Dollar Diplomacy.

New York Times 100 years ago today, February 2, 1913:
    The very earnest and often eloquent address delivered by Thomas Nelson Page before "The Virginians" on Wednesday evening last will be found this morning in the magazine section of The Times. Mr. Page is a thinker of great sincerity, and a writer of marked vigor and grace. His address is well worth attention.
    We are persuaded, however, that the reader may rise from its perusal with a feeling that the present situation in the Republic is not really so gloomy, perplexed and menacing as Mr. Page seems inclined to find it. His treatment of what he calls "Dollar Diplomacy" is characteristic of his general spirit. He is impressed with the sordid nature of some of the aims and methods of the State Department in recent years, and thinks that it is fraught with peril to the friendly and mutually helpful relations that should exist between us and other nations. It does not appear to us that he quite grasps the facts. Indeed, the most serious and important work done by our State Department under the responsible guidance of the President of late years has been along lines quite the reverse of sordid. One instance is the termination of the commercial treaty with Russia as a practical assertion of the equal rights of all American citizens, without distinction of wealth, origin, or belief. Another and more conspicuous was the negotiation of the treaties with Great Britain and France, aiming to establish a permanent and general policy of peaceful adjudication of international disputes. This purpose was essentially idealistic rather than materialistic. The plan was one of the noblest and loftiest that American statesmanship ever conceived. There is nothing in the record of any of our Presidents, not even in that of Washington or of Lincoln, that is more splendidly humane or more broadly and lastingly sagacious than this, and it will place Mr. Taft's name high on the roll of those that love their fellow-men.
    It is true that the treaties failed to receive the assent of the Senate in their original form. But they were left in a form that still may be very useful, and for the check to them our diplomacy is not responsible, since the Senate is not mainly chosen for its diplomatic functions. We might add other instances of the prevalence in our international policy of a spirit not at all sordid. We content ourselves with these and with calling attention to what we believe is the fact, that in this field, as in many others, the America of to-day compares very favorably with the America of a hundred years ago, when "the fathers" were still in places of power and influence. It is well to reverence what is good in the past, and to strive for the best in the present, but it is well to preserve a perspective as nearly just as may be. We are convinced that the movement of society in America to-day is not downward and not backward.