanish

American history, but it also included the vast grasslands and the island itself. It included

the coastal areas and, to the Spanish, most ofthe water surrounding the island. This

territorial explanation may help explain what some may consider aberrant behavior on the

part ofpopulations who, when feeling especially challenged, commissioned pirates and

to stop the vessels ofother countries in what they considered Dominican waters.

The complication in the definition ofa country's border bears some further

explanation. Historically, the border ofa country extended the distance that a cannon

could shoot a ball from the shore at low tide. This is the origin ofthe marine league that

measured approximately three miles (Jules Verne fans may note that 20,000 leagues under

the sea are therefore impossible). However, most powerful nations at this time also

considered that any island within the three-mile limit ofanother island was justification to

extend their boundaries even further. The purchase ofAlaska with its extensive array of

islets, some ofwhich constituted no more than a stepping stone to another rock on the

ocean's surface, presented the first definitive case in what constituted a border ofa

viii country. Alta Vela, with the comic obsession with bat manure aside, would present a

most tenuous understanding ofthe length that nations will go to extend their borders.

Alta Vela was at least fifteen miles from the Dominican shore, but Spain attempted to include it within the borders ofthe Republic. The disagreed with this interpretation for one reason or another. Today, Alta Vela is considered part ofthe

Dominican Republic.

While the reader can safely contend that every nation argued for their own benefit, there existed an international understanding ofwhat constituted (for lack ofa better

phrase) "fair play." Echoing its early modern heritage ofthe fifteenth century, nations

argued and fought each other according to understood rules ofbehavior. These rules

were a form ofchecks and balances against a demagogue who thought that he could rule

the world regardless ofthe rights of any citizen and thus destroy the power ofthe nation

that he led. The United States historically did not follow these understood rules of

behavior.

Throughout the history ofthe Dominican Republic, the actions ofthe United

States were, according to the reader's viewpoint, either sympathetic or opportunistic. The

fact that the Dominican Republic is no better than it was in the nineteenth century may

shed some light on what effects American diplomacy had on the island. At no time,

however, can the reader accuse the United States ofbeing so concerned with the

inhabitants ofthe island that they operated with discretion. William Henry Seward would

say the right words concerning the weakness ofthe island, but he would not do anything

substantial to help the country. The picture ofthoughtless American politicians playing

with the emotions ofa desperate island nation that they considered physically inferior is

ix not erroneous. It can safely be argued that "playing fair" throughout this history was not a consideration ofthe United States.

The history ofthe American obsession with the Dominican Republic during the nineteenth century, albeit no matter how forgotten or ignored, is a disturbing echo. It is a period when the business interests ofthe United States looked upon "inferior" nations as being "uncivilized," lacking the modern and convenient encumbrances ofthe Industrial

Age. These countries were the prime targets for a rhetoric that suggested that the United

States was a benefactor to the world at the same time that it was a powerful nation. Its power lay in the capitalistic hegemony ofthe Monroe Doctrine.

Reality was something else, however. In what can only be described as a "strut," the United States played the rooster with the hens. During the 1870s, the United States was literally running out ofpaying customers within the continent because our country produced a surplus, and supply exceeded demand. The American Industrial Revolution revealed a paradigm that Great Britain, France, and Spain realized all too well from their earlier histories. In order for private business interests to continue to accumulate wealth, they had to secure more markets. Secretary of State Seward, a genius with this conundrum, was the master showman.

Historians rightly avoid personal judgment. There is a difference, however, in making a judgment based on personal ideologies and a judgment based on fact. The facts are that the United States, during its obsession ofthe nineteenth century, acted according to that obsession. Obsession disregards both the people obsessed and the desired object.

When reading this history, the reader is confounded with mixed patriotic emotions for his

x