This article relies largely or entirely on a single source. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please help improve this article by introducing citations to additional sources. Find sources: "Olney–Pauncefote Treaty" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (November 2022) |
This article includes a list of references, related reading, or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations. Please help improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (November 2022) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
The Olney–Pauncefote Treaty of 1897 was a proposed treaty between the United States and Britain in 1897 that would have required arbitration of major disputes. The treaty was rejected by the US Senate and never went into effect.
The Venezuelan crisis of 1895 was peacefully resolved through arbitration. Both nations realized that a mechanism was desirable to avoid possible future conflicts. In January 1897, US Secretary of State Richard Olney negotiated an arbitration treaty with the British diplomat Julian Pauncefote. US President Grover Cleveland and his successor William McKinley both supported the treaty, as did most opinion leaders, academics, and leading newspapers. In Britain, it was promoted by pacifist Liberal MP for Haggerston Randal Cremer; the main opposition came from Irish-Americans, who held a very negative view of Britain because of its treatment of Ireland.
The US Senate, however, passed a series of amendments that exempted important issues from any sort of arbitration. Any issue that was not exempted would need a two-thirds vote of the Senate before arbitration could begin. Virtually nothing was left of the original proposal, and in May 1897, the Senate voted 43 in favor to 26 opposed, three votes short of the two-thirds majority needed. The Senate was jealous of its control over treaties and was susceptible to a certain deep-rooted Anglophobia.
Further reading
- Blake, Nelson M. "The Olney–Pauncefote Treaty of 1897," American Historical Review, (1945) 50#2 pp. 228–243 in JSTOR