USS MILWAUKEE AND HONDURAS EXPEDITION

Based on Daddy’s story about his visit to Tegucigalpa and environs in Honduras, and based on my reading about fruit companies (Banana Republics), The United States foreign policy was still relying on what was referred to as Gunboat Diplomacy. The term (according to Wikipedia) comes from the nineteenth-century period of imperialism, when Western powers – in Europe and the United States – would intimidate other, less powerful states into granting concessions through a demonstration of their superior military capabilities, usually depicted by their naval assets. A country negotiating with a Western power would notice that a warship or fleet of ships had appeared off its coast. The mere sight of such power almost always had a considerable effect, and it was rarely necessary for such boats to use other measures, such as demonstrations of firepower.

This was the era of Theodore Roosevelt’s ideology of “Talk Softly but Carry a Big Stick”. According to Wikipedia: Big stick ideology, big stick diplomacy, or big stick policy refers to President Theodore Roosevelt’s foreign policy: “speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far.”[1] Roosevelt described his style of foreign policy as “the exercise of intelligent forethought and of decisive action sufficiently far in advance of any likely crisis.”[2] As practiced by Roosevelt, big stick diplomacy had five components. First it was essential to possess serious military capability that would force the adversary to pay close attention. At the time that meant a world-class navy. Roosevelt never had a large army at his disposal. The other qualities were to act justly toward other nations, never to bluff, to strike only when prepared to strike hard, and the willingness to allow the adversary to save face in defeat.[3]

The idea is negotiating peacefully but also having strength in case things go wrong. Simultaneously threatening with the “big stick”, or the military, ties in heavily with the idea of Realpolitik, which implies a pursuit of political power that resembles Machiavellian ideals.[4] It is comparable to gunboat diplomacy, as used in international politics by the powers.

The Banana Wars were occupations, police actions, and interventions on the part of the United States in Central America and the Caribbean between the end of the Spanish–American War in 1898 and the inception of the Good Neighbor Policy in 1934.[1] These military interventions were most often carried out by the United States Marine Corps, which developed a manual, The Strategy and Tactics of Small Wars (1921) based on its experiences. On occasion, the Navy provided gunfire support and Army troops were also used.

With the Treaty of Paris, Spain ceded control of Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines to the United States. Thereafter, the United States conducted military interventions in Cuba, Panama, Honduras, Nicaragua, Mexico, Haiti, and the Dominican Republic. The series of conflicts ended with the withdrawal of troops from Haiti in 1934 under President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

The term “banana wars” was popularized in 1983[2] by writer Lester D. Langley. Langley wrote several books on Latin American history and American interactions including The United States and the Caribbean, 1900–1970 and The Banana Wars: An Inner History of American Empire, 1900–1934. His book on the Banana Wars encompasses the United States tropical empire that overtook the western hemisphere spanning both of the Roosevelt presidencies. The term was popularized through this writing which portrayed the United States as a police force that was sent to reconcile warring tropical countries, lawless societies and corrupt politicians, establishing a reign over tropical trade.

U.S. motivations for these conflicts were largely economic and military. The term “Banana Wars” was coined much later to cast the motivations for these interventions[citation needed] as almost exclusively the preservation of U.S. commercial interests in the region.

Most prominently, the US was advancing its economic, political, and military interests to maintain its sphere of influence and securing the Panama Canal (opened in 1914) which it had recently built to promote global trade and to project its own naval power. US companies such as the United Fruit Company also had financial stakes in the production of bananas, tobacco, sugar cane, and other commodities throughout the Caribbean, Central America and northern South America.

Honduras, where the United Fruit Company and Standard Fruit Company dominated the country’s key banana export sector and associated land holdings and railways, saw insertion of American troops in 1903, 1907, 1911, 1912, 1919, 1924 and 1925. The writer O. Henry coined the term “Banana republic” in 1904 to describe Honduras.[9]

American fruit companies[edit]

The first decades of Honduras’ history is marked by instability in terms of politics and economy. Indeed 210 armed conflicts occurred between independence and the rise to power of the Carias government.[10] This instability was due in part to the American involvement in the country.[10]

The first company that concluded an agreement with the Honduras government was the Vaccaro Brothers Company (Standard Fruit Company).[10] The Cuyamel Fruit Company then followed their lead. United Fruit Company also contracted with the government through its subsidiaries, Tela Railroad Company and Truxillo Rail Road Company.[10]

Contract between the Honduran government and the American companies most often involved exclusive rights to a piece of land in exchange for building railroads in Honduras.[10]

However, banana producers in Central America (including Honduras) “were scourged by Panama disease, a soil-borne fungus (…) that decimated production over large regions”.[11] Typically, companies would abandon the decimated plantations and destroy the railroads and other utilities that they had used along with the plantation,[11] so the exchange of services between the government and the companies was not always respected.

The ultimate goal of the contracts for the companies was control of the banana trade from production to distribution. The companies would finance guerrilla fighters, presidential campaigns and governments.[10] According to Rivera and Carranza, the indirect participation of American companies in the country’s armed conflicts worsened the situation.[10] The presence of more dangerous and modern weapons allowed more dangerous warfare among the factions.[10]

In British Honduras (modern-day Belize) the situation was significantly different. Despite the fact that the United Fruit Company was the sole exporter of bananas there and the company was also attempting to manipulate the local government, the country did not suffer the instability and armed conflicts its neighbors experienced.[11]

Notable veteran[edit]

Perhaps the single most active military officer in the Banana Wars was U.S. Marine Corps Major General, Smedley Butler, nicknamed “Maverick Marine”, who saw action in Honduras in 1903, served in Nicaragua enforcing American policy from 1909 to 1912, was awarded the Medal of Honor for his role in Veracruz in 1914, and a second Medal of Honor for bravery in Haiti in 1915. Butler gave a speech in 1933 across the US titled War is a Racket, where he denounced the role he had played, describing himself as “a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers…a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism”.[12] In 1935, he adapted that speech into a published book.

WITH THIS HISTORICAL BACKDROP, THE USS MILWAUKEE ANCHORED OFF THE SHORES OF HONDURAS AND SEND A LANDING PARTY TO HELP PUT DOWN A POLITICAL UPRISING