Where do we begin? Southern Cone Chronologies of Pan-Americanism

Where do we begin? Southern Cone Chronologies of PanAmericanism Mark Petersen Corpus Christi College Oxford University Prepared for delivery at the 2014 Congress of the Latin American Studies Association, Chicago, IL, May 21-24, 2014 Acknowledgements: I would like to thank the Latin American Studies Association for sponsoring my attendance at the 2014 LASA Congress. I would also like to thank the Corpus Christi College, Oxford, the University of Oxford Santander Research Fund, and the Rothermere American Institute for support of my research. Please do not cite without the permission of the author 1 Abstract Determining a starting date for Pan-Americanism has been an historically controversial task. This debate carried (and still carries) more significance than mere pedantry; attempts to move the date backwards or forwards can change the meaning of ‘PanAmericanism’ by shifting the focus in the concept’s creation story to different aspects and different actors. The traditional date – 1889, the year of the First International Conference of American States – highlights the role of the United States in the formation of Pan-Americanism and has directed the attention of historians towards questions of geopolitical power relations, hemispheric security, and commerce and away from other questions of juridical, social, cultural and intellectual development. Alternatives to 1889, including 1826 (Simón Bolívar's Panamanian Congress) and 1888 (the Montevideo Conference on private international law), bring Latin American participation closer to the centre of the story. This paper will explore the approaches to this question taken by writers in Chile, Argentina and Uruguay in the early twentieth century. In doing so, it will consider the importance of both 'etic' and 'emic' descriptions of the movement. In the early twentieth century, a ‘Southern Cone’ understanding of Pan-Americanism–of its beginnings and its trajectory–emerged and helped to shape the Pan-American policies of these three countries. Most significantly, this understanding emphasized the role of Southern Cone actors and elevated certain goals of Pan-Americanism, particularly the codification of international law. By considering these 'emic' definitions, historians can come to an 'etic' account of Pan-Americanism's development that is, frankly, more panAmerican. 2 Where do we begin? Southern Cone Chronologies of Pan-Americanism The study of Pan-Americanism has in the last two decades experienced a minor resurgence. In English-language historiography, from the 1960s until the 1980s, the topic was more-or-less relegated to the pages of United States diplomatic history, usually as a section within broader analysis of rising US imperialism and world power. Rarely did it receive top billing; only a handful of English-language titles made Pan-Americanism their central focus.1 When an historian chose to focus on Pan-Americanism (as Mark Gilderhus did in his Pan American Visions: Woodrow Wilson and the Western Hemisphere, 1913-1921), the preferred framework was US diplomatic history and US formulations of Pan-Americanism. With diplomatic history's diminished popularity in the 1980s and 1990s (due to the perceived, though contested, stagnation in the sub-field), Pan-Americanism seemed a perhaps exhausted vein of historical inquiry.2 The 1990s, however, witnessed a revival of interest in the topic, partly due to a post-Cold War revision of diplomatic history that questioned the paramountcy of power relations in Cold War era historiography.3 Growing interest in non-traditional subjects of analysis, especially civil society actors, combined with the application of methods developed in other sub-fields (especially gender history) and with 'transnational' methods to breathe new life into the study of Pan-Americanism.4 This process is most evident in an edited volume published in 2000 on the new avenues open to historians interested in the topic: Beyond the Ideal: Pan Americanism in Inter-American Affairs.5 Since then, research on the wide range of issues under the Pan-American umbrella, from women and children's rights to cultural and intellectual cooperation, has flourished. What is still lacking, however, is extensive consideration of the conceptual history of Pan-Americanism. The recent studies referenced above usually focus on a specific issue or aspect of Pan-American cooperation rather than seriously engaging with the overall history of Pan-Americanism as a concept.6 In other words: we have, in the past decade, 1 This paper will mainly address the English-language historiography on Pan-Americanism. There were a few Spanish and Portuguese titles that did address Pan-Americanism, often as a reaction against the US Cold War policies in Latin America, some of which are referenced in this paper. 2 For more on the state of diplomatic history in the 1980s, see two important pieces that defined the historiographical debate: Charles Maier, 'Marking Time: The Historiography of International Relations' in Michael Kammen (ed), The Past Before Us: Contemporary Historical Writing in the United States (Ithaca, NY, 1980) and Hunt, M, et al, ‘Responses to Charles S. Maier, "Marking Time: The Historiography of International Relations"’ Diplomatic History 5:4 (1981). 3 For an overview of the development of diplomatic history in the 1990s and 2000s, see TW Zeiler, ‘The Diplomatic History Bandwagon: A State of the Field’ The Journal of American History, 95:4 (2009). 4 Akira Iriye is an oft-cited example of the trend toward global, transnational, and international history. See his Cultural Internationalism and World Order (Baltimore, 1997) and Global and Transnational History: The Past, Present, and Future (Basingstoke, 2013). 5 David Sheinin (ed), Beyond the Ideal: Pan Americanism in Inter-American Affairs (Westport, 2000). 6 There are exceptions. Two chapters in Beyond the Ideal briefly address the meaning of 'PanAmericanism' among US academics: David Baron Castle's 'Leo Stanton Rowe and the Meaning of PanAmericanism' and Mark T. Berger's 'A Greater America? Pan Americanism and the Professional Study of Latin America, 1890-1990'. 3 gone 'beyond the ideal' with exciting results; perhaps it is time to turn back to the ideal itself. This paper aims to do that by looking at one important question about PanAmericanism as an idea: when did it begin? The analysis presented here will not be a straightforward examination of the origins of 'Pan-Americanism', however. Indeed, the origin story – centred on the proposal of US Secretary of State James G Blaine for an International Conference of American States in the 1880s – is fairly well known. Instead, I will in this paper address a debate within the historiography: whether or not historians should label pre-1880s inter-American initiatives as 'Pan-American'. By addressing this debate, I hope to respond to the recent call of Carlo Ginzburg – whose contributions to the theory and practice of history are usually associated with his innovations in microhistory – to find 'emic' answers to 'etic' questions.7 The etic-emic distinction comes to history from linguistics via anthropology.8 In the latter, 'emic' analysis signifies an attempt to understand human behaviour by studying the thought processes and intended meanings of the actor (that is, what is going on 'inside their heads'). An 'emic' perspective of a topic – such as Pan-Americanism – is culturally specific and bound by a particular historical context and language. In contrast, 'etic' analysis involves assigning a description to an observed set of behaviours, usually employing the observer's language rather than that of the observed.9 In history, emic analysis is obviously limited by the resources available to historians, the inability to interview the subjects of most historical analysis being a major obstacle. Yet the emic/etic distinction is a useful shorthand to describe the related challenges of bridging the gap between the historian's and historical figure's perspectives and of reconciling the vocabulary of the observer and the observed.10 As Ginzburg suggests, historians can begin with etic questions (e.g. when did Pan-Americanism begin?) and, by searching for emic answers (e.g. the chronologies of Pan-Americanism offered by historical actors), end up with a more nuanced understanding of the past. This paper's objective is the following: I will in the first section identify a problem in Pan-American historiography concerning how far we can antedate Pan-American cooperation.11 In section II, I will use as a case study Chilean, Argentine, and Uruguayan policymakers and intellectuals from 1900 to the 1930s, a period when the three countries began to stake claims as leaders in Pan-American cooperation. My focus will mainly be 7 Ginzburg made this call in a series of presentations in 2011; an edited version of his presentation can be found in 'Our Words and Theirs: A Reflection on the Historian's Craft, Today' in Susanna Fellman and Marjatta Rahikainen (eds), Historical Knowledge: In Quest of Theory, Method and Evidence (Newcastle upon Tyne, 2012). 8 Anthropologist Kenneth Pike extended linguistic analysis to cover behaviour; see Pike, Language in Relation to a Unified Theory of the Structure of Human Behavior (2nd ed., The Hague, 1967). For a useful–and concise–explanation of the development and use of these terms in anthropology, see Marvin Harris, 'History and the Significance of the Emic/Etic Distinction' Annual Review of Anthropology 5 (1976). The italicised quotation (italics used by Harris) is from this article, p. 334. 9 Pike, Language in Relation, pp. 37-39. 10 Two classic works of historical philosophy help to define these challenges. On the first challenge (of perspectives), see R.G. Collingwood, The Idea of History (Oxford, 1946). On the second (of vocabulary), see Marc Bloch, The Historian's Craft (Manchester, 1954). 11 A quick point of clarification: I use the term 'antedate' in this paper to mean assigning Pan-Americanism an earlier start date than Blaine's project in the 1880s. 4 Chile and Argentina; Uruguay will make only a brief appearance as another point of comparison. In the final section, I will argue that the emic perspectives on PanAmericanism have implications on how we understand the Pan-American policies of these countries and how we define Pan-Americanism. By focusing on how and when certain terms are adopted and appropriated, the approach of this paper also brings to mind the frequently cited work of Antonio Gramsci. In particular, Gramsci's thoughts on hegemony provide an interesting framework with which to draw out implications of the analysis presented here. Gramsci argued that power relations were not merely a function of force, but were also dependent on the domination of the concepts and language devised by a hegemon.12 Historians of 'Pan-Americanism' have frequently connected the term with US imperialism and hegemonic intentions; Gramsci's theory, then, seems an appropriate and potentially useful tool. The final section of this paper will employ this theoretical framework to further consider the importance of the emic answers found in section II. I. The Etic Problem: Antedating Pan-Americanism The terms 'Pan-American' and 'Pan-Americanism' were invented in the US in the 1880s. According to Joseph Lockey, an ardent and rigorous student of Pan-Americanism in the early nineteenth century, the word 'Pan American' first appeared in print in the New York Evening Post in 1882.13 He pinpointed the first instance to June 27; a perusal of the Post's issue of that day yields one use of the term, in a brief note on a statement of Chilean President Domingo Santa María (1880-86) about the ongoing War of the Pacific (a conflict that pitted Chile against allied Peru and Bolivia, fought between 1879-83 over rights in the Atacama desert).14 The article's author employs the phrase 'the great Blaine Pan-American Congress' to describe the proposed conference of American states–for which Blaine had sent invitations to all of the American governments save Haiti in November 1881–without clarification, suggesting pre-existing familiarity with the term. The term 'Pan-American' therefore might have entered the political lexicon before mid1882. Such an assertion is, however, pure speculation; what is more important, is that the term first appeared in English and in the US. 'Pan-Americanism' came later, during the discussions on the First International American Conference of 1889-90. In Spanish, the terms panamericano and panamericanismo date to the same period, most likely a hispanization of the English word. The etymology of the Spanish terms has not been fully determined, though no use of the terms before the 1880s has been identified. 12 This is a very basic and simplified version of Gramsci's theory. Gramsci's ideas on hegemony are mostly found in his prison notebooks (or Quaderni del carcere), which have been re-printed and translated several times. For two good introductions to the theory and the context in which it was developed, see Thomas Bates, 'Gramsci and Theory of Hegemony' Journal of the History of Ideas 36:2 (1975) and Joseph Fernia, Gramsci's Political Thought: Hegemony, Consciousness, and the Revolutionary Process (Oxford, 1987), especially Chapter 2. Ginzburg, in 'Our Words and Theirs', recognizes the impact that Gramsci had on his own work. 13 Joseph B Lockey, Pan-Americanism: Its Beginning (New York, 1920), p. 2. He notes that historians had mistakenly attributed the term to a later issue, suggesting that he had confirmed the correct date through examination of the Post's catalog and making this date reliable. 14 Evening Post 27 June 1882, p. 2. 5 Despite the etymology of 'Pan-Americanism', historians have long argued that the idea of Pan-American cooperation began earlier in the nineteenth century. This argument is not an historian's invention; Blaine linked his idea for a meeting of American republics to the Monroe Doctrine of 1823. The large corpus of work on Pan-Americanism that developed from the 1890s often antedated Pan-Americanism to James Monroe or to Henry Clay, who early supported granting the newly independent Latin American states formal recognition. This antedating later gained credence within US academic circles as some historians sought to highlight the similarities among the American republics and develop a hemispheric perspective of history. Herbert Bolton was among the most enthusiastic advocates of the historiography of the Americas; his 1932 address to the American Historical Association on 'The Epic of Great America' sparked debate throughout the Americas on the validity of the hemispheric approach.15 Twenty years later, Arthur Whitaker proposed the existence of a 'Western Hemisphere Idea', that 'the peoples of this Hemisphere stand in a special relationship to one another which sets them apart from the rest of the world.'16 This idea emerged, according to Whitaker, in the late eighteenth century. The proximity of US President Monroe's message to Congress in 1823, which laid out what would later be known as the Monroe Doctrine, to Gran Colombian President Simon Bolívar's call for an American Congress of Plenipotentiaries in 1824 (it met in Panama in 1826) seemed convincing evidence that a common (or at least parallel) hemispheric perspective existed throughout the Americas from early in the nineteenth century. Although the Monroe Doctrine and the Congress of Panama embodied the construction of two divergent (and, in some ways, competing) American systems, one initiated and articulated by the US and the other by Latin America, both have been described as PanAmerican.17 In inter-American historiography, the term 'Pan-Americanism' came to include any attempt at regional cooperation, including several Latin American congresses in Lima (1847-48 and 1864-65) and Santiago, Chile (1856) despite the fact that the US was not involved. DF Trask, MC Meyer and RR Trask's comprehensive Bibliography of United States-Latin American Relations since 1810 (Lincoln: 1968) confirmed the regular usage of 'Pan-American' and 'Pan-Americanism' to describe pre-1880s regional cooperation by dedicating sections to ‘The Old Pan Americanism’, which they defined as pre-1889 (pages 93-97) and ‘The New Pan Americanism Since 1889' (pages 167-203).18 15 For a copy of the paper, see Bolton, 'The Epic of Greater America' The American Historical Review (AHR) 38:3 (1933). For more on Bolton and his impact, see Russell Magnaghi, Herbert E. Bolton and the Historiography of the Americas (Westport, CT, 1998). 16 Whitaker, The Western Hemisphere Idea: Its Rise and Decline (Ithaca, NY, 1954), p. 1. 17 On competing American systems, see Jay Sexton, The Monroe Doctrine: Empire and Nation in Nineteenth-Century America (New York, 2011), pp. 74-81. 18 The use of 'old' and 'new' was likely derived from another work that was published seven years before Trask, Meyer, and Trask's bibliography: Lloyd Mecham's The United States and Inter-American Security (Austin, TX, 1961). Mecham argued that there were four chronological phases of Pan-Americanism: 'old' (from Spanish American independence until 1888), 'new' (1889-1932), 'Good Neighbor era' (1933-45), and 'Impatient Neighbors' (1945-60, he suggests that this period can also be called 'Equal Partner'); see page 29. 6 Not all historians in the mid-twentieth century used those term, however. Whitaker, for example, did not call Panama, Lima and Santiago 'Pan-American'. Rather, he viewed the pre-1889 congresses and the post-1889 Conferences as distinct 'shifting and imperfect forms in which it [the Western Hemisphere Idea] has been given form.'19 He dated the birth of the concept of 'Pan Americanism' to the early nineteenth century, pinpointing Thomas Jefferson's use of a personified 'America' in a letter to Alexander von Humboldt in 1813. Yet he did not apply that label to any pre-1889 meetings (or, as Whitaker described them, 'political expressions').20 Thus, although connected by a common ideological thread, they were not all examples of 'Pan-Americanism'. Robert N Burr and Roland Hussey preferred to use the term 'inter-American'.21 The fact that this term was not immediately associated with James Blaine's initiative of 1889 made it appear more appropriate when discussing the development of intercontinental cooperation since the eighteenth century. Despite these exceptions, antedating Pan-Americanism to the early nineteenth century continued as a practice in academic literature and diplomatic rhetoric. John Edwin Fagg noted with curiosity in his 1982 book Pan Americanism that Simón Bolívar 'is inevitably invoked as the father of Pan Americanism, and rhetoric at official gatherings tends to be effusive in his praise.'22 The practice persisted into the new millennium as well.23 Yet the antedating of Pan-Americanism is theoretically problematic for several reasons. First, it encourages a teleological perspective of Blaine's project. When historians claim that Pan-Americanism began with the Monroe Doctrine and the Panama Congress or that Monroe or Bolívar's ideas were Pan-American, an assumption is implied.24 That is, that Monroe's statement, Bolívar's meeting, and the attempts at continental cooperation thereafter were, in their various ways, steps towards the later (perhaps inevitable?) emergence of 'Pan-Americanism' as defined by Blaine in the 1880s.25 The reason to make this assumption is fairly clear; Blaine saw himself as a disciple of the Monroe Doctrine and employed it in formulating his idea for an inter-American conference.26 Latin American attendees to the First International Conference of American States in 1889-90 also made the connection between Blaine's initiative and Monroe's 1823 message. Their recognition was eloquently stated by one of Argentina's delegates, Roque Sáenz Peña (who one recent Argentine historian has described as Blaine's 'nightmare').27 In his oft-quoted closing speech, Sáenz Peña raised the banner of 'America for Humanity' as a denunciation of Monroe's 'America for the Americans'. Yet the trajectory of the 19 Whitaker, The Western Hemisphere Idea: Its Rise and Decline (Ithaca, 1954), p. vi. Ibid., pp. 29-30. 21 Burr and Hussey, Documents on Inter-American Cooperation, Volume I: 1810-81 (Philadelphia, 1955). 22 John Edwin Fagg, Pan Americanism (Malabar, FL, 1982), pp. 12 and 127. 23 Sheinin, in his 'Introduction' to Beyond the Ideal, states that Pan-Americanism began with Monroe and Bolívar (p. 1). 24 For a clear example of this interpretation of Bolívar, see Sara Castro-Klarén, 'Framing Pan-Americanism: Simon Bolívar's Findings' CR: The New Centennial Review 3:1 (2003). 25 I don't mean to suggest that any specific historian mentioned has argued for Pan-Americanism's inevitability; I mean only to point out the extreme to which this assumption can lead. 26 David Healy, James G. Blaine and Latin America (Columbia, MO, 2001), pp. 16-18 and Sexton, The Monroe Doctrine, pp. 176-77. 27 Leandro Morgenfeld, Vecinos en conflicto: Argentina y Estados Unidos en las Conferencias Panamericanas (Buenos Aires, 2011), p. 95. 20 7 Monroe Doctrine, as Jay Sexton has demonstrated, was not linear. The Doctrine attracted contested interpretations, divergent worldviews, and competing policies; its transformation into Pan-Americanism at the hands of Blaine was never a guaranteed outcome.28 Pan-Americanism, then, did not begin in 1823. Indeed, the emphasis on commerce and cooperative elements (i.e. the expectation that Latin American governments would participate in the American system) of Blaine's Pan-Americanism was a far cry from Monroe's security-focused and unilateral declaration. Blaine instead drew on trends in political and intellectual circles that emerged in the late 1860s and the 1870s that have been categorized by historians as 'new imperialism'.29 The Congresses of Lima (1847-48 and 1864-65) and Santiago (1856), furthermore, did not contribute to the transformation of the Monroe Doctrine into Blaine's PanAmericanism. The first congress in Lima and the congress in Santiago convened partly as a result of anxiety over U.S. intentions in the hemisphere. That the Lima Congress coincided with the Mexican-American War and the Santiago Congress with the Walker Filibuster in Nicaragua was no accident of history. The organizers and participants of those congresses understandably did not see their efforts as related to the Monroe Doctrine. The second Lima Congress, a reaction to the outbreak of war between Spain and Peru (with Chile and Ecuador shortly coming to Peru's defence), was also not formulated in terms of the Monroe Doctrine. Latin American governments and newspapers did make references to Monroe at the time in conjecture over US reactions to Spain's attacks on South America. Chile's El Mercurio, for example, wondered what the US government would do when it heard of the Spanish declaration of war. A Panamanian newspaper, the Star and Herald, responded caustically: 'Chile está mui lejos de los Estados Unidos, es poco conocido de sus habitantes, i de mucho menos importancia' than other Latin American states.30 In other words: nothing. When the US failed to intervene on South America's behalf (partly due to the US Civil War and the subsequent reconstruction), many Latin American observers commented on the vapidity of Monroe's doctrine. Therefore, an argument that suggests Pan-Americanism began with Monroe and continued to develop through the Latin American congresses until Washington in 1889 is untenable. In addition there were significant differences between the intentions of the Congresses of Lima and Santiago and those of the 1889-90 Washington Conference. The objectives of the Lima and Santiago meetings were primarily defensive: all three congresses attempted to establish a system of alliances (one reason that successive Argentine governments refused to participate). None of the three were successful. The 1864-65 Congress laid the foundation for the alliance between Peru, Ecuador and Chile in the fight against Spain, but this arrangement ended once Spain withdrew. The Washington Conference of 1889-90, in contrast, focused mainly on commercial relations among the American republics. The main objective, as defined by Blaine, was to foster 28 Sexton, The Monroe Doctrine, p. 246. See, for a well-regarded work on 'new imperialism', Walter LeFeber, The New Empire: An Interpretation of American Expansion 1860-1898 (35th anniversary edition: Ithaca, NY, 1998 [originally published in 1963]), pp. 1-102. 30 Star and Herald (Panama), 24 October 1865 29 8 inter-American trade through a potential custom's union and by preventing the threat of intra-American disorder through a hemispheric commitment to arbitration. Similarities between the congresses did exist. The congresses of Lima and Santiago, for example, included discussions of commerce, uniformity in customs regulations, and postal services. Some Latin American works on regional cooperation in the 1860s suggest idealistic goals that were almost identical to Blaine's later formulation. Colombian José María Torres Caicedo, for example, hoped in La multipatria latinoamericana (1865) that the Lima congress would result in an American Zollverein, though along more liberal lines than in Germany; the adoption of uniform weights, measures and currencies; the use of common consular conventions; the free circulation of informative literature; and an arbitration tribunal.31 All of these issues were included in the Washington Conference discussions twenty-four years later. Yet Caicedo's ideas were not necessarily Pan-American. Instead, they were written exclusively for Spanish America and were framed within an overall project of Spanish American federation (including a standing Spanish American army). In sum, the use of 'Pan-Americanism' to describe the pre-1889 congresses, even when coupled with the 'old' and 'new' prefixes, obfuscates the significant difference between the regional cooperation exemplified in those meetings and 'the great Blaine Pan-American Congress'. Two other congresses in the nineteenth century further complicate chronologies of American regional cooperation: the juridical congresses in Lima (1877-79) and in Montevideo (1888-89). Although often neglected by historians of inter-American relations, these congresses were significant in their ability to bring together a broader range of American nations than any previous multilateral meeting and in their contributions to the codification of international law.32 They hold an uncertain place within the narrative of regional cooperation due to their departure from previous congresses. Unlike previous attempts at cooperation, they were not mainly concerned with security nor were they inspired by an external threat. While both included only Latin American participants, the organizers of the Lima Juridical Congress had invited the US to participate (it declined due to the federal nature of its legal system). Perhaps most importantly, the agreements reached at the Montevideo Congress ultimately became a key reference point for discussions at post-1889 Conferences. In fact, Chile and Argentina regularly touted the Montevideo Conventions (despite the fact that few of the adherents had ratified them) at Pan-American Conferences. The Conventions served as a foundation for the Bustamante Code of Private International Law, passed at the Sixth International Conference of American States in Havana in 1928. Thus, these congresses had connections to both pre- and post-1889 American multilateralism. 31 Torres's work was originally published in Paris, 1865. An excerpt that outlines his hopes for the Lima congress can be found in Mari Carmen Ramirez, et al., Resisting Categories: Latin American and/or Latino? (New Haven, CT, 2012), pp. 200-08. 32 This neglect has not been total. The Congress of Montevideo has received a fair bit of attention; see, for example, Thomas McGann, Argentina, the United States, and the Inter-American System 1880-1914 (Cambridge, MA, 1957), pp. 76-80. 9 Given the complexities highlighted above, perhaps it is best to argue that PanAmericanism began with the post-Civil War milieu in the US or even with Blaine himself. Some historians have made this point. Russell Bastert, for example, suggested that 'Blaine did not...receive his Pan Americanism from the past;' rather, PanAmericanism emerged from Blaine's political calculations.33 Many Latin American historians have taken this line as well. One of the most important was Mexico's Alsonso Aguilar. In his 1965 work on Pan-Americanism, Aguilar recognized the nineteenth century antecedents of the idea (indeed, he subtitled his book 'de la doctrina Monroe a la doctrina Johnson') but preferred the view of Spanish jurist Camilo Barcia Trelles: 'PanAmericanism was born in Washington in 1889, was promoted from Washington, and was received by Latin America.'34 More recently, Joseph Smith has emphasized that Blaine's idea of regional cooperation, tied as it was to US commercial interests, was novel.35 The problem of antedating the terms 'Pan-American' and 'Pan-Americanism' gains another theoretical dimension if we consider the arguments of the Cambridge School of intellectual history, most often associated with the work of Quentin Skinner and J.A. Pocock. Linked with the 'linguistic turn' in historiographical theory, the Cambridge School argues that historians should not anachronistically assign to historical actors conceptual frameworks that they cannot have employed.36 Skinner is particularly concerned with the reification of concepts, which–he argues–has caused historians to project onto historical figures ideas that emerged later rather than understanding those figure's ideas in their own context. Especially onerous are claims that writers in the past could 'anticipate' ideas and concepts that belonged to an entirely different historical moment.37 Historians of Pan-Americanism have been guilty of this practice. Following Skinner's logic and considering that the terms were invented in the 1880s, we can argue that Latin American governments and intellectuals involved in the congresses of the nineteenth century were not involved in Pan-American activity nor did they anticipate Blaine's Pan-Americanism. Those historical figures involved in the pre-1880s congresses instead used the terms 'americano', 'americanismo' and 'continental'. Andrés Bello and Domingo Faustino Sarmiento used these terms in their polemical debate over the feasibility of a congress of 33 Russell Bastert, 'A New Approach to the Origins of Blaine's Pan American Policy' Hispanic American Historical Review 39:3 (1959), p. 377. 34 Alonso Aguilar, El panamericanismo: de la doctrina Monroe a la doctrina Johnson (Mexico City, 1965). An English edition (translated by Asa Zatz) was published in 1968 (New York: MR Press) under the title Pan Americanism from Monroe to the Present: A View from the Other Side. Quotation is from the 1968 translation, p. 39. Another example of Latin American historians dating Pan-Americanism to 1889 can be found in Ricardo Martínez's, El Panamericanismo, Doctrina y Practica Imperialista (Buenos Aires, 1957). 35 Smith, in his contribution to Sheinin's edited volume, acknowledges the precedent set by the nineteenthcentury congresses, but argues that post-1889 Pan-Americanism cannot be seen in this wider interAmerican context. 'The First Conference of American States (1889-1890) and the Early Pan American Policy of the United States' in Sheinin, Beyond the Ideal. 36 Quentin Skinner, 'Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas' History and Theory 8:1 (1969) and J.G.A. Pocock, 'Introduction: State of the Art' in Virtue, Commerce, and History: Essays on Political Thought and History (Cambridge, 1976). 37 Skinner provides a list of offenders in his 1969 article (p. 11). 10 American republics in 1844.38 Though seemingly straightforward, these terms were themselves complicated by contested meanings. Bello's understanding of 'americano' related to his personal experience of the Latin American independence struggle, when the term was embraced by revolutionaries throughout the region.39 Drawing upon his studies of grammar and history, Bello differentiated American from European but placed them on equal footing. This intellectual exercise had implications on his view of international politics; he indeed, this equality despite distinction was a prominent theme in his influential treatise on international law (Derecho de gentes, first published in 1832 and re-published numerous times thereafter).40 For Sarmiento, the term 'americano' had a meaning tied to Argentina's political context as well as wider philosophical implications. The regime of Juan Manuel de Rosas (governor of Buenos Aires from 1829 to 1832 and again from 1835 to 1852), from which Sarmiento was a political exile, had appropriated the term 'americano'.41 Partly as a result of Rosas's usage, Sarmiento conflated Americanism with barbarism, embodied in the gauchos championed by Rosas and the provincial strongmen from the interior that, according to Sarmiento, caused Argentine political instability. In contrast, European norms represented civilization.42 'Americano' had positive implications for Bello and negative ones for Sarmiento, a difference at the root of their dispute. Finally, the use of the terms 'Old' and 'New' Pan-Americanism is also problematic in that they are terms that belong to a different historical vocabulary. 'New' Pan-Americanism was, in fact, the term used by US Secretary of State Robert Lansing at the Second PanAmerican Scientific Congress (Washington, 1915) to announce a new phase of interAmerican relations based on Woodrow Wilson's liberal idealism and internationalism and focused on practical cooperation. 43 'Old Pan-Americanism' in this context referred to the ideas of 'new imperialism' and figures including James Blaine and Theodore Roosevelt (especially due to his infamous Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine of 1904). Writers and policymakers throughout the hemisphere adopted the differentiation of 'Old' and 'New' Pan-Americanism (though some believed this was a mere rhetorical device to conceal the true imperialist intentions of the US).44 Historians' etic usage of the terms 'Old' and 'New' Pan-Americanism therefore confuses emic differentiations. 38 Bello and Sarmiento were two of the most important voices in the discussion over regional cooperation and integration in the mid-nineteenth century. A copy of Bello's most important article can be found in Andrés Bello, Selected Writings of Andrés Bello (Oxford, 1997), pp. 213-24. 39 For a brief look at the etymology of 'americano', see John Charles Chasteen, Americanos: Latin America's Struggle for Independence (Oxford, 2008), pp. 1-5. 40 For an excellent recent overview of Bello's importance to both international law and the conception of 'América', see Liliana Obregón, 'Construyendo la región americana: Andrés Bello y el Derecho Internacional' Revista de Derecho Público (Universidad de los Andes) 24 (2010). 41 For an incisive look at the use of 'americano' during Rosas's regime, see Chapter IV in Jorge Myers, Orden y virtud: el discurso republicano en el régimen rosista (Buenos Aires, 1995). 42 Sarmiento's most famous work, in which he elaborated his thoughts on civilization and barbarism, was Facundo: Civilización y barbarie, originally printed in Santiago, Chile in 1845. 43 A copy of Lansing's speech can be found in The World Peace Foundation, The New Pan-Americanism (Boston, 1916), pp. 98-109. 44 For a Chilean example, see the articles of Eduardo Poirier (Chilean diplomat and ardent PanAmericanist) for Chile's leading newspapers that are archived in the Chilean Foreign Ministry (Archivo 11 Therefore, the etic practice of antedating Pan-Americanism to the early nineteenth century has several theoretical pitfalls. Perhaps historians, then, should understand PanAmericanism as a US-defined invention of the 1880s. That argument has the benefit of returning agency to pre-1880s actors; Bolívar was not promoting Pan-Americanism, he was instead promoting a distinctive version of regional cooperation specific to his political ideals and the historical context in which he developed them. On the other hand, however, rejecting any form of antedating is also problematic. The definition of 'PanAmericanism', including the chronology of 'Pan-American' cooperation, was contested throughout the early twentieth century and many important actors within Pan-American cooperation used antedating as a conceptual tool. Again, what at first seems a straightforward etic question becomes nuanced when we employ emic analysis. As the next sections will demonstrate, building a chronology of Pan-Americanism was an activity with broad implications. II. Emic Answers: Southern Cone Chronologies In this section, we will closely examine several works produced by Chilean, Argentine, and Uruguayan authors that address Pan-Americanism (either as their main focus or tangentially). Statements by important policymakers and articles from newspapers will also be analyzed. By taking a wide range of printed and manuscript sources, this section will aim to piece together a general picture of the transnational discussion within the Southern Cone over the history of Pan-Americanism. The interlocutors in Latin America often took a regional perspective and, like the debates over 'American' congresses in the nineteenth century, the discussion over defining Pan-Americanism was crossed borders. We need only look at a list of authors who contributed articles on Pan-Americanism to Argentina's Revista de Derecho, Historia y Letras to get a sense for the continental scope of the debate: Colombian Robert Ancízar (March 1901); Chileans Miguel Cruchaga Tocornal (1901), Augusto Vicuña (1906), Benjamín Vicuña Subercaseaux (1906), and Eliodoro Yáñez (1916); Uruguayan Alberto Nin Frías (1906); US diplomat F.A. Kilpatrick (1914); Brazilian A Carneiro Leão (1922); Ecuadorian Agustín Cueva (1916); and, of course, numerous Argentine writers (Estanislao Zeballos, Adolfo Sánchez, Alejandro Gancedo, César Reyes, and Emilio Coni, among others). Despite this transnational discussion, definitions of Pan-Americanism still drew heavily on national context, in particular national history of engagement in regional cooperation. How Chilean, Argentines and Uruguayans dated Pan-Americanism helps to demonstrate this. Chilean works on Pan-Americanism in the 1900s demonstrated a tendency to antedate Pan-American cooperation. An early example is Emilio Burgos Varas's Los congresos panamericanos: su fisonomía ante el Derecho Internacional, bosquejo histórico y análisis jurídico, originally a thesis written in 1902 for a law degree from the University of Chile.45 Burgos Varas was in many ways a typical example of the Chilean elite at the General del Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores [AMRREE] Colección Histórico folio 493). For an Argentine example, see Juan Soraci, El concepto panamericano (Buenos Aires, 1917). 45 Enrique Burgos Varas, Los congresos panamericanos: su fisonomía ante el Derecho Internacional, bosquejo histórico y análisis jurídico (Santiago, 1902). 12 turn of the century. Undertaking studies at the Universities of Chile and Paris, he received the legal training common to most Chilean politicians and diplomats of the Parliamentary Republic (1891-1925).46 A lawyer by profession, he dabbled in journalism for El Mercurio and became an important member of the Radical Party, serving in the Chamber of Deputies from 1918 to 1921. His work in 1902, however, is unique as one of the earliest examples in Chile of academic analysis of the International Conferences of American States. Writing with occasional literary flourish (he describes the conferences, for example, as 'castillos levantados al soplo de poéticas y ardientes inspiraciones derribados con el beso glacial de la realidad'), he argued that the ideals of PanAmericanism were admirable but that large meetings like those of 1889-90 and 1901-02 were unnecessary.47 In the first section of the book, Burgos examined the history of Pan-Americanism. Significantly, he began his analysis with the Congress of Panama (1826), ignoring the Monroe Doctrine. He concentrated on the writings of Chile's Francisco Bilbao (1823-65) who strongly supported the integration of Latin America under the dictum 'crecer es asociarse'.48 With the unexplained exception of the Congress of Santiago (1856) and the juridical congress of Lima (1877-79), which Burgos omitted entirely, the nineteenthcentury congresses were examined in chronological order and the narrative seamlessly progressed from the Lima congress of 1864-65 to the Congress of Montevideo (1888-89) and then to Washington (1889-90). He paid particular attention to the Congress of Montevideo, which he erroneously deemed the first conference convened for reasons beyond defence. In contrast to his estimation of the other nineteenth-century congresses, his judgment of the Montevideo meeting was effusively positive: 'pasará a la historia como uno de los grandes i loables esfuerzos, hechos por las naciones americanas, para propender al desarrollo uniforme de su cultura.'49 In his 1902 treatise, Burgos identified two 'corrientes de ideas' in American regional cooperation. The first idea was common defence, an idea embodied in the Congresses of Panama and Lima. By comparison, the second was 'la idea del progreso y engradecimiento, teniendo como base indestructible la paz y como medios, los auxilios mutuos ofrecidos por las naciones para el desarrollo de los elementos que las encumbran.' The first of these conferences was not Washington, but rather Montevideo.50 This categorization, and the placement of Montevideo in the second category, will be especially significant when compared with Argentine perspectives. Another significant Chilean text from the 1900s is Benjamín Vicuña Subercaseaux's Los congresos pan-americanos.51 Vicuña, a scion of two of the most prominent families in 46 Little has been written about Burgos. Some information can be found online on the Chilean National Congress's website: <http://historiapolitica.bcn.cl/resenas_parlamentarias/wiki/Enrique_Burgos_Varas> (Accessed 21 March 2014). 47 Burgos Varas, Los congresos, p. 69. 48 Ibid., p. 3. 49 Ibid., p. 47. 50 Ibid., p. 64. 51 Benjamín Vicuña Subercaseaux, Los congresos pan-americanos (Santiago, 1906). A second edition was published in 1910, just in time for the Fourth International Conference of American States at Buenos Aires. 13 Chile's oligarchy, was a prolific author and journalist who wrote on a wide range of topics from poetry to urban development. In his short life (1875-1911), he enjoyed considerable notoriety in political and intellectual circles and served as a secretary of the Chilean delegation to the Third International Conference of American States at Rio de Janeiro (1906). During and after the Rio de Janeiro conference, he wrote several articles on the proceedings and on Pan-Americanism in general, which were republished as Los congresos pan-americanos. Vicuña was generally representative of the conservative liberal faction of the political elite, especially in his admiration of European civilization. In fact, he was a committed Francophile, having lived in Paris for several years.52 This affinity for the Old World was not at odds, however, with his enthusiastic optimism for Pan-American cooperation. In Los congresos pan-americanos, Vicuña recognized that the Washington Conference of 1889-90 – 'esa desgraciada Conferencia' in his words – was foiled by US pretensions and a lack of concern for true, practical cooperation.53 Pan-Americanism in the 1890s seemed doomed to failure until 1899, the year of major reforms in the Commercial Bureau of American Republics (an institution established at the Washington Conference and one of that Conference's few salient accomplishments). After 1899, Pan-American cooperation gained a new life and revealed its practical potential, especially through the work of the Bureau. Unlike Burgos's work, Vicuña openly discussed the Monroe Doctrine, noting that it had once been a tool of US imperialism but had transformed into a genuine shield of American independence and the banner of American regional cooperation.54 Bolívar and the Congress of Panama, however, received little attention. He thus dated Pan-Americanism back to Monroe, emphasizing its US roots instead of its Latin American ones. We should be careful about generalizing Vicuña's attitude to Pan-American cooperation; his enthusiasm was clearly shaped by his positive personal experience at the Rio de Janeiro conference.55 While the Chilean government had by the mid-1900s changed its policy to embrace Pan-American cooperation as a laudable ideal, it remained cautious in its participation. Nonetheless, we can state with greater certainty that his antedating of Pan-Americanism was a common practice in Chile. Miguel Cruchaga Tocornal, a conservative politician and diplomat known for his expertise in international law, also included a similar list of Pan-American events in his influential textbook Nociones del derecho internacional.56 This text was pivotal in shaping the perspectives of Chilean foreign policymakers; as El Mercurio (Santiago) noted in 1908, Chilean diplomats 52 His belief in the virtues of modern European civilization were most clearly expressed in La ciudad de las ciudades: correspondencias de Paris (Santiago, 1905), in which Vicuña encouraged the redevelopment of Santiago along Parisian lines. 53 Vicuña, Los congresos, p. 14. 54 Ibid., pp. 8-9, 32, and 39-40. 55 His nostalgia was most pronounced when he described the delegates. A photograph of the delegates, for example, carried the caption: 'parecen ser todos de la misma familia, de la gran familia americana...trabajaron como hermanos' (p. 67). 56 The first edition of Nociones appeared in 1898, followed by new editions in 1902, 1923 and 1944. The Pan-American chronology was first included in the 1902 edition (printed after the Mexico City Conference) on page 225. 14 generally read Cruchaga.57 A less official example can be found in Belisario García's Perspectivas internacionales from 1912.58 García, a journalist and polemicist, lambasted attempts at hemispheric integration and cooperation, emphasizing the lack of practical results and noting that they have done nothing but 'alborotar la opinión pública de SudAmérica.' Although he did not explicitly use the word 'Pan-Americanism', García introduced the conferences as 'desde los tiempos de Bolívar hasta los borrascosos de Mr. Blaine.'59 These examples demonstrate a common belief that Pan-Americanism began before the 1880s. While they are not uniform in their exact dating (some include Monroe's message, others go back only to Bolívar), they form a significant body of evidence to argue for the emic antedating of Pan-Americanism. When President Arturo Alessandri opened the Fifth International Conference of American States, held in Santiago in 1923, his lofty speech gave prime position to a longer chronology of Pan-Americanism. He began his address with an overview of the 'epopeya americana', reaching back to the struggles for Latin American independence. It was among the ideas of Chile's Juan Martínez de Rozas, Juan Egaña, Bernardo O'Higgins, and Ramón Freire, of Argentina's Bernardo Rivadavia and San Martín, and (of course) of Gran Colombia's Bolívar that Alessandri believed existed 'una promesa de germinación espiritual que afianzará perdurablemente el principio del Panamericanismo.'60 He recognized that the nature of the concept had changed with the US government's formulation in the 1880s, but his sweeping history of Pan-Americanism did not begin with Blaine. A decade later, the idea of antedating Pan-American cooperation was still important and could be found in both official statements and the media. In 1933, Galvarino Gallardo Nieto, a popular columnist for El Mercurio who wrote several pieces on Pan-Americanism, described Bolívar's invitation to the Panama Congress as 'la ilusión panamericanista.'61 Of course, this chronology was not universally accepted; some writers argued that PanAmericanism began with Blaine and chose to label the pre-1880s attempts with other labels, most importantly 'latinoamericanismo'. Alejandro Álvarez, the noted Chilean jurist who gained hemispheric renown through his arguments for a distinct American International Law, recognized a difference between latinoamericanismo and panamericanismo. These were not opposing forces, however. In fact, he categorized latinoamericanismo as a sub-set of Pan-Americanism.62 Gallardo Nieto, in a 1936 essay on the 'Comienzos del Panamericanismo', revised his earlier perspective and argued that a 57 Dia a dia', 5 October 1908, El Mercurio. Belisario García, Perspectivas internacionales: consideraciones sobre diplomacia sud-americana (Taltal, 1912). 59 Ibid., pp. 41-43. 60 Arturo Alessandri, Discurso de S.E. el Presidente de la República don Arturo Alessandri en la sesión de instalación de la Quinta Conferencia Internacional Americana (Santiago, 1923), pp. 7-13. 61 'Iniciativa de Bolívar', December 1933, El Mercurio, for a copy of the article, see Galvarino Gallardo Nieto, Panamericanismo (Santiago, 1941), pp. 23-25. 62 Alejandro Álvarez, La nacionalidad en el derecho internacional (Santiago, 1907), pp. XIV-XV [most published copies of this work are under the French title, La nationalité dans le droit international américain; a Spanish manuscript of the work can be found in the Archives of Chile's Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores in Colección Histórico folder 356]. 58 15 closer examination of the facts of nineteenth-century inter-American cooperation demonstrated that 'política panamericana' began in 1889 and everything before it was, instead, 'latinoamericanismo'.63 Other uses of 'latinoamericanismo' drew inspiration from radical anti-imperialist movements that emerged in the 1890s with the writings of José Martí and Rubén Darío. The radical latinoamericanista trend strengthened in the 1900s and 1910s and became associated with intellectuals including Argentina's Manuel Ugarte and political movements including the Alianza Popular Revolucionaria Americana (founded by Peru's Victor Haya de la Torre in Mexico City in 1924). Ugarte and others drew on the history of Latin American unified resistance to external intervention (including the pre-1880s conferences) and associated Pan-Americanism with Blaine and US imperialism.64 Thus, they dated Pan-Americanism to 1889 and portrayed attempts at cooperation before the Washington Conference as a distinct and opposing movement. Although these ideas circulated in Chile, they did not have as great an impact as in Argentina, where Ugarte established the Asociación Latinoamericano in 1914. The Asociación hosted popular meetings and lectures and gained enough notoriety that the Chamber of Deputies invited Ugarte to present on the Asociación's activities.65 Official policy towards PanAmericanism was also less enthusiastic in Argentina than in Chile. Antedating Pan-American cooperation to include the pre-1880s conferences was generally not as common in Argentina as in Chile. The idea that post-1880s PanAmericanism had roots in the early nineteenth century was expressed mainly through connections – often with negative connotations – between Blaine's ideal and Monroe's Doctrine. Subsuming Latin American attempts at cooperation under the term 'PanAmericanism', as many Chileans did by the 1900s, gained comparatively little credence among Argentine writers and policymakers. Such ideas were not unknown in Argentina; in fact, Vicuña Subercaseaux's 1906 articles circulated and the Revista de Derecho, Historia y Letras published an article in 1903 by Colombian Roberto Ancízar, which argued that an intellectual Pan-Americanism ('otra especie de Panamericanismo') developed in the Southern Cone in the mid-nineteenth century.66 Yet Argentine writers and policymakers did not buy into it. Official statements regularly omitted any mention of Pan-Americanism before 1889. At the Fourth International Conference of American States, hosted by Argentina in Buenos Aires in 1910, Argentine Foreign Minister Victorino de la Plaza gave an address that traced the history of the Pan-American conferences without mention of any pre-1889 efforts. He celebrated the Monroe 63 'Comienzos del panamericanismo' (November 1936) in Gallardo, Panamericanismo, pp. 16-17. A lot has been written about latinoamericanismo, Ugarte, APRA, and other writers/movements. Alan McPherson offers a short introduction to anti-Americanism, with useful citations, in McPherson (ed), AntiAmericanism in Latin America and the Caribbean (New York, 2006). See also Martín Bergel, 'El antiantinorteamericanismo en América Latina (1898-1930)' Nueva Sociedad 236 (2011). For a recent look at Ugarte (and an introduction to latinoamericanismo), see Miguel Ángel Barrios, El latinoamericanismo en el pensamiento político de Manuel Ugarte (Buenos Aires, 2007). 65 A draft of his speech can be found in his files at the Archivo General de la Nación in Buenos Aires (Floor VII folio 2246). 66 Roberto Ancízar, 'Otra especie de Panamericanismo (1852-55)' Revista de Historia, Derecho y Letras IX (March 1901). 64 16 Doctrine as a protection of independence in the Americas and, like his predecessor Luis María Drago in 1902, argued that the Doctrine should be expanded to incorporate the interests of the entire hemisphere.67 Significantly, he drew no direct connection between what began in 1889 and Monroe's message of 1823; they both contributed to an ideal of American solidarity, but were distinct. Argentine writers and policymakers, in the 1900s and 1910s, derided the nineteenth century Latin American congresses as misguided attempts at impractical regional integration. This tendency is unsurprising given the opposition of Argentine governments to participation in the pre-1880s congresses.68 The writing of Sarmiento, Rufino Elizalde, and Bartólome Mitre on why Argentina should not participate in those congresses became part of the canon of Argentine diplomatic history. The most common criticism of these efforts was their impracticality. Argentine opposition did not constitute a total rejection of regional cooperation. In fact, Argentine policymakers pointed to other, more practical, examples of cooperation, most of them led by Argentina. Chief among the examples of practical cooperation were the 1888 Congress of Montevideo (a pet project of Roque Sáenz Peña, organized partly as an alternative to integration via the upcoming Washington Conference) and to the Latin American Scientific Congresses initiated by the Argentine Scientific Society in 1898.69 Argentina's government, under President Julio A Roca, used the First Latin American Scientific Congress, held in Buenos Aires, as an opportunity to extol regional cooperation. La Nación, one of Argentina's most important newspapers, noted in its overview of the opening ceremony that the meeting had 'una alta misión de cordialidad internacional, difundiendo en toda la América el espíritu de paz y de concordia.'70 Despite such a hemispheric claim, the Congress's reach went only as far as the Rio Grande; the US was not invited. The few examples of antedating in Argentina placed the start date of Pan-Americanism earlier than 1889, but still in the 1880s. In 1906, for example, Argentine Minister to Washington Epifanio Portela insisted on grouping the 1888 Montevideo Juridical Conference with the first two Pan-American Conferences.71 Portela was, in general, a caustic critic of the institutionalization of Pan-American cooperation through the Bureau of American Republics. In fact, he regularly missed meetings of the Bureau's governing body; his attendance was so poor, that the US government complained to Buenos Aires. When the Argentine Ministry requested an explanation, Portela responded with a vitriolic dispatch that lambasted Argentina's inferior role in the Bureau and claimed that the Bureau had no practical benefits.72 Placing Montevideo as the start-date of Pan67 Congreso Panamericano Cuarta Conferencia, Discurso de inauguración por el Ministro de Relaciones Exteriores y Culto, Dr Victorino de la Plaza, el día 12 de julio de 1910 (Buenos Aires, 1910). 68 A good introduction to Argentina's participation in projects of regional cooperation can be found in Thomas McGann, Argentina, pp. 67-74. 69 On the Montevideo Congress, McGann pointed out (rightly) that Sáenz Peña and others (including Foreign Minister Norberto Quirno Costa) hoped to demonstrate with the Congress that 'there might be more than one way of defining Americanism' (see ibid., pp. 76-80). 70 'Congreso científico latinoamericano' La Nación 15 April 1898. Italics are mine. 71 Portela to Secretary of PAU Governing Board, 7 March 1906, AMRREE H295. 72 Portela to Argentine Foreign Minister, 18 January 1906, Archivo del Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores, Comercio y Culto (Argentina) [hereafter AMRECIC] Series 25 Box 4:II. His complaints over 17 Americanism reflected his belief that Argentina should be recognized as a leader in regional cooperation. As Burgos Varas had done in Chile, therefore, Portela put Latin America on equal footing with the US in the development of regional affairs. In the 1910s, as Argentine policy towards Pan-Americanism became more positive, Argentine resistance to antedating Pan-Americanism reduced slightly. Argentine writers more readily identified nineteenth-century Latin American cooperation efforts as a form of Pan-Americanism, but often for different purposes than their Chilean counterparts. While many Chilean writers sought to demonstrate that Latin American countries had laid the foundation for what came after 1889, Argentine writers preferred to highlight alternative versions of Pan-Americanism or to suggest that Pan-Americanism was conforming to other (more practical) forms of regional cooperation. A good example of this can be found in César Reyes Vallejo's article 'Panamericanismo: Monroe y Alberdi' from 1918.73 Reyes, an 'intelectual maldito' (in the words of Gerardo Russo) from a distinguished riojana family, wrote the article after reading Páginas de Historia Diplomática; los E.U. de América y las Repúblicas hispano-americanas de 1810 a 1830 by noted Colombian historian Francisco Urrutia.74 The Colombian's work inspired Reyes to consider modern U.S.-Latin American relations and, in particular, the 'new' PanAmericanism proposed by Wilson and Lansing at the Second Pan-American Scientific Congress in 1915. Wilson's idea of cooperation based on equality and with the aim of advancing peace, commerce, scientific knowledge, culture and industry for the benefit of the Americas and humanity (a poignant call as the First World War continued to ravage Europe) was, according to Reyes, not new. In fact, it was the thesis developed by Argentine statesman Juan Bautista Alberdi in 1844.75 Reyes recognized that there were significant differences between Alberdi's formula (a congress of Latin American nations meant help open the hemisphere to the world) and that of Wilson, yet he maintained that, at its base, wilsonismo was merely a re-statement of alberdismo.76 Given this connection, he declared that Pan-Americanism had a 'doble faz': monroismo and alberdismo. Reyes's argument was a form of antedating Pan-Americanism, in that it conflated 'new' PanAmericanism and Alberdi's ideas. Yet Reyes did not suggest that alberdismo was a subset of Pan-Americanism (as Chile's Álvarez had done with latinoamericanismo); rather, he claimed that 'new' Pan-Americanism was a form of alberdismo. Other examples from the late 1910s, however, demonstrate persisting Argentine reluctance to antedating Pan-Americanism. In 1917, President Hipólito Yrigoyen inferiority mainly stemmed from the fact that Brazil and Mexico had upgraded their representation in Washington to Ambassadorships while Argentina's representative in Washington remained a Minister until 1914. Brazil and Mexico – according to Portela, inferior nations – thus ranked higher within the Bureau governing body than any other Latin American nation. 73 César Reyes, 'Panamericanismo: Monroe y Alberdi' Revista de Derecho, Historia y Letras LIX (April 1918). 74 Gerardo Russo, Los intelectuales y el poder: El caso La Rioja (Córdoba, Argentina, 2011), pp. 61-63. For more on Reyes's life and work, see Julian Caceres Freyre, César Reyes: Biobibliografia comentada (La Rioja, 1999). 75 Reyes, 'Panamericanismo', pp. 497 and 512. 76 Ibid., pp. 498 and 512. Alberdi's thesis was presented to the Universidad de Chile in order to obtain a law degree. 18 attempted to use the US declaration of war against Germany as an opportunity to revive 'americanismo', defined as Latin American regional cooperation. His government issued invitations first to a conference of neutral states (most Latin American countries at that point had not altered relations with the European belligerents) and, when that failed, to a conference of Latin American states. Although the second attempt also failed (partly due to the opposition of the US), it revealed the continued relevance of other, older forms of regional cooperation than Pan-Americanism. The Argentine government classified Yrigoyen's attempts as direct descendants of the nineteenth-century Latin American congresses and stated that Pan-Americanism began in 1889.77 Another example is Ernesto Quesada's La evolución del panamericanismo of 1919.78 Quesada, the son of Vicente Quesada (Argentine Minister in Washington at the time of the First Pan-American Conference and major opponent of that conference), was a wellknown jurist with significant connections within the Foreign Ministry. Due to his expertise in Pan-Americanism, he was chosen to lead the Argentine delegation to the Second Pan-American Scientific Congress and he was the first to hold the chair in PanAmerican Treaties and Legislation at the Universidad de Buenos Aires. His position towards Pan-Americanism was ambivalent; at times, he was antagonistic to US influence in the region and believed that Pan-Americanism veiled US imperialist designs.79 Yet on other occasions, he celebrated the promise of Pan-Americanism. La evolución, a pamphlet that contained the transcript of two lectures, was one of the latter. In La evolución, Quesada charted the development of Pan-Americanism and began his discourse with a brief overview of other 'panismos' such as pan-Germanism and panSlavism. He clearly distinguished between the Latin American efforts at cooperation in the nineteenth century, labelling them 'panhispanoamericanismo' (due to Brazil's exclusion, he rejected the label 'latinoamericanismo', reserving that term for the two Juridical Congresses at Lima and Montevideo), and Pan-Americanism. The difference between the two, Quesada argued, could be encapsulated in divergent dictums: 'panhispanoamericanismo' embodied 'ex uno plures' while 'panamericanismo' represented 'e pluribus unum'.80 Pan-Americanism, according to Quesada, began with Blaine. Nonetheless, he connected the panhispanoamericanosmo, latinoamericanismo and panamericanismo by identifying an overarching movement for continental solidarity.81 Therefore, while dating Pan-Americanism to Blaine in the 1880s, Quesada also recognized that the idea was related to earlier forms of regional cooperation. 77 For an example of the Argentine government's use of 'americano' after the fact, see Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores y Culto, 'Circular Mensual', April 1921; a copy of this circular was sent by Stimson to the State Department and can be found in NARA RG59 M514 Roll 11, pp. 215-44. 78 Ernesto Quesada, La evolución del panamericanismo (Buenos Aires, 1919). Interestingly, this pamphlet was published by the Ministry of Agriculture, perhaps due to that Ministry's interest in using PanAmericanism to open markets for Argentine agricultural exports. 79 See, for example, a lecture by Quesada given at an event hosted by La Nación in 1916, which was covered in a report written by US Ambassador Henry Stimson to Lansing, 24 June 1919, NARA RG59 M514 Roll 19. 80 Quesada, La evolución, p. 9. 81 Ibid., p. 33. 19 In the 1920s and 1930s, the idea that Pan Americanism began in the 1880s remained dominant, particularly due to the separation of latinoamericanismo and panamericanismo in popular and official writing in Argentina with few exceptions.82 In 1928, Daniel Antokoletz (an influential legal adviser to the Foreign Ministry) distinguished the two in a training manual for diplomats, defining Pan-Americanism as the conferences that had occurred 'bajo la hegemonía de los Estados Unidos de América.'83 Six years later, Isidoro Ruiz Moreno (professor of international law at the Universidad de Buenos Aires and legal adviser to the Foreign Ministry) published a series of lessons on public international law in which described efforts for the organization of international community in the Americas as latino-americanismo (1810-89), centro-americanismo (1824 onwards), and panamericanismo (1889 onwards).84 One exception to this general trend was Corrientes continentales de panamericanismo, a book published in 1936 by diplomat and lawyer Roberto Velázquez. The book provides one of the clearest Argentine arguments for antedating Pan-American cooperation and including the Latin American Congresses in Pan-Americanism, offering a chronological timeline from Francisco Miranda's idea of a 'Gran Reunión Americana' in 1795 until the 1933 Seventh International Conference of American States in Montevideo.85 Nonetheless, there are few examples similar to Corrientes continentales. Finally, we turn our attention briefly to the case of Uruguay as it offers an interesting combination of themes seen in Chile and Argentina. Like Argentina, Uruguay became a centre for latinoamericanismo through the influence of Uruguayan poet José Enrique Rodó. His Ariel (1900), which focused on the inherent and irreconcilable differences between Latin and Anglo-Saxon races, inspired a generation of writers across Latin America and fuelled opposition to US-led Pan-Americanism.86 Yet like in Chile, the governments of Uruguay for the first three decades of the twentieth-century were relatively positive towards Pan-Americanism. In fact, as a recent history of USUruguayan relations noted, the governments of José Batlle y Ordoñez and the presidents under batllista influence were among the most supportive of US influence in Latin America.87 In the late-1920s, however, relations between the US and Uruguay strained due to the US's intervention in Nicaragua. The Brum Doctrine, named for President Baltasar Brum (1919-23), shaped official Uruguayan approach to Pan-Americanism in the late 1910s and 1920s. In the context of the First World War, Brum developed an argument for American solidarity through a 82 An example of 'popular' writing is an article from El Hogar, one of Argentina's most widely read magazines, on 'Panamericanismo y latinoamericanismo' from the 30 December 1927 issue. 83 Daniel Antokoletz, Manual diplomático y consular (para uso de los aspirantes y funcionarios de ambas carreras) (Buenos Aires, 1928), pp. 24-26. Antokoletz continued from that phrase: '...aunque todas las naciones del continente actúan independientemente', thus emphasizing that US hegemony did not mean complete Latin American subordination. 84 Isidoro Ruiz Moreno, Lecciones de derecho internacional público, vol 1 (Buenos Aires, 1934), p. 64. panamericanismo85 Roberto Velázquez, Corrientes continentales del panamericanismo (Buenos Aires, 1936), pp. 8-11. 86 Significantly, Rodó does not address Pan-Americanism in Ariel. For analysis of Rodó and PanAmericanism, see Orlando Gómez Gil, 'Panamericanismo y universalismo en Rodó' Revista interamericana de bibliografía 24:4 (1974). 87 James Knarr, Uruguay and the United States: Diplomacy in the Progressive Era (Kent, OH, 2012). 20 continental Monroe Doctrine – a statement of collective defence against any external threat to the Americas.88 By 1920, this argument had evolved into a call for a League of American Nations, a formal structure for the regulation of inter-American relations and the maintenance of peace. In a lecture at the University of Montevideo, in which Brum clearly laid out his proposal, the Uruguayan president defined Pan-Americanism as American solidarity and highlighted within that ideal equality and sovereignty.89 He traced the idea of solidarity first to the Monroe Doctrine, but then suggested Latin American antecedents in Uruguay's José Artigas (1764-1850) and Chile's Juan Egaña (1768-1836). In fact, he argued that 'en cada patria americana...se encuentran declaraciones semejantes, que son, en el fondo, la esencia de la Doctrina de Monroe.'90 Thus, he antedated Pan-Americanism to the Latin American independence era. He did not address the nineteenth-century Latin American congresses, however. José Serrato – politician, professor at the University of Montevideo, and Brum's successor – continued Uruguay's support for Pan-Americanism and for a stronger institutional framework of regional cooperation. In his arguments for a League of American Nations he altered Brum's chronology by directly connecting the idea with Bolívar and the Panama Congress of 1826. Unlike other Latin American writers that contrasted monroísmo with bolivarismo, Serrato conflated the two strands as precedents for the Brum doctrine.91 Again, the other Latin American congresses of the nineteenth century did not feature in the Pan-American narrative. Interestingly, in neither Brum nor Serrato's discussion of Pan-Americanism does the juridical Congress of Montevideo appear despite the leadership role that Uruguay played in that initiative. The omission of the nineteenth-century Latin American congresses is understandable in the context of the Brum project. The League of American Nations required the participation of the US and therefore the Uruguayan policymakers emphasized antecedents that involved the US. There is, therefore, no definitive emic answer to our etic question. I have examined several emic answers and, by doing so, have identified some general themes. Chilean writers and policymakers were more apt to consider nineteenth-century efforts at regional cooperation 'Pan-Americanism' than their Argentine counterparts. Chilean chronologies of Pan-Americanism included the Latin American congresses earlier and more frequently than Argentine examples. In Argentina, it was common to differentiate between latinoamericanismo and pan-Americanism, thereby beginning the latter with Blaine's efforts in the 1880s. The arguments of Uruguay's Brum and Serrato demonstrated a different approach: they identified Pan-Americanism with formalized American solidarity 88 A contemporary examination of Brum's ideas can be found in Félix Etchevest, Doctrina Brum: solidaridad continental (Montevideo, 1919). 89 A copy of Brum's lecture was published as Baltasar Brum, 'Solidaridad americana' Anales de la Universidad XXX No. 107 (1920). 90 Ibid., p. 16-18. 91 A useful synopsis of Uruguayan political writing on Pan-Americanism can be found in Isabel Clemente, 'Uruguay en las conferencias panamericanas: la construcción de una opción en política exterior', a paper given at the symposium 'Los Asuntos Internacionales en América Latina y el Caribe Historia y Teoría. Problemas a dos siglos de la emancipación' (Santiago, Chile, 2010). Serrato's thoughts on PanAmericanism can be found among the collection of speeches in José Serrato, Vida pública de José Serrato (Montevideo, 1944), especially pp. 85-87. 21 and found its ideological foundation in the independence era. To complicate matters further, emic answers changed with time. Chilean chronologies, especially those offered by official sources, became more certain in their use of Pan-Americanism for pre-1880s efforts in the 1910s. By the end of the 1920s the impact of 'latinoamericanismo' caused some doubt. In Argentina, reluctance to antedate Pan-Americanism persisted throughout the first four decades of the twentieth century, yet examples of antedating emerged by the late 1910s. Although discussions about Pan-Americanism were in some ways transnational and hemispheric, the discussants were embedded in a national context. Pan-Americanism was, ultimately, a contested concept. Historians should be careful to avoid reification and should be mindful of different definitions of Pan-Americanism. Assuming that PanAmericanism had roots in the early nineteenth century is useful for understanding Chilean and Uruguayan approaches to Pan-American cooperation in the twentieth century. It is less helpful when analyzing Argentine approaches and policies, which were built on a belief that Pan-Americanism began with the US in the late 1880s. III. Implications of the emic answers Considering the similarities and differences between emic understandings of PanAmericanism can help to explain Pan-American policies in a comparative framework. Both Chile and Argentina had been the chief opponents of Pan-Americanism in the First International Conference of American States, partly because Blaine's Pan-Americanism confronted pre-established notions of regional cooperation in which Chile and Argentina had significant agency. Chilean policymakers more quickly associated Pan-American cooperation with other, more familiar forms of regional cooperation. While Chilean policy towards Pan-American cooperation transitioned from indifference to positive engagement, Argentine governments remained ambivalent until the late 1900s and 1910s. Chilean policy remained positive (at least in rhetoric) through the 1910s, 1920s, and 1930s. In contrast, Argentine policy fluctuated, partly due to the persistence of alternative forms of regional cooperation. The low points of Argentine Pan-American engagement corresponded to revivals of 'americanista' policies. Across the Río de la Plata, Uruguayan policymakers connected Pan-Americanism to Monroe and Bolívar, which buttressed Uruguay's support for stronger Pan-American institutions. Like Chile, antedating Pan-Americanism positively corresponded with support for Pan-American cooperation. Determining a definite causal relationship between the emic definitions of Pan-Americanism and the policies of Chile, Argentina and Uruguay is difficult. Nonetheless, recognizing that definitions and policies were related adds nuance to historical understandings of both. There are implications as well for the wider history of Pan-Americanism and of US-Latin American relations. Gramscian theory offers one framework for analyzing the deeper significance of these chronologies. Pan Americanism, as formulated by Blaine and the US government, was in part a project to consolidate US influence and hegemony in the Western Hemisphere. The rhetoric of US-led Pan-Americanism emphasized fraternity, solidarity and (particularly after 1915) equality, yet many US policymakers viewed Pan- 22 American cooperation as a vehicle for US interests in Latin America. Latin American governments and writers recognized this element of Pan-American cooperation and occasionally reacted strongly against it. One important facet to the successful spread of US influence in Latin America was Washington's ability to control regional cooperation and make the inclusion of the US desirable or even necessary. Regional action that excluded the US undermined US claims to hegemony. In order to secure US influence over the Western Hemisphere, therefore, it was useful to achieve conceptual hegemony in inter-American relations. Practically, the resources and clout of the US were effective in achieving this control. The failure of Yrigoyen's attempt to revive americanismo in 1917 is a good example. Washington, then a belligerent in the War and hoping for Latin American support against Germany, pressured governments throughout the region (some of which were under US occupation) to reject the invitation. Ultimately, the dalliance of most Latin American governments in the face of competing pressure from Buenos Aires and Washington led to the collapse of Yrigoyen's project. Economics and geopolitics were also crucial. Chile's positive approaches to Pan-Americanism were partly a result of increased dependence of the country's economy on the US (Argentina's economy, in contrast, remained oriented towards Europe).92 Uruguay was less dependent on the US economy, yet the batllistas geared the country towards the US partly due to admiration for the US political system and US technological and social progress.93 As a small country surrounded by regional powers, Uruguay also saw attachment to US influence as a means of regulating the balance of power in the Rio de la Plata. The US was also able to change the conceptual nature of regional cooperation and redefine American solidarity to include the US. At first, changing the definition of regional cooperation was not a conscious policy, but rather a side effect of the commercially focused institutionalization of Pan-Americanism. By the late 1900s, however, US policymakers and Pan-American institutions had engaged with a campaign to win 'hearts and minds' for Pan-Americanism. Thus the PAU established an Education Section in 1911 to encourage Pan-American sentiments. In the early 1920s, a former Director General of the Pan American Union, John Barrett, founded the International Pan American Committee (IPAC) at the urging of US President Warren Harding, who wanted a 'strictly unofficial, altruistic and non-propaganda movement to develop better Pan American understanding.'94 The IPAC's funded thousands of academic studies that would, in the committee's estimation, increase Pan-American sentiment. The Chilean and Uruguayan chronologies demonstrated that US-led Pan-Americanism had become something of a conceptual norm in parts of Latin America. Chilean writers began to employ the terms to describe incidents of regionalism that had excluded the US and Uruguayan policymakers came to define the ultimate regional integration in Pan92 See Victor Bulmer Thomas, The Economic History of Latin America Since Independence (2nd ed, Cambridge, 2003), p. 156. 93 Knarr, Uruguay, especially pp. 46-76. 94 Barrett, 'Special Emergency Statement', 6 November 1929, Library of Congress John Barrett Papers container 95: 'Practical Pan Americanism'. 23 American terms. Extending Pan-Americanism's roots to the nineteenth-century Latin American congresses, and even to earlier attempts at continental solidarity, legitimized the Pan-American cooperation. Pan-American initiatives and institutions became less about US imperialism and more about a nebulous, though relatable, ideal of American solidarity. Given that the tangible, practical benefits of Pan-American cooperation were relatively small (many conferences were merely talking shops), the construction of interAmerican sentiment was important. The increased significance of US capital, products, and markets to Latin America in the early twentieth century must be borne in mind, of course; but the conceptual side of Pan-Americanism should also be considered. Yet Chileans and Uruguayans were not hapless adherents to US hegemony. On the contrary, the antedating of Pan-Americanism was a method of gaining agency within this form of regional cooperation and securing leadership within inter-American relations. By linking the Latin American congresses, in which Chile had played a central role, to the dominant strain of regional cooperation in the early twentieth century, Chileans could (and did) claim a prominent place within hemispheric affairs. By claiming that PanAmericanism had its foundation in the Latin American independence era, Uruguayan policymakers shifted the centre of power south. Indeed, antedating Pan-Americanism highlighted Latin American contributions to American solidarity and cooperation. Latin American (particularly A.B.C., or Argentina, Brazil and Chile) governments came closer to begin equal partners in regional cooperation. Thus, the Chilean representative in London – Agustín Edwards, one of Chile's most respected diplomats – claimed in 1916 that the US and the A.B.C. powers were, together, the 'vanguard' of Pan-Americanism. The First Pan-American Scientific Congress, held in Santiago, Chile in 1908, provides an example of mixed motivations for Latin American engagement with Pan-Americanism. Also known as the Fourth Latin American Scientific Congress, the meeting built on a pre-existing tradition of non-governmental internationalism begun by the Sociedad Científica Argentina in 1898. After the First Latin American Scientific Congress of that year, two more congresses were held: in Montevideo (1902) and in Rio de Janeiro (1905). When the Organizing Committee for the next congress met in Santiago, they quickly decided to make the event 'truly Pan-American' by inviting the US to participate. Their reasons included the valuable information that US scientists would bring to the discussions, a belief in the benefits of hemispheric intellectual cooperation (peace, civilization, and culture), and a desire to demonstrate A.B.C. leadership in the Americas.95 The Chilean government heartily supported the decision and hailed the new development of Pan-Americanism. Later discussions (in 1909) revealed an underlying governmental objective: fomenting a separate and apolitical strain of Pan-American cooperation, defined by A.B.C. actors, that would balance the US-led conferences.96 This change did not receive universal approval, however. An editorial in El Mercurio noted 95 Eduardo Poirier, Cuarto Congreso Científico (Primero Panamericano): su reunión en Santiago de Chile, celebrada del 25 de diciembre de 1908 al 5 de enero de 1909 (Santiago, 1915), pp. 1-5. 96 Chile's representative to the Pan American Union governing body stated that his government wished to keep the Pan-American Scientific Congresses and the other Pan-American Conferences in separate orbits; notes on this discussion can be found in a letter from Epifanio Portela to the Argentine Foreign Ministry, 21 October 1909, AMRECIC Series 25 Box 7:II. 24 that inviting the US introduced the threat of 'hegemonía intelectual de Estados Unidos en el continente americano'.97 Emilio Coni, renowned Argentine doctor and sanitation expert, later lamented the usurpation of Latin American scientific and medical cooperation by Pan-Americanism. In an article from 1917, he noted that US involvement was inherently disadvantageous for Latin America as the US, 'siendo los más ricos, los más poderosos, se asignarían, como vulgarmente se dice, la parte del león.'98 Argentina's resistance to antedating Pan-Americanism and the persistence of latinoamericanismo demonstrated that Pan-Americanism achieved only partial conceptual hegemony in Latin America. Beginning their chronologies of Pan-Americanism with the 1880s, Argentine policymakers and writers highlighted the connection between PanAmerican cooperation and US interests. The practice also left more room open for alternative forms of regional cooperation, including latinoamericanismo. Argentine governments supported cooperation that was practical and, perhaps more importantly, defined by Argentina as a regional power. This interpretation of Argentine chronologies might provide support for the traditional view of US-Argentine rivalry in inter-American affairs.99 Evidence of conceptual rivalry at the official level can be seen in Yrigoyen's attempt to revive 'americanismo' in the late 1910s. Yrigoyenistas appropriated the term American fraternity again in 1928 upon Yrigoyen's re-election to the presidency.100 Yrigoyen's definition of americanismo was in direct contrast to US-led Pan-Americanism. Indeed, Yrigoyen withdrew Argentina from Pan-American initiatives and campaigned to attack US influence in Latin America and Argentina. Yrigoyen, however, was an exception. David Sheinin has convincingly argued that US-Argentine relations are better understood as a case of complicated and occasionally subtle cooperation rather than simple rivalry.101 Argentine chronologies fit this argument. Categorizations in Argentine works from the 1910s onwards that separated latinoamericanismo and Pan-Americanism often recognized that both were viable and important forms of regional cooperation. Aside from radical latinoamericanistas such as Ugarte, Argentines had not rejected the language of hegemony developed by the US; initiatives led by Argentine actors (such as the Pan American Child's Congresses, started in 1916 through the efforts of Argentine reformers and with the support of the Argentine government) employed the terminology of Pan-Americanism and embraced its fundamental ideal of hemispheric solidarity including the US. Argentines, therefore, contributed to the persistence of Pan-Americanism and Pan-American terminology. Like their Chilean and Uruguayan counterparts, Argentine participants in Pan-American cooperation found motivation in the potential practical benefits of cooperation (such as 97 'La hegemonía intelectual de Estados Unidos en América: Sobre uno de los aspectos del Congreso Científico Pan-Americano' El Mercurio, 2 November 1908, p. 4. 98 Emilo Coni, 'Los congresos científicos y médicos latino-americanos' Revista de Derecho, Historia y Letras LVI (March 1917), p. 214. He also wrote on this topic in his Memorias from 1917; see Juan Carlos Veronelli and Magali Vernoelli Correch, Los orígenes institucionales de la salud pública en la Argentina, vol 2 (Santiago, 2004), pp. 327-28. 99 Two clear examples of this viewpoint are McGann's Argentina and Morgenfeld's Vecinos en conflicto. 100 Lucio Moreno Quintana, La diplomacia de Yrigoyen (La Plata, 1928), p. 16. Moreno was one of Yrigyoen's political confidantes and former sub-secretary of the Argentine Foreign Ministry. 101 See David Sheinin, Argentina and the United States: An Alliance Contained (Athens, GA, 2006). 25 the spread of information about technological advances), in the altruistic ideal of internationalism and hemispheric solidarity, and in the hope of managing US hegemony. IV. Conclusion What started as a seemingly straightforward question, therefore, led to a rather complex analysis of Pan-Americanism's conceptual history. By drawing inspiration from Ginzburg's call to find emic answers to etic questions, we have delved into a significant historiographical debate and attempted to get 'inside the heads' of Southern Cone policymakers and intellectuals. We should return here to that first question: where do we begin with Pan-Americanism? The emic answer, perhaps unsurprisingly, depends on the historical figure and the historical context. This logic has its own dangers of reductionism and relativism. I have attempted to avoid those pitfalls by highlighting themes among national perspectives within the transnational debate over PanAmericanism. By doing so, I have demonstrated that different chronologies of PanAmericanism developed in the Southern Cone along lines related to national histories of regional cooperation and to national interests. Analysis of the use of 'Pan-American' terminology to describe other forms of regional cooperation suggests implications for historical understandings of US hegemony within Latin America and for Latin American agency within that hegemonic system. US hegemony was based on the control of regional cooperation in ideal and practice. Latin American actors appropriated the terms of hegemony, making them more amenable to Latin American interests and more susceptible to Latin American influence. Thus, hegemony in US-Latin American relations was a regulated construct and concept. I bring this paper to close with a brief thought about the historiographical problem identified in section I. Historians are justified in antedating Pan-Americanism to the early nineteenth century because it helps to understand the perspective of some of the historical actors involved. Yet exceptions to those perspectives must be recognized and incorporated into analysis of Pan-American policies. I suggest that 'old' and 'new' be replaced with other terminology for the sake of clarity and to emphasize that the difference between pre- and post-1880s regional cooperation was not merely chronological. A more useful categorization might be 'traditional' and 'modern'.102 These terms imply a more substantive difference between the periods of regional cooperation. Moreover, they account for the fact that many in Latin America (Chileans, for example) viewed the nineteenth century congresses as a 'tradition' of cooperation in the Americas while US-led Pan-Americanism incorporated an ideal of collaborative modernization of the hemisphere. Regardless of the terminology employed, however, the analysis of this paper will hopefully encourage other historians of Pan-Americanism to seriously consider how the language of Pan-Americanism was used. 102 Another option might be 'contemporary' Pan-Americanism, the terminology used by Mexican Luis Quintanilla in A Latin American Speaks (New York, 1943). Quintanilla, in a section titled 'Blah-Blah PanAmericanism' described Bolívar and Monroe's ideas as Pan-American (the former he regarded as too idealistic, the latter too realistic). 'The year 1889,' he continued, 'must be remembered because it was then that contemporary Pan Americanism was born' (p. 131). Contemporary seems an inappropriate term, however, as it too strongly ties Pan-Americanism to the present. 26