Monday, November 27, 2017

Destroyers for Bases

The Destroyers for Bases deal was an agreement made between the US and Britain in 1940. The US sent 50 destroyers to Britain in exchange for access to naval bases on the Atlantic coast of Canada, in the Caribbean, and in Bermuda. The Americans were given access to these bases for 99 years.

There were numerous factors which could have played a role in creating this agreement. Roosevelt announced to the public that the move was made in order to strengthen America's defenses in the Western hemisphere and that its sole intent was American protection. He specifically said that this move was not relevant to America’s neutrality and was not specifically meant to aid Britain in the war. The defense of American assets in the West may have been a factor in the deal because the US was able to gain some key strategic positions. However, it is clear that a more significant consequence of this deal was that the US provided military aid to Britain. This was most likely Roosevelt’s foremost reason for making this move. By proclaiming that the trade was to defend American interests, as shown by the access to strategic bases, Roosevelt would not completely alienate the isolationists. This fit into his “short of war” policy, maintaining a veil of neutrality while helping the British. This supposed neutrality would also help Roosevelt in the upcoming election. A third, less important, possible motivation from Roosevelt’s perspective may have been that Britain’s desperation for help could have given him favorable terms in the agreement. This would allow him to obtain assets for America at potentially a lower cost than at other times.

Whether Roosevelt had the authority and power to negotiate this deal without the approval or opinion of Congress is a controversial matter. In initial discussions between Churchill and Roosevelt, Roosevelt responded to Churchill’s requests by saying that he could not send destroyers without Congress agreeing and that he could not bring up the issue in Congress for fear of angering the isolationists. However, eventually, an argument that Roosevelt was capable of carrying out this action without going through Congress arose. The argument was that these destroyers were not necessary for the defense of the US at that time and therefore an executive agreement giving the destroyers to Britain, which was not subject to the approval of Congress, was allowed. Overall, whether Roosevelt should have been able to carry out this transaction is debatable and the justification for the legality of the deal was shaky.

In the end, the Destroyers for Bases Agreement was signed by Roosevelt on September 2, 1940. This was one of the first major steps toward American involvement in the war. It was also symbolic of the alliance and feeling of cooperation between America and Britain which has persisted to this day.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ww2peopleswar/timeline/factfiles/nonflash/a1138420.shtml
http://www.newhistorian.com/roosevelt-announces-destroyers-for-bases-agreement/4742/
https://www.roberthjackson.org/article/destroyers-for-bases-agreement-september-2-1940/
Freedom from Fear

2 comments:

  1. I really enjoyed your post Shawn! I think it's very interesting to see how Roosevelt intervened more as president instead of previous laissez faire government, gaining more power for himself. Building off of your point about the Agreement partially being for American safety, Roosevelt also explained his actions in respect to democracy. In a fireside chat in 1940, Roosevelt argued that it wasn't about going to war, but rather urging America to become an arsenal of democracy. I also looked more into the Destroyers for Bases Agreement as well as the context surrounding the event, and Roosevelt actually found loopholes that restricted him from helping Britain. For example, the Neutrality Acts of 1935 banned the shipment or sale of arms from the US to any fighting nation, but this did not restrict him from sending ships. As a result, he was able to take advantage of this loophole, and to a limited extent, legally aid Britain. A question I had from this was: How could this influence the presidential power of presidents that succeeded after Roosevelt?

    http://usnhistory.navylive.dodlive.mil/2014/09/02/destroyers-for-bases-roosevelt-finds-loophole-in-neutrality-act-to-help-great-britain/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, for one thing, Roosevelt's immense executive power was the impetus to change the amount of power that presidents could hold. While war time often means presidents and the central government gain more power than in peace time, FDR's unprecedented four terms led to the passage of the 22nd Amendment in 1951: an elected president may only serve up to two terms in office. In at least this regard, FDR's legacy actually limited the power of his successors!
      Sources: https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendments/amendment-xxii
      https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/world-war-ii/essays/franklin-delano-roosevelt%E2%80%94four-term-president%E2%80%94and-election-1944

      Delete