13 minute read
Utah Anti-imperialist: Senator William H. King and Haiti, 1921-34
Utah Anti-imperialist: Senator William H. King and Haiti 1921-34
BY LAURENCE M. HAUPTMAN
HISTORIANS HAVE GENERALLY ignored the political career of William H. King of Utah. The former Democratic senator's historical obscurity can be explained in part by the presence of the omnipotent Republican Reed Smoot in Utah politics. King remained in the shadows of Smoot for much of his career. Yet, King's interest in the plight of minority groups in the United States, in self-determination for inhabitants of America's insular possessions and protectorates, and in justice for the victims of genocide—Armenians after World War I and the Jews in Hitler's Germany—makes him a public figure worthy of study. The intention of this article is to shed light on one aspect of Senator King's long and distinguished public service: his campaign to end the occupation of Haiti. On July 28, 1915, United States marines intervened in the chaotic world of Haiti, establishing the fifth American protectorate in Latin America. Participants in the occupation as well as historians have analyzed in detail the reasons for and the nature and course of the intervention; however, the role of Senator King and his colleagues in the Senate in criticizing policy, arousing public and official opinion, and showing the practical advantages of terminating American rule has been virtually overlooked.
Senator King's interest in Haiti can be traced back to his membership on a Senate committee, established in 1921, inquiring into the occupation and administration of Haiti and Santo Domingo. This committee was headed by Republican Senator Medill McCormick of Illinois who in 1920 had insisted upon the need to remain in Haiti for twenty more years. Other members included Philander Knox, Pennsylvania Republican of "dollar diplomacy" fame; Atlee Pomerene, Democrat of Ohio, who was going "to defend the Democratic administration [Wilson] . . . from Republican charges of mismanagement"; and Tasker Oddie, Republican of Nevada, an engineer who could only see the need "to build roads." New Mexico's Andrieus Jones, "a pacific sort of Democrat whom Republicans in power like to place on an investigating committee," was subsequently chosen to fill the vacant seat caused by the death of Knox.
The committee held a series of hearings in Haiti, Santo Domingo, and Washington. They interviewed native Haitians and Dominicans, American military administrators of the occupations, James Weldon Johnson of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, journalists Oswald Garrison Villard and Ernest Gruening, and Roger Farnham of the National City Bank of New York. Testimony included disclosures of sporadic atrocities committed by the occupying American forces; strict press censorship; the revival of the French corvee, the harsh "tax" which conscripted natives to build and improve public roads and which in many cases was a fate worse than the punishments accorded common criminals; the racial bias of American officials; and the annihilation of thousands of so-called "bandits" in marine campaigns of pacification.
The final report of the McCormick Committee admitted some military abuses—isolated acts of cruelty, executions of several caco ("bandit") prisoners without trial, the killing of peaceful natives caught inadvertently in the crossfire between "bandits" and marines, the resultant destruction of property, and the injustices of the corvee. Nevertheless, the Senate committee lauded the efforts of American officials and marines while at the same time recommended ways to correct the malevolence of the occupations. Furthermore, the report interpreted the initial interventions as justifiable, blaming many of the problems on the rapid turnover in United States personnel at the State Department and in the officer corps of the marines and navy in Haiti and Santo Domingo.
Senator King was the only member of the McCormick Committee not to sign the report. Instead he introduced three resolutions in a three-month period in 1922. On March 4, 1922, he called for a Senate inquiry into President Harding's appointment of General John Russell as high commissioner to Haiti, a move made without the advice and consent of the Senate. Six days later, he introduced a resolution to end the United States military occupation, to establish a native government, and to abrogate the Treaty of 1915 by which Haiti became a protectorate. On May 11, 1922, in his most significant move vis-a-vis Haiti, the Utah Senator offered an amendment to the naval appropriation bill for fiscal year 1922-23:
This amendment, as well as other King-sponsored resolutions, failed to pass on several occasions during the 1920s; nevertheless, these efforts helped focus the attention of the nation on Caribbean policy.
Perhaps the most heralded and extensive coverage Senator King received occurred in March 1927 when he announced that he would conduct his own fact-finding tour of the Caribbean, including Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Haiti. For several years Senator King had maintained that President Louis Borno of Haiti had been elected illegally. King had repeatedly accused Borno of being the puppet of the American occupation administration headed by General John Russell. The irate president of Haiti, after hearing of King's intended visit, refused to allow him to enter the country on the pretext that the Utah senator had made false and offensive statements against Borno and "made himself the agent in the United States of the worst element of disorder in Haitian politics." Senator King took full advantage of this snub to dramatize the Haitian plight. Writing to Secretary of State Frank B. Kellogg, he asked "whether the State Department approves their action." He caustically referred to the unusual ties of the department and General Russell to the Borno regime and requested an immediate reply. Kellogg cabled Borno that his actions were an affront to the United States Senate and at the same time weakly replied to King that "there is nothing more which the United States can do about it."
The incident received front-page attention. Most observers agreed with the Independent's view that Borno had made a mistake, since "it would have been better politics to let Senator King come to Haiti, and then say it with flowers." Although Senator King was still denied entrance, his ploy helped bring the Haitian question as well as the Caribbean policy of the United States back into the headlines.
Throughout the 1920s and until the announcement of withdrawal in 1933, Senator King condemned the American administration of Haitian affairs, demanded immediate withdrawal and termination of the Haitian Treaty of 1915, or clamored for a new inquiry. He repeatedly maintained on and off the floor of the Senate that Haiti was "in the position of a conquered country and the Haitian people regard themselves as the victim of an oppressive foreign invader." Having the then well-known economist Paul H. Douglas of the University of Chicago as his speech writer, King relentlessly continued his assault on Haitian policy. Often, to emphasize his arguments, Senator King cited the findings of noted authorities on Haiti or those of independent commissions.
The Utah Democrat's insistence on Haitian self-determination reached radical proportions by the late 1920s. On May 13, 1928, King was the principal speaker at a New York meeting of the American Anti-Imperialist League held at the New Harlem Casino on 116th Street and Lenox Avenue. On that occasion he shared the rostrum with leaders of the league and the NAACP as well as the editor of the Daily Worker, organ of the Communist party. In addition, on several occasions during the 1920s, he charged the United States government with "militarism" and insisted that it stop playing the role of "master of Latin America."
After anti-American disturbances occurred in Haiti in 1929— especially the one at Aux Cayes —the Hoover administration began to think of withdrawal. Senator King recognized the significance of the Haitian unrest: "The people resent American occupation, and no matter how long we maintain our marines in Haiti, there will be continuing resentment which will be a handicap in the proper development of the country." On January 18, 1930, King conferred with Hoover at the White House, insisting upon the immediate appointment of a commission to formulate plans of withdrawal, a free election, a new constitution, the recall of General Russell, and an end to military rule in Haiti. Nineteen days later Hoover appointed Cameron Forbes, former governor-general of the Philippines to head an investigatory commission to Haiti. It is interesting to note that President Borno threatened to resign if Senator King were appointed to the commission.
The Forbes Commission "was the beginning of the end of the occupation." Despite this milestone King did not abandon interest in Haiti. Urged on by the NAACP, King continued to insist upon Haitian self-determination through the early Roosevelt years. Despite his later split with New Deal policies King's early relationship with Franklin D. Roosevelt was amicable, especially during the campaign of 1932. It is significant to note that when the final Haitian withdrawal plan was formulated in 1933 King was one of two privileged senators consulted by official policymakers.
The question arises: Why was King, a conservative corporation lawyer from Salt Lake City, the foremost critic of Haitian policy? To the Utah senator the occupation of Haiti and other protectorates and insular possessions was immoral, for he believed that the existence of an American empire was demeaning to the honor of the United States and contrary to American tradition. He insisted that it "was not compatible with our form of government to adopt a colonial system and subject alien people to our authority under laws and policies which treat them as inferior people." King argued that an America bent on foreign conquest could not remain a free, liberal democracy at home. Consequently he advocated independence for Haiti as well as the Philippines, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Santo Domingo, and Nicaragua. Writing to Moorfield Storey, he expressed a hope for the day when the United States would "give to the Filipinos their own country and that we will withdraw from Santo Domingo and Haiti, and then, by helpful suggestion and disinterested friendship, aid the people in their hard struggle for selfgovernment." The Utah senator was primarily motivated by these moralistic principles in his anti-imperialist stand, yet to conclude that King was moved exclusively by them would indicate a certain obtuseness.
Another important consideration seems to have been Senator King's conservative views on government spending. He was a firm advocate of reducing expenditures, and, consequently, throughout the 1920s he urged slashes in military appropriations. On January 4, 1922, he maintained, "The overhead of both the Army and the Navy is entirely too great. We have not learned the art of economy in handling the Army and in handling the Navy." King continually insisted on immediate reduction to that effect. His anti-imperialist position was directly related to his conservatism with regard to government spending. In his speeches the Utah senator lamented the excessive costs of the protectorate system. In typical fashion King asserted:
King had earlier estimated that the United States government had spent almost fifty million dollars in the seizure and pacification of those two Caribbean nations. It is little wonder that his anti-imperialist efforts often took the form of riders to naval appropriations bills.
The beet sugar industry, a most vital staple in Utah's economy, was inextricably connected to King's anti-imperialism. As was true of much of American agriculture, the beet sugar industry was especially prosperous during World War I. With the sudden ending of the conflict and the resulting surplus of sugar in the postwar era, prices fell sharply and economic disaster came to Utah. On May 19, 1920, raw sugar sold for 23.57 cents per pound. By the end of 1921, the price of raw sugar had fallen to 1.81 cents per pound. The fall was also reflected in the price of beets. Utah beets which sold for $12.03 a ton in 1920 dropped to $5.47 in 1921. Much of the blame for the crash was placed on the overproduction of Cuban sugar, for American-owned Cuban sugar companies had "tragically underestimated the ability of the European beet sugar industry to recover from the war." As a result Cuban sugar flooded the world market, precipitating a depression in the industry. In fact the Utah beet sugar industry became so depressed that the Mormon church bailed out the leading producer with a loan. Utah's senators, both Mormons, reacted to the state's economic misfortune. In this crisis both King and Reed Smoot were fierce economic nationalists favoring high tariffs to exclude Cuban sugar. Consequently they favored such measures as the Emergency Tariff Act of 1921, the Fordney-McCumber Act of 1922, and, eventually, the Smootsponsored Tariff of 1930, hoping to bring relief to one of their state's major industries. 4
To Senator King—unlike Smoot—the tariff was only part of the solution. The Utah Democrat saw the steadily increasing tariff-free sugar supplies entering the United States from her insular possessions and protectorates—Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Isands, Hawaii, and the Philippines. King's solution to the sugar problem entailed giving these insular possessions independence and then applying the tariff to the newly created countries. It also involved discouraging foreign investors from potential sugar-exporting countries such as Haiti and Santo Domingo by granting full independence. Therefore it appears that King's anti-imperialist stand—his advocacy of immediate selfdetermination for Hispaniola, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and the Philippines—was motivated to some degree by the depressed economic condition of the Great Basin beet sugar industry.
Senator King's campaign for Haitian independence ended in August 1934 with the withdrawal of the last United States marines. His efforts on behalf of the Black republic finally reached fruition after more than thirteen years of continuous protest. Throughout the New Era his attempted riders to naval appropriations bills and dramatic headline-grabbing helped keep the Haitian question alive on Capitol Hill, at Foggy Bottom, and in executive chambers. Despite his not altogether altruistic motives, King's tireless struggle to end the American empire, whether in Haiti or elsewhere, makes the Democratic senator an interesting as well as a significant public statesman both in Utah and in American history.
For full citations and images please view this article on a desktop.
