impel the United States to quarrel with Great Britain, but its intentions were at heart benign.
Democratic government in the United States also generated access opportunities the British could exploit. With diverse groups influencing American foreign policy, an “English faction” existed in Washington and New York, respectively the power and money centers of the United States. This provided a basis for shaping American strategic behavior. British officials self-consciously cultivated the English faction. For example, Spring-Rice in 1887 worked to ensure a warm London reception for the daughter of the anglophile secretary of state, Thomas Bayard.51 The open nature of the American political system also afforded diplomats like Spring-Rice a chance to develop close ties with U.S. political elites. During his first tour of Washington, Spring-Rice was hosted by senators and senior officials, and while staying with the secretary of war, attended an impromptu cabinet meeting.52 Friendships translated into access, and “Whatever may be said of the relations, politically speaking, of England and America, one thing is absolutely certain—in no country can we Englishmen make such friendships.”53 Relationships between Anglo-American elites meant Great Britain had allies within the U.S. government sensitive to its interests.
The Venezuela Crisis
America’s democratic institutions functioned as a powerful source of reassurance during the Venezuela crisis, preventing a diplomatic row from escalating into war. As the crisis unfolded, congressional actions and media uproar indicated that the United States would only pursue war as a last resort. Within a week of Cleveland’s bellicose message, the Senate and the House of Representatives unanimously voted to fund a commission to determine the boundary of Venezuela. This signaled American resolve, but also that Republican and Democratic politicians were only prepared to support war if Great Britain ultimately rejected the commission’s findings. Popular support for war, like that of Congress, was conditioned on future British intransigence. American newspapers affirmed that “Whether There Will Be War Now Rests with England,” and that when the true boundary was fixed, “if England shall overstep it, it will mean war!”54 Congress and public opinion conveyed that the United States would only undertake military action against Great Britain after the boundary commission had rendered a decision. The restraint telegraphed by Congress and the press registered in Great Britain. Prime Minister Salisbury and Ambassador Pauncefote understood that Cleveland, in committing to a U.S. commission, had postponed an Anglo-American showdown. Likewise, Colonial Secretary Chamberlain recognized that the “American affair cannot become serious for some time…. Altogether it must be months before there is a real crisis.”55
As the crisis continued, America’s free press made visible changes in the U.S. government’s position. Newspaper reporting suggested that the commission had a less objectionable mission than unilaterally delineating the Venezuelan boundary. On December 25, the New York World published a story titled “Won’t Dictate the Line.” The story quoted Senator George Gray, a political ally of Cleveland. According to Gray, the purpose of the commission was “solely to inform the conscience of the government and the American people…. The United States does not assume to delimit a frontier for Great Britain.”56 Gray’s remarks were subsequently noted in the British press. Because of Gray’s close relationship to Cleveland, many British officials assumed that he was speaking for the president. Consequently, the British government could ascertain a softening of the U.S. position weeks before the American ambassador in London officially communicated the commission’s watered-down objective—obtaining information.57
The U.S. media also illuminated a shift in a key shaper of foreign policy: popular opinion. Although the initial public reaction to Cleveland’s message was bellicose, antiwar sentiment soon surged. By December 20, a leading financial journal, expressing the opinion of the U.S. business community, warned that a “great mistake had been made.”58 The number of newspapers critical of Cleveland’s policy rapidly increased. Joseph Pulitzer, editor of the New York World, spearheaded a growing reconciliation movement and on the first Sunday after the crisis, churchmen across the United States pleaded for peace.59 The transparency of the U.S. political system enabled the British government to observe this dramatic change in public opinion.60
Beyond helping to stabilize the immediate crisis, America’s democratic institutions obviated the need for a more hard-line British approach. Against the backdrop of an open society, President Cleveland’s actions were readily understood as motivated by domestic political considerations rather than a deliberate effort to undermine British interests in the Western Hemisphere. The Democratic Party faced an uphill struggle in the presidential elections of 1896. Twisting the lion’s tail was one way to generate political capital, as a considerable segment of the American population was Anglophobe. To the British government, it was clear that Cleveland and the Democratic Party had manufactured a controversy to boost the electoral prospects of his successor. As Salisbury put it, the creation of a U.S. commission was “Cleveland’s electioneering dodge.” Although willing to entertain the possibility that Cleveland sought a pretext for invading Canada, Salisbury was “rather skeptical” that Cleveland actually desired war.61 Knowing that Cleveland was pandering to jingo sentiment, Great Britain did not mistakenly take U.S. interference in Venezuela as a sign of real hostility.
Likewise, enduring access opportunities within the American political system limited the potential downside of accommodation during the crisis. Cleveland and Olney, though responsible for the clash with Great Britain, were seen as hostages to jingo sentiment within the United States. By this logic, if Great Britain refrained from strengthening the hand of prowar groups, peace and an amicable settlement would prevail.62 Moreover, the British government continued to enjoy significant support among U.S. elites. Visiting Washington in September 1896, Chamberlain concluded: “although the great majority of educated Americans are friendly to Great Britain and desirous of peace, a feeling of hostility has been sedulously encouraged among the masses of the people.”63 The best option for Great Britain was to avoid provocative action and continue to rely on its friends in the United States.
The Aftermath
In the years after the Venezuela crisis, the United States became the paramount power in the Western Hemisphere. America’s democratic system reassured Great Britain that its diminished position would not be exploited. Trust permeated the final phase of the Anglo-American power transition. While negotiating over the scope of Venezuelan arbitration, the British government evinced faith in U.S. willingness to abide by international law in its relations with Latin America.64 Although Great Britain was ostensibly neutral during the Spanish-American War, in practice, British policy, by permitting U.S. access to ports and colonies, supported the American war effort. Confident that the United States would become a force for free trade in the Far East, the British government also encouraged American annexation of the Philippines.65 By the early 1900s, Great Britain was calling for the United States to take a more active role in South America as well. Balfour, then prime minister, wrote Andrew Carnegie urging: “These South American Republics are a great trouble, and I wish the U.S.A. would take them in hand.”66 In public, he pursued a similar line: “We welcome any increase of the influence of the United States of America upon the great Western Hemisphere.”67 The Royal navy’s withdrawal from North America and the Caribbean in 1904, leaving Great Britain’s substantial interests to the mercy of a rapidly growing American navy, testifies to the depth of British confidence in American goodwill.68
Great Britain and Germany: Integration and Hedging
As Germany emerged on the world stage, Great Britain took steps to integrate it into international institutions. But British leaders did more than this; they also hedged.
British efforts to integrate Germany occurred during an era devoid of strong international organizations; even in Europe, international institutions were few and weak. Great Britain’s integration strategy therefore relied primarily on the pursuit of bilateral
