American Ambassadors: A Guide for

Aspiring Diplomats and Foreign Service

Officers 2nd Edition Dennis C. Jett
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/american-ambassadors-a-guide-for-aspiring-diplomat
s-and-foreign-service-officers-2nd-edition-dennis-c-jett/
 AMERIC AN

AMBASSADORS

A Guide for Aspiring Diplomats

and Foreign Service Officers
Second Edition

Dennis C. Jett
American Ambassadors
 Dennis C. Jett

American
Ambassadors
A Guide for Aspiring Diplomats
and Foreign Service Officers

Second Edition
Dennis C. Jett
School of International Affairs
Pennsylvania State University
University Park, PA, USA

ISBN 978-3-030-83768-6 ISBN 978-3-030-83769-3 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83769-3

1st edition: © Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Nature America Inc. 2014

2nd edition: © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer
Nature Switzerland AG 2022
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher,
whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation,
reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other
physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer
software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt
from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained
herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with
regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Cover illustration: jacket image © ganko - Fotolia.com

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature
Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
 ADST-DACOR Diplomats and Diplomacy
Series

Margery Boichel Thompson

Series Editor

Since 1776, extraordinary men and women have represented the United
States abroad under widely varying circumstances. What they did and
how and why they did it remain little known to their compatriots.
In 1995, the Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training (ADST)
and DACOR, an organization of foreign affairs professionals, created
the Diplomats and Diplomacy book series to increase public knowl-
edge and appreciation of the professionalism of American diplomats and
their involvement in world history. Dennis Jett’s study, which explains
where American ambassadors come from, where they go, and why they
are more important than ever, is the 56th volume in the series.

v
vi ADST-DACOR Diplomats and Diplomacy Series

Related Titles in the Series

Jonathan Addleton, Mongolia and the United States: A Diplomatic

History
Herman J. Cohen, Intervening in Africa: Superpower Peacemaking in a
Troubled Continent
Charles T. Cross, Born a Foreigner: A Memoir of the American Presence
in Asia
Donald P. Gregg, Pot Shards: Fragments of a Life Lived in CIA, the
White House, and the Two Koreas
Brandon Grove, Behind Embassy Walls: The Life and Times of an
American Diplomat
Parker T. Hart, Saudi Arabia and the United States: Birth of a Security
Partnership
Edmund J. Hull, High-Value Target: Countering al Qaeda in Yemen
Cameron Hume, Mission to Algiers: Diplomacy by Engagement
Joyce E. Leader, From Hope to Horror: Diplomacy and the Making of
the Rwanda Genocide
Robert H. Miller, Vietnam and Beyond: A Diplomat’s Cold War Educa-
tion
Ronald Neumann, The Other War: Winning and Losing in Afghanistan
David D. Newsom, Witness to a Changing World
Nicholas Platt,China Boys: How U.S. Relations with the PRC Began and
Grew
Howard B. Schaffer,Ellsworth Bunker: Global Troubleshooter, Vietnam
Hawk
Raymond F. Smith, The Craft of Political Analysis for Diplomats
James W. Spain, In Those Days: A Diplomat Remembers
Monteagle Stearns, Gifted Greek: The Enigma of Andreas Papandreou
Jean Wilkowski, Abroad for Her Country: Tales of a Pioneer Woman
Ambassador in the U.S. Foreign Service

For a complete list of series titles, visit <adst.org/publications>

 Praise for the First Edition

“An insightful, informative and entertaining treatment of an important

subject.”
—Richard J. Walter, Professor of History-Emeritus, Washington University
in St. Louis, USA

“A thorough study of the process that takes the reader step by step
through the arcane labyrinth that must be successfully navigated to
secure an appointment as ambassador. Students of American diplomacy
and aspirants to Ambassadorships will find it a must-read.”
—Ambassador Joseph Wilson (Ret.), author of The Politics of Truth

“A lively and informative read for anyone wondering why the United
States, of all the countries that count in the world, is the only one that
has a large number of ambassadors whose only job qualification is to have
given money to winning presidential candidates.”
—Ambassador Stephen Bosworth (Ret.), former dean of the Fletcher
School of Law and Diplomacy, USA

vii
 Praise for the Second Edition

“Ambassador Dennis Jett offers an unvarnished and insightful analysis

of why people are selected for the coveted position of ambassador and
how they are evaluated once they take office. His unsparing criticism
of political appointees with no foreign policy background is valid, as is
his call for the meritorious selection of Foreign Service Officers who are
chosen for the job. Ambassador Jett’s knife-like critique is born out of
his genuine concern for America’s ability to support democracy, human
rights, and open markets in an increasingly competitive world when a
significant portion of American ambassadors lack the skills to do so.”
—Ambassador Harry K. Thomas, Jr. (Ret.) former Director General of
the Foreign Service

“A book that sparkles in its candid explanations of how US ambassadors

are chosen, perform, and should be chosen and perform as well as lucid
and amusing commentary on current US foreign policy and practice.”
—Ambassador Dan Simpson (Ret.), Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

ix
x Praise for the Second Edition

“A thought-provoking, important contribution to the study of diplomacy

in general, and to the role of the American ambassador specifically.”
—Peter Van Buren, US Department of State, Foreign Service Officer
(ret.), author of We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the
Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People

“This book makes a compelling case that ambassadors who know little
about the countries to which they are accredited, or the conduct of diplo-
macy, cannot represent the United States nearly as effectively as can the
career professionals of the US Foreign Service.”
—Steven Alan Honley, editor, Foreign Service Journal (2001–2014)

“If you worry that the US risks losing its footing in the world, it is due
in no small part to money corrupting the ambassadorial appointment
process and political gridlock in Washington. This book should be a
must-read for every member of Congress.”
—James Bruno, author and journalist

“This book will interest anyone who cares about America’s future in
world affairs and enjoys an informative and provocative read.”
—Ambassador Kenneth L. Brown (Ret.), former president of the
Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training (2001–2014)
For Brian, Allison and Noa.
 Preface to the Second Edition

A preface is the part of a book that often gets skipped because the reader
wants to quickly get to the heart of the subject being covered. That is
unfortunate as the author will frequently provide information the reader
ought to consider when the author presents his arguments. Here are
some thoughts to keep in mind when reading this book, as well as an
explanation for why this second edition is necessary and for whom it is
intended.
Let’s start with who I am. We are all greatly influenced by our back-
ground, education, and experience. It would be nice to think that one
could write a book that was dispassionate and objective despite those
influences, but it would be naïve to think that is really possible very
often. In my case, it is important to point out that I spent 28 years
as a career diplomat and another two decades, since retiring from the
State Department, in academia. In other words, for some people I am a
former card-carrying member of the deep state who is now one of the
not-to-be-trusted liberal elitists of academia.
To those who might believe that I can only unapologetically confirm
their suspicions. I will try nonetheless to paint a clear picture of where

xiii
xiv Preface to the Second Edition

American ambassadors come from, where they go, what they do, and
why they still matter in today’s world of globalization and instant
communications. But I won’t kid myself or the reader by suggesting that
I can do that in a way that is free of my own opinions and experience.
Having spent 20 years working my way up through the ranks of the
Foreign Service before I became an ambassador, one might conclude I
am opposed to anyone who did not go through that process being given
the job. That is not the case. There have been some very good political
appointee ambassadors. But there have been some very bad ones as well
because who gets to be a noncareer ambassador is determined mainly
by a person’s relationship with the president rather than suitability for
the job. That person has to have helped the president get elected by
having supported him either financially, politically, or personally and
qualifications for the job are only a secondary consideration.
While I will try to describe both career and political appointee ambas-
sadors objectively, I regard diplomacy as a serious profession. I am
therefore not ready to agree that it is something so easy that someone
with no experience in international affairs, government, or the mili-
tary can learn all they need to know in the three-week course the State
Department gives to all ambassadors before they go out to their posts. If
I argued that I could build a high-rise hotel or drill for oil, no one would
take me seriously and for good reason. But people who were successful
at real estate development or in an energy company seem to have little
difficulty assuming they would be the perfect diplomat. So where some
may find a lack of objectivity, I’d prefer to see it as a realistic appreciation
for what the job requires.
Another area where my opinions will be obvious is in discussing the
Trump administration. So I will say at the outset that I believe him to be
the most corrupt and incompetent president in American history. It is a
sad commentary on the degree of political partisanship in Washington
that he was not removed from office either time he was impeached.
Not daunted by his place in history as the only president impeached
twice, he refused to accept his loss in the 2020 election. Despite the fact
that he lost in 2016 by 3 million votes and in 2020 by over 7 million
votes, Trump has claimed he had won in 2020 by a landslide. Unfor-
tunately his followers believed him. He then proceeded to incite a riot
 Preface to the Second Edition xv

on January 6, 2021 as the vote was being certified by congress. At his

urging his adherents stormed the capital building with such violence that
it resulted in the deaths of several people. Trump’s denial of the elec-
tion results by early February 2021 had cost the American taxpayers over
half a billion dollars to cover the damages, additional security, and other
expenses.1 His undermining of American democracy has inspired fellow
Republicans to attempt to capitalize on the big lie by passing laws all over
the country that are target not at preventing voter fraud because there is
no significant fraud. The laws are intended to suppress the participation
of voters who typically vote Democratic in order to gain political advan-
tage. By doing so, they are making American democracy a joke rather
than an example for the rest of the world.
As he did with some many things while President Trump has mone-
tized those lies about the election by turning them into a fundraising
bonanza and collecting a quarter billion dollars by the end of January
2021.2 His making hundreds of millions of dollars off of his continued
efforts to keep the lie of election fraud alive should go down the biggest
scam ever for the grifter in chief.
But his damage to America did not start after he lost the election.
From his first day in office, he undermined every part of government
that he took an interest in especially the Justice Department, the intelli-
gence community, and various inspector generals. And he conducted an
incoherent foreign policy by tweet and debilitated the State Department
with the appointment of the two worst secretaries of state in history.
So, no I’m not a fan of his. And one reason for this second edition
is to discuss his impact on the appointment of ambassadors and how
it varied sharply from past practice. Trump was never constrained by
the norms established by his predecessors or propriety. He conducted
himself in full public view for anyone to see, which is why he hated
the media for reporting on his falsehoods, incompetence, and other
misdeeds. While one should never expect politicians to tell the truth all
the time, Trump was the master of false and misleading statements. Fact-
checkers at the Washington Post recorded over 30,000 of them during
his time in office.3
Trump used the presidency as he used his businesses in his endless
attempts to make himself wealthy and famous. How someone who
xvi Preface to the Second Edition

received over $400 million from his wealthy father and who declared
bankruptcy six times can claim to be a great businessman is just another
one of his falsehoods. But he was undeniably able to make himself
famous.
He was the first president, indeed the first major party candidate for
the presidency, to not have had a moment’s worth of prior experience in
elected office, government, or the military and it constantly showed at
every turn. It was reflected in his response to COVID 19 where, instead
of organizing and leading the effort to counter the virus, he made mask
wearing another battle in the culture war. And he was more interested
in reopening the economy than public health because he knew strong
growth and low unemployment were his best arguments for reelection.
As a result, hundreds of thousands of Americans died before what should
have been their time. One study estimated that 40% of the deaths could
have been avoided.4
Trump’s acts of negligent homicide did not end with his presidency.
After claiming he was immune to the virus, in his last month in office he
and his wife received the vaccine against it.5 Not only did he keep that
a secret, but when all the other living former presidents and first ladies
did a public service ad urging Americans to get vaccinated, Trump and
his wife refused to participate.6
Vaccine rejection is far more prevalent in rural areas for a reason.7
In those parts of the country, Trump beat Biden by over 30% points.8
But Trump is not proving lethal to just his most ardent followers. The
failure of a significant portion of the population to get vaccinated has
slowed attempts to bring the virus under control and thereby prolonged
the threat of the virus to the entire country.
Trump’s failure to act responsibly was not limited just to public health.
When it came to ambassadorial appointments, Trump’s approach was
much the same story—doing what was best for him rather than the
country. He appointed the highest percentage of political appointee
ambassadors of any president since World War II. He left office with 18
nominations that a Republican-controlled Senate had failed to act upon.
And he had another 11 ambassadorial posts vacant because he had not
bothered to put forward a candidate.
 Preface to the Second Edition xvii

All these failings will be dismissed by Trump loyalists as unimportant

as they have an excuse or justification for everything he has done or said.
That is fine, this book is not intended for them. People who slavishly
follow a reality TV star because they like the reality he fabricates probably
don’t care about such things as how this country is represented overseas.
There are three groups of readers who may be interested in this book,
however, and it will have something for all of them. The first and largest
group is composed of those who may have wondered about ambassadors
and their relevance in today’s world. This book explains where American
ambassadors come from, where they go, what they do, and why they are
still important in our era of globalized instant communications.
The second group is Foreign Service Officers who may aspire to
become an ambassador even though only about five percent of them
will succeed. This book offers some advice on the bureaucratic politics
involved in becoming a career ambassador. That is not to say there is a
magic formula for attaining the rank or that the advice will always be
true. The personnel system is constantly being tweaked and the impor-
tance of dumb luck should never be underestimated. But there are things
that can be done to improve one’s chances.
The last group will be those outside of government who wish to add
the title ambassador to their resumes. The odds against being successful
are long, but advice will be offered to those who succeed with the hope
that it will make the experience more pleasant and productive for all
involved. Not that I am in favor of most political appointee ambas-
sadors but, given that money and influence matter in politics, they will
undoubtedly be a part of America’s diplomatic efforts, so the better they
do their job, the better off our country will be.
Regardless of who the reader is, I hope they find this book useful and
informative even if they don’t agree with the political commentary. Who
gets to be an ambassador is a complicated process that lacks transparency,
and all too often gets only perfunctory congressional oversight. Even
those who study the subject can come up with misimpressions bordering
on the absurd. One recent academic paper, for instance, after a statistical
analysis, concluded “the United States is less likely to experience a mili-
tarized dispute with a host nation when it is represented by a political
ambassador.” It also discovered that “individual ambassadors matter, but
xviii Preface to the Second Edition

diplomatic experience alone is not the only attribute that makes for an
effective ambassador.”9 After reading this book, anyone should be able to
understand the sheer stupidity of the first conclusion and why the second
is so blindingly obvious that it is hardly a revelation.
I also hope that reading this book prompts an understanding of why
one feature of American exceptionalism should not be the fact that the
United States is the only country in the world that sells the title ambas-
sador. And I hope it encourages some to consider serving their country
by representing it abroad.

University Park, USA Dennis C. Jett

Notes
1. Toluse Olorunnipa, and Michelle Ye Hee Lee, “Trump’s Election Fraud
Falsehoods Have Cost Taxpayers $519 Million.” The Washington Post,
February 6, 2021, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/interactive/
2021/cost-trump-election-fraud/. Accessed on May 24, 2021.
2. Jemima McEvoy, Trump Raised $250 Million Since Election to Challenge
Outcome-Here’s Where Most of the Money Will Actually Go. Forbes Maga-
zine, January 31, 2021, www.forbes.com/sites/jemimamcevoy/2021/01/
31/trump-raised-250-million-since-election-to-challenge-outcome-heres-
where-most-of-the-money-will-actually-go/?sh=534f77938824. Accessed on
May 24, 2021.
3. Glenn Kessler, and Salvador Rizzo, “Analysis|Trump’s False or Misleading
Claims Total 30,573 over 4 Years.” The Washington Post, February 10,
2021, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/01/24/trumps-false-
or-misleading-claims-total-30573-over-four-years/. Accessed on May 24,
2021.
4. Amanda Holpuch, “US Could Have Averted 40% of Covid Deaths,
Says Panel Examining Trump’s Policies.” The Guardian, February 11,
2021, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/feb/10/us-coronavirus-
response-donald-trump-health-policy. Accessed on May 24, 2021.
5. Jemima McEvoy, Trump Vaccinated in January After Claiming He Was
‘Immune’ to Covid-19. Forbes Magazine, March 1, 2021, https://www.
forbes.com/sites/jemimamcevoy/2021/03/01/trump-vaccinated-in-january-
 Preface to the Second Edition xix

after-claiming-he-was-immune-to-covid-19/?sh=6034be287950. Accessed
on May 24, 2021.
6. Sophie Lewis, “Former Presidents Carter, Clinton, Bush and Obama
and First Ladies Unite to Urge Americans to Get Vaccinated.” CBS
News, March 11, 2021, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/covid-vaccine-
obama-bush-clinton-carter-psa/. Accessed on: May 24, 2021.
7. Joanne Kenen, “Vaccine-Skeptical Trump Country Poses Challenge to
Immunization Push.” POLITICO, March 8, 2021, https://www.pol
itico.com/news/2021/03/08/coronavirus-vaccine-rural-america-473940.
Accessed on May 24, 2021.
8. “Our Analysis of the Election Results Suggests that 2020 Accelerated a
Long-Running Trend.” The Economist, November 14, 2020, https://www.
economist.com/united-states/2020/11/14/our-analysis-of-the-election-res
ults-suggests-that-2020-accelerated-a-long-running-trend. Accessed on May
24, 2021.
9. Paul A. MacDonald, “Biden wants to tap friends and party loyalists to fill
high-level ambassadorships. That’s nothing new”, Washington Post, June
22, 2021, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/06/22/biden-
wants-tap-friends-party-loyalists-fill-high-level-ambassadorships-thats-not
hing-new/, Accessed July 1, 2021.
 Acknowledgments

A great many people contributed to making both of the editions of this

book possible. I would like to thank them and offer my apologies to
any that I may have inadvertently omitted. At the School of Interna-
tional Affairs at Penn State, they include the former director of SIA, Dr.
Scott Gartner, the former Dean of Penn State Law, Hari Osofsky, the
acting director of SIA, Dr. Elizabeth Ransom, Dr. Tiya Maluwa, and Dr.
Johannes Fedderke.
No animals were mistreated in the writing of this book, but over the
years a number of able research assistants were. In alphabetical order, they
are Jan Burnett, Matthew Ceccato, Shriya Chadha, Frank Cobs, Ryan
Crotty, Ashley Francis, Sarah Fusco, Alice Greider, Frank Guzman, Casey
Hilland, Greg Kruczek, John Madeira, Adam Paton, Garrett Redfield,
Aridaman Shah Singh, Daniel Smith, Christine Sylvester, and Yuqi Zhao.
In addition, special thanks to Abigail Trzyzewski who was of great help
in putting the second edition together.
My former colleagues from the State Department who helped with
this project are too numerous to name, but they include Adrian Basora,
Eileen Malloy, Sharon Hardy, Sharon Bisdee, Harry Thomas, Robert

xxi
xxii Acknowledgments

Pearson, Skip Gnehm, Tony Motley, Genta Holmes, George Staples, and
Anthony Quainton. Special thanks as well to Ambassador Charles Cobb
and Ambassador Sue Cobb, both of whom contributed greatly to the
chapter on political appointees.
At the Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training, Ambassador
Kenneth Brown was very supportive and helpful. And the man who
has recorded and preserved the oral histories of thousands of diplomats,
Charles Stuart Kennedy, deserves special recognition for all that he has
contributed to making those histories available to all. His efforts have
resulted in a legacy that will be mined by scholars for many years to
come. Thanks also to Margery Thompson and Chris Sibilla at ADST
and to Dan Caldwell at Pepperdine University.
My thanks to Dr. Russell Riley at the Miller Center at the University
of Virginia. The oral histories collected there are another tremendous
resource for scholars. Thanks also to Mike Yared for his useful sugges-
tions for resource material. Another great resource is the data put
together by the American Foreign Service Association. Many thanks
to Kristen Fernekes and Shawn Dorman for allowing me to use that
material. Another AFSA person who deserves recognition is Tex Harris,
who passed away in 2020. He courageously stood up for human rights
in Argentina when some people did not want to listen. And he never
stopped trying to make both AFSA and the State Department better
organizations. He will be missed by all who knew him.
At Palgrave Macmillan, I would like to thank Rebecca Roberts,
Michelle Chen, Brian O’Connor, Nicole Hitner, and Scarlet Neath for
their help in making the process much easier.
Special thanks should also go to Tim Haggerty at Carnegie Mellon
University, who edited the manuscript for the first edition. And also
to Daniel Smith, who also read through the entire manuscript of the
first edition and caught many errors. Any that remain are of course my
fault. Thanks also to Philip Nash of Penn State Shenango who shared
his superb book Breaking Protocol—America’s First Female Ambassadors,
1933–1964, which as the title implies is about the women who were the
first to overcome the barriers to their becoming ambassadors.
 Acknowledgments xxiii

Finally, my children, Brian, Allison, and Noa, and grandchildren,

Emma, Eleanor, and Sophia, provided inspiration and the incentive to
try to make the world a better place. Last but certainly not least is my
spouse, Lynda Schuster, my best friend and toughest editor.
 My Introduction to Diplomatic Life

On the face of it, the first ambassador for whom I worked seemed perfect
for the job. If the director of a movie called up central casting and
told them to send over actors to audition for a role as an ambassador,
he would have been a shoo-in for the part. He had, in fact, been an
actor, costarring in movies with Marlene Dietrich and Shirley Temple.
He had also been a successful politician, elected to Congress twice and
as governor of Connecticut. The Connecticut Turnpike is named after
him.
He came from a wealthy and illustrious lineage—his family included a
senator, an admiral, and another ambassador. They could trace their roots
back to the pilgrims. Tall, handsome, and silver-haired, he was fluent in
several languages. According to Roger Stone, writing as an expert on style
for a pornographic magazine long before he became famous for another
reason, Lodge was “one of the most polished gentlemen in America” for
more than half a century. In addition to being a self-anointed expert on
style, Stone was a close friend and advisor of Trump, who the president
pardoned despite seven felon convictions in order to buy his silence.1

xxv
xxvi My Introduction to Diplomatic Life

Lodge was also named ambassador three times by three different presi-
dents. A journalist once wrote about him that: “If the United States could
be represented around the world the way it is represented in Argentina,
it would be loved by the peoples of all nations.”2
In reality, the ambassador was a disaster—and a dangerous one at that.
Although he seemed to some to be the perfect diplomat, those who knew
him better considered him, in effect, a threat to national security. The
reason for such a divergence of opinion is that there is more to being an
ambassador than simply glitz and glamour. And when it came to John
Davis Lodge, there was little else.
I did not know any of this when I was told Buenos Aires would
be my first assignment. I had joined the State Department only a few
months before after being raised and educated mainly in New Mexico,
which is about as far removed from diplomatic life as one can get. I took
the written exam for the Foreign Service on a whim after a friend gave
me a brochure that basically said join up and see the world. I passed
the written test and went on to take the oral exam, which consisted
of being grilled for a couple of hours by three middle-ranking Foreign
Service Officers (FSOs). Perhaps in an early nod to diversity since none
of them appeared to have ever met someone from New Mexico before, I
passed again and went on for the security clearance investigation and the
medical exam.
The entire process took nearly a year, but in November 1972, I got
my orders, loaded up the Volvo station wagon and made my way, with
my wife and two kids, from Santa Fe to Washington. In our first night in
DC, our car was broken into even though it was parked in the supposedly
guarded basement of the hotel. A few things were stolen as the thieves
sorted through our things. They apparently were not in a hurry as they
took the time to unwrap the birthday presents for my daughter who was
turning four in a few days. Welcome to the big city.
The first thing one does upon entry into the Foreign Service is take a
six-week course, a kind of boot camp for bureaucrats, that is designed to
better acquaint the raw recruits with the government they are about to
go abroad to represent. Toward the end of the course, the fledgling FSOs
are given a list of all the postings in the world that are available for their
first tour of duty. They have to list their preferences and then hope that
 My Introduction to Diplomatic Life xxvii

the personnel system answers their prayers by giving them one of their
top choices.
Being from New Mexico, where the Hispanic and Native American
cultures had an influence even on a transplanted Northeasterner like me,
I decided Latin America would be my first choice. Because Argentina
seemed the most exotic of the possibilities in the southern hemisphere,
that country was at the top of my list. As luck would have it, none of
my peers ranked it as high, so the job was mine. But first I had to take
additional training, including learning to speak Spanish.
It was during language training that I came across an article in the
Washington Post about Lodge written by Lewis Diuguid, the paper’s Latin
American correspondent. In essence, the article said that Lodge was all
style and no substance; dinners at the elegant ambassadorial residence
inevitably dissolved into songfests, with Lodge belting out his favorite
tunes from Broadway shows.3 He was described as being obsessed with
getting his picture in the newspapers. The article claimed that Lodge
kept four staff members in the embassy’s information section engaged
full time in trying to get the local press to run photos and articles about
his latest social activities.
Diuguid implied that Lodge’s desire to appear in the newspapers did
not extend beyond photographs and the society pages. It was an era when
far more newspapers were willing to pay the financial costs of having
foreign bureaus, but Lodge’s contacts among the dozen American jour-
nalists based in Buenos Aires were virtually nonexistent. Diuguid wrote
that he tried without success for a month to get an appointment for an
interview. The article went on to quote anonymous sources, who said
a serious conversation with Lodge was impossible and that if anyone
had any real business to conduct with the embassy, they went to see
the deputy chief of mission. The DCM is the number two person in
an embassy who is always a career diplomat.
As I read the article, I found it hard to believe it was not grossly exag-
gerated. I wondered how someone in such an exalted position could be
such an apparent lightweight. The story was also disconcerting because it
mentioned that “the ambassador’s reactions to frequently perceived fail-
ings of embassy personnel have alienated him from most of his staff.”4
I reasoned that even if this were true, I would have little contact with
xxviii My Introduction to Diplomatic Life

him. As a junior officer, there would be several layers of bureaucracy in

the embassy between us. So I completed my training and departed for
my first overseas tour of duty with enthusiasm.
Although the job had been advertised as one where I would rotate
through various sections of the embassy, when I got to post, I was
informed I would be assigned to the political section just down the hall
from the ambassador’s office for my entire tour. That sounded great to
me. Rather than spend the majority of my two years dealing with visa
applicants or the embassy’s maintenance problems, my time would be
spent covering the politics of a very volatile nation. Among subjects I
was supposed to write reports on was the rapidly expanding terrorism
that was beginning to engulf Argentina.
A military junta had just allowed democratic elections to take place,
but it had also prevented the former president, Juan Peron, from
running. The Peronist candidate was nonetheless victorious and. after
he was inaugurated, he promptly resigned that paved the way for a new
presidential election, which Peron won by a comfortable margin.
Peron had been a populist during his previous time in office in the
early 1950s and had never hesitated to encourage and capitalize on anti-
American sentiment. After 18 years in exile, however, he was an enigma
to the embassy as well as to most Argentines. Although no one was
quite sure where he stood politically, he initially had enthusiastic support
across Argentina’s very wide political spectrum.
Communists on the Left, fascists on the Right, and those in between
saw Peron as a potential political savior. When he first returned to
Argentina from being abroad for so long, a million people went to the
airport to welcome him home. As they awaited his arrival, Right-wing
Peronists attacked Left-wing Peronists and scores were killed or injured.
As the internecine fighting within Peronist ranks continued, two
leftist terrorist groups, the Montoneros and the People’s Revolutionary
Army, began attacking military bases and assassinating policemen and
army officers. Right-wing death squads started to retaliate, and dead
bodies in burned-out cars became an increasingly common news item.
As the country seemed to be slipping into chaos, one of my chores
was updating Washington on the mayhem. After a couple of attacks on
 My Introduction to Diplomatic Life xxix

embassy personnel and some crude rockets fired at the ambassador’s resi-
dence, Washington decided to lower the risk to the official American
community by half of those assigned to the embassy to other countries.
A few weeks after arriving in Buenos Aires in July 1973, I had the
opportunity to witness Lodge in action. He gave a large formal dinner
at the residence for Frank Ortiz, a fellow New Mexican, who was the
official in the State Department in charge of the countries in the southern
cone—the part of the hemisphere farthest from Washington.
Like most diplomatic gatherings, it was not a social occasion. It was an
important opportunity to gather information and impressions on how
the new government would conduct itself with regard to its relations
with the United States. It was not even known whether Peronist officials
invited would come to the dinner. It was feared they might not if hostility
toward the United States was going to again be one of Peron’s policies.
They not only came, but they also were eager to talk.
As the evening unfolded, it seemed as if the Diuguid article had
provided a script for the event. At the end of the sumptuous meal, as
coffee and dessert were being served, Lodge called over an accordionist
who had been providing soft background music. With this accompani-
ment, Lodge burst into song while still seated at the table and rolled off
a number of tunes. We all then adjourned to the ballroom, where he
continued the entertainment. Among his favorite Argentine guests was a
couple whom he summoned to join him at the grand piano. While the
husband played, the wife and Lodge sang duets from Porgy and Bess and
other Broadway hits.
As the show dragged on, the Peronist officials signaled they wanted to
talk privately to Ortiz and Max Krebs, the deputy chief of mission. So
they slipped off together to the library as Lodge continued to serenade
the remaining guests. The Peronists made it clear that the new govern-
ment would be open to a constructive and productive relationship with
the United States, unlike in the past. This was a significant shift in policy
that would be welcomed in Washington.
Finally, after the songfest ended, the guests began bidding Lodge and
his wife good night and thanking them profusely for the evening. The
embassy staff members were always the last to leave as it is customary at
such events for them to stay until they are dismissed by the ambassador.
xxx My Introduction to Diplomatic Life

While we waited for this to happen, Lodge learned of the conversation

that had taken place in the library as he was singing in the ballroom. He
immediately became furious at Krebs, ranting that he had been stabbed
in the back before but never in his own home. Unmoved by the success of
the discussions, Lodge continued to berate his DCM in front of all of us.
That evening I learned an important lesson: a country is not well served
by an ambassador who thinks entertaining is the most important of his
duties and whose ego requires that he always be the center of attention.
Although those who inhabited the society pages with Lodge saw no
faults, Washington was well aware of his shortcomings. When he had his
confirmation hearing in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
before going to Argentina, Senator J. William Fulbright asked him what
kind of government the country had. Lodge said it was democratic, even
though it had been a military dictatorship for years by then.5
Perhaps he thought any dictator who was an anti-communist had to
be embraced by the United States. He had been an unabashed supporter
of Franco when he was ambassador to Spain. After leaving Argentina, one
of his pastimes was mustering support for the brutal Pinochet regime in
Chile.6 And in 1970, after being in Buenos Aires for about a year, he
wrote to President Nixon questioning whether a return to representative
democracy in Argentina was in the best interest of the United States.7
Some in Washington thought keeping Lodge in Buenos Aires was
damaging American interests even before Argentina started heading
toward chaos. In November 1971, a National Security Council staff
member wrote a memo to the National Security Advisor, Henry
Kissinger, saying:

We are all acquainted with Ambassador Lodge’s peculiarities and accus-

tomed to a system which requires us to make do with ambassadors (both
political and career) who are sometimes less than qualified for their posi-
tions. However, the situation in Argentina has gone beyond all bounds.
Ambassador Lodge and his Embassy not only fail to have any contact
worthy of the name with the Argentine Government, but the Ambassador
has become an object of contempt with that Government. The country
is paying a very heavy foreign affairs cost by retaining Ambassador Lodge
in his present position.8
 My Introduction to Diplomatic Life xxxi

The memo had little effect. Some months later, Peter Flanigan, an
assistant to President Nixon, told Kissinger the president felt Lodge could
be left in Argentina because he “was surrounded by competent people.”9
Lodge did not leave for another two years, and at that point he was
already 70 years old. Ten years later, President Reagan, a friend and
fellow former actor, appointed him as ambassador to Switzerland where
he served until 1985.
The memo to Kissinger was marked “Secret,” “Sensitive,” “Eyes Only,”
and “Outside the System” by its author. Classified government docu-
ments, even ones marked “Secret,” are given a very wide distribution,
with copies going to thousands of officials all over the government.
The other three captions on this particular document, however, were all
designed to make sure that as few people saw it as possible. Before it was
declassified, it is unlikely that more than half a dozen people had read it.
Restricting the number of people who read the memo on Lodge was
essential, but not because it could damage national security, which is the
usual justification for the government keeping something secret. It was
important because personnel issues are always extremely sensitive and
have a tremendous impact on professional reputations. A memo as frank
and critical as the one on Lodge would have devastated the career of a less
well-connected official. And if Lodge had found out about it, he would
have done his best to end the career of the officer who wrote it.
Because people’s careers are at stake, personnel decisions are always
tightly restricted to a small group of officials and advisors. They are
therefore among the most difficult to understand. They are never made
transparently, but they are always important and can determine whether
an embassy functions efficiently or not.
I went on to work for and with scores of other ambassadors, both
political appointees and career officers. Perhaps because Lodge was the
first and among the worst, his impression lasted. Twenty years later I
became an ambassador, first in Mozambique and then Peru, where I
had my own firsthand opportunity to experience and understand the
challenges that come with the job.
Everyone is familiar with the title “ambassador,” and many people
think they know what the job entails. Those who had nothing but praise
for Lodge certainly thought they did. Most of those impressions are
xxxii My Introduction to Diplomatic Life

wrong, however, because they do not go beyond an image of attending

cocktail parties and not paying parking tickets. Few people have any idea
who gets the title or what that person really does. And in today’s world
of instant communication, the question is often raised as to whether
ambassadors are necessary at all.
For those reasons, it seemed to me that a book that explains where
ambassadors come from, where they go, what their work entails, and
why they still matter would be worthwhile. There are a number of books
about the Foreign Service, but they tend to be both general and generic.
The treatment of this topic might be left to academics, but that would
not provide much insight. Although the pursuit of grand theories to
explain human interactions is a standard part of social science, they
cannot explain everything. In fact, I doubt they explain much at all
except for the way academics talk to one another. Because success in
academia is driven by the opinion of one’s peers, much of what is written
by academics is not intended to inform a wide audience but rather to
impress a very narrow one consisting of other academics interested in
the same issues.
This book therefore will not propose any single theory to predict who
becomes an ambassador and why some succeed at the job and others do
not. There are too many exceptions to say that there is a rule. There are
certain similarities and patterns that can be described, however, even if
they do not fit neatly into a theory that explains the past and predicts
the future. For instance, regardless of whether a political appointee or a
career officer is chosen, the process for making that decision has several
common characteristics.
It is always a decision by a committee where different interests
are balanced and tradeoffs are required. It is also dependent on the
personalities and the degree of interest, involvement, and influence of
the committee members and others who are not on the committee
but can influence it. Individual decisions, when viewed by someone
outside of the process, may therefore make little sense because these
factors come into play in ever-changing ways that often can produce a
less-than-optimal choice for a specific job.
As a 28-year veteran of the State Department who observed the results
of this process throughout his career and experienced it personally twice,
 My Introduction to Diplomatic Life xxxiii

I believe this book will provide some insight into what really happens.
And having been an academic since I retired from the State Department
in 2000, I appreciate the value of research and of gathering as many other
opinions and as much information as possible.
The remainder of this book will therefore talk about the differences
and similarities between career Foreign Service officers and political
appointees in becoming ambassadors, why they get the job, and where
they are likely to go. It will discuss why ambassadors are as necessary
today as they have been in the past despite technological and social
changes.
The system for choosing ambassadors is the product of history, tradi-
tion, and the growing influence of money on our electoral system. As
a result, the United States is the only country in the world that openly
sells the title ambassador. Bringing about change where merit plays more
of a role will be extremely difficult even though every administration
produces less-than-capable ambassadors who damage our nation’s image
and interests. The system could be improved, however, and steps that
would accomplish that will be considered as well as suggestions for
reform that will not.
To do that the book will be laid out as follows: Chapter 1—“ A Brief
History of the Title”—will begin with the founding of the country and
describe how in its first century no one held the title of ambassador. That
was what the envoys of kings were called, and the political leaders of the
young, egalitarian republic did not want to imply that anyone held a
higher station because of a government appointment. Toward the end of
the nineteenth century, American interests abroad grew, as did the need
for those interests to be more capably protected. There then followed 60
years of gradual professionalization of the diplomatic service until the
middle of the twentieth century.
When the United States emerged from World War II as the most
powerful nation on earth and began to engage in the Cold War, it
realized it had worldwide interests to protect. And it had to confront
communism in even the most far-flung corners of the globe. So Amer-
ican embassies, and ambassadors to run them, became the norm in
virtually every country. It was at this time, during the Eisenhower admin-
istration, that the percentage of ambassadors who were career officers
xxxiv My Introduction to Diplomatic Life

reached a plateau. A ratio of roughly 30/70 for political appointees versus

career ambassadors has persisted ever since.
Chapters 2–4 describe the two routes to becoming an ambassador
and the steps in the clearance and confirmation process. For the career
diplomat, it is not just entering the Foreign Service and working one’s
way to the top. There are five different specializations within the Foreign
Service—political, economic, management, consular, and public diplo-
macy—and which one is chosen will have much to do with whether or
not one becomes an ambassador.
The route for political appointees is, of course, very different, and
based on interviews with former noncareer ambassadors, oral histories,
and other sources, that process will be described as well. A person taking
that route has to help the president get elected and can do that in
several way. It can be through making personal campaign contributions
or bundling those of others, adding gender and/or ethnic diversity to the
ambassadorial ranks, providing a political payoff, or simply by being a
loyal staff aide, business associate, or close friend. Those different types
of linkages to the president are not mutually exclusive and several can
come into play in the relationship, but one is usually more important
when it comes to securing the appointment.
The two routes converge when the president makes a decision on
the person to be appointed, whether it is a career officer or political
appointee. At that point, the paperwork goes back to the State Depart-
ment and the last steps in the process begin. The final hurdles to be
cleared—obtaining a security clearance and Senate confirmation—can
trip up the nominee, sometimes for reasons that have nothing to do with
that person.
After describing who becomes an ambassador and how that happens,
Chapter 5 then looks at what that person does once on the job. It also
explains why the performance of ambassadors is difficult to measure. The
best measure of how well an embassy is run comes from the State Depart-
ment’s internal auditor, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG), which
is supposed to inspect each embassy once every five years. After extensive
preparation in Washington, the OIG dispatches a team of about a dozen
inspectors to the country in question. They talk to virtually everyone
who works in the embassy during the course of their visit, which lasts
 My Introduction to Diplomatic Life xxxv

several weeks. They then write up a comprehensive report that covers

everything, including the performance of the ambassador. Although they
were withheld from the public in the past, in 2008 Congress mandated
that these reports be made public and they can be found on the OIG
website with only minor redactions when there is a true national security
issue involved.
These inspection reports are negotiated documents, because the
inspectors discuss them extensively with those being inspected before
they are put into final form. They can still be candid and critical,
however, despite attempts to soften their language. The ambassadors to
Malta, the Bahamas, Luxembourg, and Kenya under President Obama
all resigned as a direct result of the reports done on their embassies.
The report on President Trump’s ambassador to Britain, a billionaire
businessman name Robert Woody Johnson, pointed out that he made
inappropriate comments on topics such as religion, sex and color which
upset the embassy staff. Johnson tried to soften the report before it
became public, but he had nothing to fear. It did not cost him his job
perhaps because those comments sound a lot like many made by the
president who appointed him.
After the chapter on what ambassadors do, the question of where
they go will be considered. The two different kinds of ambassadors go
to different kinds of countries. There is a clear divide between where
career diplomats are assigned and which posts are reserved for political
appointees. The latter are very rarely sent to places that are dangerous
or unhealthy and never would a big campaign contributor wind up in
such a country. Because of that there are few political appointees in Latin
America, very few in the Middle East and South Asia, and there have
never been any in Central Asia other than two who came from the Civil
Service.
Within the ranks of the political appointees, depending on the ambas-
sador’s relationship to the president, there are differences in where that
person is sent. Western Europe is reserved for big contributors and how
much money they tossed into the pot matters. London is always a lot
more expensive than Lisbon. In general, the bigger a country’s economy
and the more tourists it receives annually, the more likely it will have
xxxvi My Introduction to Diplomatic Life

a political appointee as ambassador and the more that person will have
paid to get the job.
The chapter on where they go will also discuss how religion, gender,
ethnicity, and sexual orientation can all play a role in determining who
goes to a particular embassy and how the importance of those factors
have changed over time. There is one embassy, for example, where the
ambassador must not only be a Catholic but also be opposed to abortion.
Chapter 7 will consider the way ambassadors are selected, what they
do, and why they still matter in today’s increasingly globalized world.
No other country selects its highest level diplomatic representation in
the way the United States does. Because it often amounts to little more
than selling ambassadorships, it astounds the rest of the world. It is a
surprising practice to so many because today’s gravest problems can only
be addressed through effective diplomatic action and cooperation and
because the rest of the world views the ambassador as the personification
of how the United States approaches those problems. No country, not
even the world’s only superpower, can effectively address those challenges
on its own, even though the United States often acts as if it thinks it can.
The growing cost of presidential campaigns has led to a political
process driven by money where big donors are essential. To attract those
donors, a certain number of them will have to be paid off with ambas-
sadorial appointments. Although an explicit quid pro quo is illegal, this
tradition continues and is a form of corruption only slightly less thinly
veiled today than it was during the Nixon era when the president’s
personal lawyer went to jail for selling ambassadorships.
The process can be improved, however, by making it more transparent
and requiring more accountability. In a democracy, changes in the way
government does business can occur if the defenders of the status quo
can be overcome by those seeking to reform things. That cannot happen
unless citizens take the time and make the effort to understand how their
government operates and insist on change when it is required. I hope this
book contributes to that process.
 My Introduction to Diplomatic Life xxxvii

Notes
1. Roger Stone, John Davis Lodge—A Man for All Seasons, December 19, 2012,
http://stoneonstyle.com/archives/john-davis-lodge-a-man-for-all-seasons.
2. Lewis H. Diuguid, “Ambassador Lodge: Urgente,” Washington Post,
February 18, 1973.
3. ibid.
4. ibid.
5. Thomas DeLong, “John Davis Lodge—A Life in Three Acts: Actor, Politi-
cian, Diplomat,” Sacred Heart University Press, 1999, 287.
6. ibid., 310.
7. State Department, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1969–1976 , E-10,
Documents on American Republics, 1969–1972, doc. 64.
8. State Department, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1969–1976 , E-10,
Documents on American Republics, 1969–1972, doc. 73.
9. ibid.
 Contents

1 A Brief History of the Title 1

2 Becoming an Ambassador—The Foreign Service Route 31
3 Becoming an Ambassador—The Political Route 73
4 The Last Steps—Clearance and Confirmation 131
5 What an Ambassador Does 167
6 Where Ambassadors Go 215
7 Why It Matters and How It Might Be Changed 257

Appendices 307
Index 425

xxxix
 List of Figures

Fig. 1.1 Number of diplomatic and consular posts 27

Fig. 2.1 State department organization chart (Source http://www.
state.gov/r/pa/ei/rls/dos/99494.htm) 55

xli
 List of Tables

Table 1.1 Changes in chiefs of mission, 1915–1950 19

Table 1.2 Career vs. political ambassadorial appointments,
1953–2008 20
Table 2.1 Senior foreign service by career track 51
Table 6.1 History of ambassadorial appointments by continent 218
Table 6.2 Female ambassadorial appointments 227
Table 6.3 African American ambassadorial appointments 231
Table 6.4 Hispanic American ambassadorial appointments,
1993–2020 232

xliii
 1
A Brief History of the Title

If it were not for the charm and skill of some of the earliest American
diplomats, the United States might still be a British colony. Benjamin
Franklin was one of the first official envoys sent abroad as the struggle for
independence got underway. His diplomatic efforts were so successful at
eliciting the support of Louis XVI for the revolution that France played
a vital role in determining its outcome.
Although the purpose of America’s diplomats has remained essen-
tially the same over the years—to protect and promote the interests
of their country—the background, preparation, and professionalism of
today’s diplomats have changed significantly since the time of Franklin.
In order to appreciate the importance of diplomats, and in particular
ambassadors, to the country’s security today, it helps to understand how
their role has evolved as the United States has grown from a colony to
a superpower.
There were three stages in this evolution. The first period lasted a
century and was characterized by the fact that virtually all American
diplomats were political appointees and not a single one bore the title
“ambassador.” They had varying degrees of ability, and their tenures

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 1

Switzerland AG 2022
D. C. Jett, American Ambassadors,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83769-3_1
2 D. C. Jett

in their positions were likely to end with the inauguration of the next
president.
There was little thought given to creating a cadre of career diplomats,
as it was believed any educated gentleman could carry out the business
of government. That belief, coupled with a degree of distrust of those
exposed to foreign influences, led to the frequent replacement of the men
who were appointed to diplomatic positions. The only thing they could
depend on was that they had little chance of staying in the job for long.
The second period, which lasted the next 60 years from the end of the
nineteenth century until the middle of the twentieth, saw the gradual
professionalization of the civil service and the creation of a corps of career
diplomats who had a degree of job security. Entrance and promotion
based on merit became the norm, and most diplomats could expect that
their jobs would not come to an end the next time there was a new occu-
pant of the White House. During this period, the title of ambassador
began to be used and the percentage of career ambassadors gradually rose
from next to nothing to about 70% of the total.
During the third stage, occurring over the past 60 years, the 30/70
ratio between political appointees and career officers as ambassadors has
remained fairly constant with the exception of the Reagan and Trump
administrations. This ratio has been consistent even during the decades
following World War II when the number of ambassadors and embassies
expanded greatly. Because the Cold War was a worldwide struggle and
given the new nations that came into being as a result of decolonization,
more ambassadors were needed to be dispatched to even the farthest-
flung corners of the globe to engage in the struggle against Communism.

The Early years—The Sometimes-Able

Amateurs of a Third-Rate Power
In the earliest days of the republic, the focus of the founding fathers was
on setting up a government and ensuring its survival. Benjamin Franklin
played a key role in that effort in many ways, including when he was sent
to Paris in 1776 with the critically important task of ensuring French
support for America’s struggle for independence from Britain. Despite
 1 A Brief History of the Title 3

the fact that he did not conform to diplomatic conventions in dress

or other formalities, he performed brilliantly because of his charm and
intellect. He is considered America’s first ambassador even though he was
never given the title. Had he not been such a success, the American Revo-
lution would have had a different outcome as French naval power and
other assistance made an American victory possible.
In 1781, when American legislators created a new government under
the Articles of Confederation, included a Department of Foreign Affairs.
A few “ministers” were dispatched to key European countries to handle
the new country’s official business, and a handful of “consuls” were
named to help Americans do business overseas.
In the country’s early years, anything that hinted at special status for
a government official was considered to be against republican principles.
Even though Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution gave the president
the power to appoint “ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls,”
for the country’s first 115 years, it was represented abroad only by men
with the title of minister or consul. An ambassador was considered to be
the emissary of a king, and the title was believed to be inconsistent with
the values of an egalitarian society.
Having fought for independence from a British king, Americans were
uncomfortable with lofty titles or anything that hinted at special status.
This distaste for giving, or even receiving, such honors is also reflected in
the Constitution. Article 1, Section 9, which mainly describes things the
Congress may not do, also states: “No title of nobility shall be granted
by the United States. And no person holding any office of profit or trust
under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any
present, emolument, office or title, of any kind whatever, from any king,
prince, or foreign state.”
Nonetheless, diplomatic titles mattered even to the founding fathers
who were sent on the earliest diplomatic missions. John Adams, who was
to become the second president, was one of those who cared about such
things. As Jack Rakove notes in his book on the invention of America:

Adams had been sorely miffed when he mistakenly thought that Congress
had made him a mere commissioner while giving John Jay the higher rank
of minister plenipotentiary. A similar slight had marred his previous trip,
4 D. C. Jett

when his name appeared below that of Arthur Lee in the commission
for France even though Adams held weightier credentials as a lawyer and
public servant.1

Despite the sensitivity to titles that Adams displayed, those that were
given to the earliest American diplomats were modest, but so was the
entire foreign policy establishment of the time. In 1789, Congress passed
an act that changed the name of the Department of Foreign Affairs to the
Department of State, in order to reflect the fact that the department was
given responsibility for maintaining certain domestic records as well as
handling international relations. That same year, President Washington
appointed fellow Virginian Thomas Jefferson to be the first secretary of
state.
When Jefferson assumed the position in March 1790, his bureaucratic
empire consisted of four clerks, a translator, a messenger, and an annual
budget for domestic operations of a bit less than $8,000, including his
salary. The total expenditures for the department, both in Washington
and abroad, the next year totaled $56,600.2
Reflecting the egalitarian sentiment of the time, Jefferson made clear
he had no use for the formality and intrigue that was characteristic of
European diplomacy. He had enough experience as a diplomat, however,
to realize that the United States had to be well represented overseas if the
country was to be taken seriously. He and Washington lobbied Congress
for the funds to support a small number of missions abroad headed by
men with the title of minister. Each man was charged with reporting on
political events in the country to which he was assigned and for handling
relations with that government.
This small but growing number of American envoys brought with
them a new style of diplomacy consistent with the values of their
newly independent nation. This style was reflected in their dress as
well as their behavior. Beginning with Franklin, American representa-
tives abroad wore unpretentious clothing and adopted simple manners,
which contrasted sharply with the formality and ostentation of European
courts.3
The spirit of the era and the limitations of the new nation are aptly
described by George Herring in From Colony to Superpower :
 1 A Brief History of the Title 5

In keeping with ideals of republican simplicity—and to save money—the

administration did not appoint anyone to the rank of ambassador. That
“may be the custom of the old world,” Jefferson informed the emperor
of Morocco, “but it is not ours.” The “foreign service” consisted of a
minister to France, chargés d’affaires in England, Spain, and Portugal,
and an agent at Amsterdam. In 1790, the United States opened its first
consulate in Bordeaux, a major source of arms, ammunition, and wine
during the Revolution. That same year, it appointed twelve consuls and
also named six foreigners as vice-consuls since there were not enough
qualified Americans to fill the posts.4

When Jefferson became president, he continued and even extended

the official disdain for the traditional trappings of diplomacy. He
regarded professional diplomats as the “pest[s] of the peace of the world”
and, as a result, cut back the country’s extremely small representation
abroad to what he considered the essential minimum.5 He also put his
personal beliefs into practice in his own office by avoiding the pomp and
circumstance of his predecessors. In contrast to Washington and Adams,
Jefferson made a point of dressing plainly, and he opened the presidential
mansion to visitors from all level of society.
Jefferson’s disdain for formality may have been motivated by his
personal feelings or by an image he wished to project as president. Some
presidents even today seek to deliberately downplay the aura of the
office as a way to show they can connect with common people: Jimmy
Carter, for instance, insisted on carrying his own bags on trips. When
Bill Clinton first took office, it was decided that one way to distinguish
him from his Republican predecessor was to have very few formal state
dinners for visiting dignitaries.6
Whether Jefferson’s motivation was personal or political, his approach
did not sit well with some of the more traditionally minded foreign
diplomats in Washington at the time. Herring notes:

His disdain for protocol scandalized other members of the small and
generally unhappy diplomatic community in Washington. Outraged
when received by the president in a tattered bathrobe and slippers and
forced at a presidential dinner to conform to the “pell-mell” seating
arrangements respecting no rank, the British minister to Washington,
6 D. C. Jett

Anthony Merry, bitterly protested the affront suffered at the president’s

table. Jefferson no doubt privately chuckled at the arrogant Englishman’s
discomfiture, but his subsequent codification of republican practices into
established procedures betrayed a larger purpose. By adapting the new
nation’s forms to its principles, he hoped to establish a uniquely American
style of diplomacy.7

Although Jefferson apparently enjoyed Merry’s pique, an argument

can be made for observing the strictures of diplomatic protocol. It
provides a structure in which people from different countries and
cultures can relate to one another with little chance of unintentional
insults. For instance, if a diplomat’s place at a dinner table is determined
by the pecking order of protocol, then both he and his host will know
where that is, and a potential insult will be avoided. In this case, Jefferson
considered the slight to the British diplomat less important than the
image he wanted to project.
Because of Jefferson’s desire to promote that uniquely American image
of simplicity, during his term of office, American envoys, even those to
the most important countries, only carried the rank of minister plenipo-
tentiary. After the War of 1812 ended, it appeared that America’s survival
as an independent nation was no longer in doubt, and it had, according
to Herring, “surged to the level of a second-rank power.”8 That growing
strength and status of the country prompted a bit of title inflation under
Jefferson’s successor, James Madison. The official designation for the
chiefs of the most important diplomatic missions was elevated to envoy
extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary.
Diplomatic titles were expanding to keep pace with the overseas
influence and interests of a country that was becoming a more impor-
tant player on the world stage. With its survival assured, the emphasis
of American diplomacy shifted to expanding the country’s interna-
tional commerce and avoiding entangling political alliances. To do
that effectively required moving beyond Jefferson’s republican principles,
his disdain for diplomats, and his desire to keep their numbers to a
minimum. In the decade between 1820 and 1830, the number of consuls
almost doubled. They were needed to help American businessmen take
 1 A Brief History of the Title 7

advantage of commercial opportunities abroad, especially in the newly

independent nations in Latin America.
The chief functions of diplomatic posts, which were called embassies
or legations, were the conducting of traditional diplomacy and the polit-
ical work involved in the relationship between the United States and
the other country. Consular posts, on the other hand, were headed by
a consul or consul general and had different tasks. They dealt with
commercial and consular matters, such as trade issues and the protec-
tion of American businessmen, sailors, and other citizens. Consuls were
expected to be largely self-supporting and sustained themselves by the
fees they charged for their services. They could be located in any
population center where it was possible to generate that revenue.
In contrast, the diplomats made a very meager salary and could not
supplement it by selling their services. To make ends meet they were
expected to draw on their personal funds, which meant in effect that
such jobs were reserved for men from wealthy families. Because of
the differences in functions and financial circumstances, the diplomats
felt themselves superior to their consular colleagues. This feeling is not
entirely absent from today’s corps of diplomats and is still a feature of
the bureaucratic culture of the State Department.
Not only were diplomats of this era underpaid, they were also on
fixed-term appointments that were often not renewed. For that reason,
there was concern not only about their professionalism, but their loyalty
as well. President James Monroe issued an instruction that they were
to respectfully but decisively decline gifts, which were “the lubricant of
European diplomacy.” His Secretary of State, John Quincy Adams, also
recommended that they return home once they had served more than six
years abroad so that they might be “new tempered.”9
This suggestion no doubt stemmed from a fear that they might
develop “clientitis” or “localitis.” Those are the names given when diplo-
mats are perceived to be arguing the position of the country to which
they are accredited with more fervor than the country they represent. It
is a concern that has existed as long as envoys have been sent abroad, and
it is a reoccurring criticism of American diplomats that is still heard to
this day.
8 D. C. Jett

The fear that diplomats might spend too long in another country has
deep historical roots, as Warren Ilchman notes: “The members of the
Continental Congress were so concerned about the possibility of Europe
corrupting the republican simplicity of its members that a resolution was
passed permitting diplomats to remain abroad on their commissions for
a period of only three years.”10
Clientitis is a perennial problem because it often has some justifica-
tion. Living abroad for a few years changes the perspective of almost
anyone, even those who are representatives of their government. Trying
to explain that perspective to Washington is sometimes interpreted as
being too sympathetic to the other side.
Although it is sometimes true, the charge of clientitis often reflects the
fact that it is always easy to blame the messenger. Washington never likes
to be informed that a foreign audience has failed to embrace its latest
pronouncement with enthusiasm. Those in Washington who came up
with the policy are more likely to assert that the diplomats abroad did
not present it effectively rather than admit the policy might not have
been the best idea in the first place.
Even when the State Department and the White House are satis-
fied with the policy and the reaction to it, there are often others in
Washington who are not. Opponents of the president, or the president’s
policies, will often blame the diplomats charged with implementing it
for the shortcomings they perceive. Critics in Congress, the media, and
think tanks find it easier to attack the bureaucrats involved because they
fear retaliation if they directly criticize the president, and they know the
bureaucrats can rarely fight back.
One occasion when a diplomat responded publicly to criticism was in
2003 when former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich gave a speech
in which he blamed the State Department for the unpopularity around
the world of the American invasion of Iraq. The absurdity of that charge
prompted Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage to say: “It’s clear
that Mr. Gingrich is off his meds and out of therapy.”11 Armitage was
not a career diplomat, however, so he had the luxury of being able to
speak his mind without worrying about his future employment.
In addition to cheap shots from politicians, another perennial
problem, which often comes up in various forms in political debate
 1 A Brief History of the Title 9

today, has to do with funding. Not only were American diplomats in

the early days expected to dress plainly, but they were also apparently
expected to live that way. The State Department historian describes this
attitude:

Even if the new nation’s democratic ideology had not mandated repub-
lican simplicity, the meager salaries paid to American ministers would
have produced the same effect. In 1817, President Monroe complained to
a congressional committee about the nation’s failure to provide sufficient
salaries and allowances for members of the Diplomatic Service. Monroe
insisted that American diplomats had to gain access to the most impor-
tant circles before they could do their jobs. Congress turned a deaf ear
to these arguments, and ministers at important posts such as London
or Paris were forced to spend from their own private fortunes. As a
result, only those with wealth could aspire to a diplomatic career. Lack
of adequate funding also meant that little or no interchange took place
between those serving in Washington and those overseas.12

Adding to the problem of meager salaries was the scarcity of repre-

sentation funds, that is, the money Congress allocates to diplomats
for official social functions. That is another perennial problem because
Congress only hands over money for this purpose grudgingly. This
reflects the reluctance of politicians to spend tax dollars for the purpose
of entertaining foreigners. As a result, these funds are typically inade-
quate to do the job, especially in expensive capitals like London and
Paris. This issue is often a part of the debate about who should go to
those countries as ambassadors. One of the justifications for sending
wealthy political appointees to countries where entertaining is expensive
is that they can afford to pay for it out of their own pockets. That is one
reason why there has only been one career diplomat serve in London and
one in Paris out of the more than 130 men and women who have been
the American ambassador in those countries.
In addition to money problems, early American diplomacy often
suffered from the way each president left his mark on foreign affairs in
both style and substance. Some lacked interest in international affairs.
With others, such as Presidents Andrew Jackson and James K. Polk, the
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
from 943 to 954, had been killed at Stonehaven. Malcolm II, his son,
held the sceptre from 1005 to 1034.
It is well to stop awhile at Glamis Castle, not that it was the
scene of the murder of Duncan, but it has plenty of fascinating lore of
its own, besides having Macbeth as a tenant.
It was at Glamis Castle, in 1745, that Bonnie Prince Charlie slept
on one night, to be succeeded on the next by the Duke of
Cumberland, who occupied the very same room. The housekeeper
conducts the visitor over the historic and antique portion of the
castle, and the place is well worth seeing, for it makes the past seem
very real. Moreover, though such sight-seeing does not supply facts,
in place of Shakespeare’s creation, it helps to the enjoyment of the
truth personified. We may delight in facts, for they are necessary; but
truth is more. Whatever the facts concerning the historical Macbeth,
they were long ago “stranded on the shore of the oblivious years.”
They were, but the truth was, and is, and is to come. Human nature
is the one thing that changes not, and that eternal element
Shakespeare pictured.
We were visiting Dunkeld, in company with a party of pretty
maidens and rosy-cheeked Scottish youth from Dundee, seeing its
cathedral, ruins, waterfalls, and modern products, when we first
realized that we were in the land of Macbeth. Immediately, all the
useful and statistical data, gathered up on that August day, and even
the fact that Dunkeld, now having fewer than a thousand people,
was once a bishopric, seemed to fade into insignificance compared
with the value and importance of the imaginary—the world outside of
history and of science. We looked southward to see Birnam wood,
whose trees and branches were to move to Dunsinane in the
Scotland hills and fulfil the sinister prophecy of the witches.
Later on, we found comrades for a walk to Dunsinane Hill, which
is only twelve miles northwest of Dundee. All who have read
Shakespeare know that this was the scene of the closing tragedy in
the play of “Macbeth.” We pass red-roofed cottages, and the ruins of
an old feudal stronghold. It is a square tower, having walls of
immense thickness, with the deep, well-like dungeon, cut into the
rock, down which the keeper lowers for you a lighted candle. In place
of the old arched floors, which added strength and solidity to the
tower walls, there are platforms reached by stairways. Ascending to
the top of the tower and emerging by a doorway to the bartizan on
the outside, we have a most magnificent view of the wide-spreading
valley of the Tay, with its manifold tokens of a rich civilization, lying
like a panorama at our feet. One of these is Kinaird Castle, which
belonged to a family which, having taken the wrong side in the
uprising of 1715, had their lands forfeited.
Leaving this mass of stone behind us, we pass on to the upland
moors, and after three or four miles see the two bold hills, the King’s
Seat and Dunsinane. As we proceed, we find several old stones
which, not being rolling, have gathered on their faces a rich crop of
the moss of legend. The southern face of Dunsinane Hill is sheer
and steep, but the view from the top is magnificent. Here on the
summit we can barely trace the foundations of the second castle of
Macbeth, which he built after leaving Glamis and to which he retired.
Here he lived in the hope of finding security, the witches having
predicted that he would never be conquered until “Birnam wood
came to Dunsinane.” Thinking to make assurance doubly sure, he
compelled the nobles and their retainers to build new fortifications for
him. Men and oxen were so roughly impressed in the work that he
made enemies of old friends and rupture soon occurred between him
and Macduff.
After his father’s murder, Malcolm fled to England, whence a
powerful army was sent to invade Scotland. The Scots joined the
standard of the young prince and the army marched northward
unopposed and encamped twelve miles away, at Birnam, under the
shelter of a forest, which then covered the hill, but is now no more.
The soldiers, each one having cut down a branch of a tree,—
probably not with any knowledge of the witch’s prophecy, but to
conceal their numbers,—made a moving mass of green. Macbeth,
looking out from the battlements of his castle, beheld what seemed
to him a vast forest in motion across the plain to overwhelm him with
destruction.
 Whatever was really true in the matter, tradition has adopted the
element of poetical justice so often illustrated by the great
Shakespeare, though some reports are that Macbeth escaped from
two battles with his life and kept up a guerilla warfare in the north,
until killed in a conflict in Aberdeenshire. In another Scottish town,
we were shown a school which stands on the site of the old castle of
the Macduffs, the Thanes or Earls of Fife.

A TYPICAL SCOTTISH STREET: HIGH STREET, DUMFRIES

The touch of genius has made the name of Macbeth immortal.
He is known wherever the English language is read or spoken. How
different is the fate of those humbler folk, who lie in the ooze of the
past, unrecalled by poet or dramatist! In not a few places in
Scotland, one meets the pathetic sight of old tombs and graveyards
that are, in some instances, hardly visible for the greenery that
covers them. Here “the rude forefathers of the hamlet sleep,” but
even the hamlet is gone, the church is in ruins, and the descendants
of those who once lived and loved and died are now on various
continents. They have found other homes, and most of them,
children of the new lands, only vaguely remember, or most probably
are ignorant of, the place in which their forefathers dwelt and whence
their parents or grandparents came.
Occasionally one meets an old man or woman in the great cities,
like Glasgow or Dundee, who will tell of the joys remembered or
glories passed away, naming the village, perhaps in the glens or on
the carses, which one cannot find on the map, or may discover only
by consulting some old gazetteer in the libraries.
To me, an American, these white-haired old folks I saluted on the
moors and in the glens, recalled the words of our own Holmes, and
especially that stanza which President Lincoln thought the most
pathetic in the English language:—

“The mossy marbles rest

On the lips that he has prest
In their bloom;
And the names he loved to hear
Have been carved for many a year
On the tomb.”

Yet who—unless a Mark Twain, who could drop a tear over

Father Adam’s grave—will weep over the long departed Picts? More
often, while reading the books, rather than when rambling among the
country folk in Scotland, do we hear of these shadowy figures, who
live in ethnology rather than in local tradition.
For example, what became of the “Picts,” who figure so largely in
ancient writings, before Pictland became Scotland? Old legends
represent King Kenneth II, who died in 995, as having “exterminated”
the Picts, who had slain his father. Thus these aborigines sank, in
popular tradition, to mere mythology. A Pict now seems but as a
nixie, a brownie, or some sort of mythical, even fairy folk, hardly
human, to whom great feats, including even the building of Glasgow
Cathedral, are attributed. In 1814, Sir Walter Scott met a dwarfish
traveller in the Orkneys, whom the natives regarded as a “Pecht” or
Pict. So says Andrew Lang. The Picts have been so swallowed up in
oblivion that they are like “the ten lost tribes of Israel”—who never
were “lost” in any sense but that of absence of records, and from a
genealogical point of view. I have met intelligent persons who
thought “the dead cities of the Zuyder Zee”—so denominated by
Henri Havard—were as Pompeii and only waiting to be excavated
and come to resurrection in museums!
The Picts of Scotland are exactly where the ancient Ebisu or
Ainu of Japan are—in the veins of the people now called the
Japanese. The descendants of the Picts to-day talk Scotch, or
English, either of the American or British variety. It is no more
fashionable in Scotland to trace one’s lineage to Pictish forebears,
than in Japan to the Ainu or Ebisu, from whom millions of Japanese
are descended. Who wants to be descended from common savages,
when gods, kings, nobles, and chiefs are as plentiful as herring or
blackberries?
 CHAPTER X
STIRLING: CASTLE, TOWN, AND TOWERS

To ride in fast express trains from town to town, across the

Strathmore, or Great Valley, containing the central plain of Scotland,
on which lies almost every one of its large cities and industrial
centres, makes one thrill when contrasting the present with the past.
Our comrade, Quandril, so fresh on Scottish soil that she had hardly
got the ship’s motion out of her head, was completely daft, when
speeding from Edinburgh to Stirling. So much history, visualized and
made real, acted like a fierce stimulant. The cannonade of fresh
impressions, at every moment, added still further to her delightful
brain disturbance.
Here are two entries from her journal:—
“I am delighted with Scotland. As I realize that I am on Scottish
ground, I can scarcely understand the indifference of the people,
who walk about as if it were nothing remarkable.... Such a sight as
met our astonished vision! Never had our New World eyes seen
anything like this ancient city.”
In riding about in the suburbs, Quandril gathered some wild
poppies. She noticed that every place had its title—Lanark Villa,
Rose Villa, Breezy Brae, etc. In several places, a sign was up
announcing that “this land may be ‘fued.’” The person who rented the
land, using it, without receiving a title in fee simple, was a “feuar.”
How different the Scottish landscape, with its myriad chimneys,
from the feudal days, when this French invention was unknown!
When Scotland had a Robin Hood, in the person of Rob Roy, this
feature was rare. In picturing the long-armed and famous cowboy,
cattle-dealer, friend of the poor, and enemy of the rich, Sir Walter
Scott has told of the desolate character of the tract of country
stretching from the Clyde to the Grampians. One may recall how the
young English horsewoman, whose feelings are described during the
tedious ride toward the adventurous mountain-land, found a willow
wand before the door, as an emblem that the place was tabooed. At
one town we were told of a relic—the coulter of a plough—kept in
commemoration of the event, which may remind us of the story of
the cicerone, who showed the sword with which Balaam smote his
ass. Being told by the tourist that Balaam did not actually smite, but
only desired a sword that he might smite with it, he received the
answer, “Well, that’s the sword he wanted.” This outdid even our own
P. T. Barnum’s story of the club that (might have) killed Captain
Cook. Since at twenty smaller places had the authentic club been
exhibited, Barnum’s show could not be without it, and keep up its
reputation.
To the focus of Scottish history, Stirling, we hied during several of
our journeyings in Scotland. As with Niagara, at the first vision one
may not have grasped the full glory, but a second or third view
deepened one’s impression. There are others, however, who in
imagination, after having read Scott’s “Lady of the Lake” have
pictured to their minds “Stirling’s towers” and were not in the least
disappointed, when beholding for the first time the reality in stone. A
great rock, like that in Edinburgh, rises sheer from the plain. The
tourist sees one of those natural fortresses, around which, first a
church, then a fair, then a village, then a town, and finally, a famous
city have had their evolution. One needs but little power of the
historic imagination to go back to the days before the streets,
avenues, and imposing buildings of to-day existed, and think of
steel-clad knights and long trains of men with claymore and target.
The castle, built on a precipitous rock, overlooks one of those low,
flat, alluvial plains, which the Scots call a carse.
Stirling, which had several names, in different forms, beside the
Gaelic “Struithla,” was also known as “Snowdon,” as those may
remember who have read Scott.
If there be one place north of the Tweed, where, at a single
glance, one may view and comprehend the chief river system of
Scotland, Stirling is that place. From this point one notes the main
streams, the affluents, and the gathering of the waters, which make
the Clyde, the Forth, and the Tay. He can then realize how great and
how important in the political and economic history of Scotland has
been that great central valley, which stretches from the North Sea to
the waters of the Atlantic Ocean.
Stirling touches Scottish history very early. It was so strong, in
1304, that at its most famous siege, by Edward I, pretty much all the
besieging implements and heavy siege machinery had to be brought
from the Tower of London. At last, one engine, called “the Wolf,” was
so terribly destructive that, by filling up the ditch with stones and
rubbish, the English rushed over and fought their way into the keep.
The castle was taken and for ten years it remained in the possession
of the Southrons. In fact, it was to maintain the English grip upon this
stronghold that Edward II assembled that mighty army for invasion,
which was so signally defeated by the Bruce at Bannockburn.

STIRLING CASTLE, FROM THE KING’S KNOT

 When one thinks of that decisive battle, which turned the face of
Scotland for hundreds of years to France, for her art and culture,
instead of to her nearer southern neighbor, England, he is apt to
muse upon the different results had Edward succeeded. Possibly an
early union of Scotland and England and fusion of the two peoples
might have been the result and the ensuing story have been best for
civilization and humanity; but certainly Scotland’s history would not
have been either so interesting or so inspiring.
After the death of the Bruce, Stirling Castle was captured, in
succession, by Edward Balliol and for King David. When the House
of Stuart had evolved from a family of Norman barons, emigrants
from Shropshire to improve their fortunes, and, acting as stewards in
the new land, had reached royalty, Stirling Castle became the king’s
dwelling-place. For centuries afterward, it was their favorite
residence and the place of coronation of the Scottish kings. Here
James II and James V were born and here James VI of Scotland and
I of England was baptized.
It was James III who added so largely to its architecture and built
the Parliament House. It is in an inventory of the effects of this
slaughtered king that the first mention of the thistle as the national
emblem of Scotland occurs. Later this device appears on the coins
of the realm, but not until James VI is found the motto, “Nemo me
impune lacessit.”
As we entered through the gateway and walked up through the
battlemented Inner Way, we almost imagined we heard the din of
clashing swords echoing the past. The palace, built by James V, in
the form of a quadrangle, is in the southwestern part and is profusely
decorated. Yet when ornamentation and structure are compared, two
opposing systems appear to be at work. One seems to swear at the
other. The critic had better not look too closely when near, if he
wishes to enjoy harmony, for in this case, most decidedly, does
distance lend enchantment to the view. Seen from afar, the
ornaments appear rich and graceful, but when close at hand they
become grotesque. Corbels and brackets are especially suggestive
of agonizing exertion and the general effect is that of a nightmare. At
a distance, these melt into harmonious proportions, but they lose
their charm when we are close at hand. Here are hideous mixtures
of human and brute life. Many of the leering faces are simply idiotic
and the contortions of the bodies clustered together are horrible. As
has been well said, “the wildest and least becoming of the classic
legends are here embodied, without any attempts to realize beauty
of form.”
What terrible paradox, or love of the ugly, must have dominated
the taste of the sculptor, in the same age that reared some of the
glorious abbeys of Scotland! The King’s Room, which had an oaken
ceiling, with richly decorated beams, and in each partition a
magnificently carved head,—the fame of which had gone all over
Europe,—was abolished in 1777, when the roof, from its weight,
threatened to fall in.
The Douglas Room recalls, to the student of Scottish history,
some of the bloody episodes of feudalism, when, for example, a
powerful baron like William, Earl of Douglas, set at defiance the
authority of both king and law. James II, in 1452, invited the
insurgent to meet him in Stirling Castle. The earl came only after
receiving under the royal protection a safe-conduct,—which proved
that there was a lack of loyalty and much bad blood. The king first
used words of persuasion, but failing in this, he drew the dagger to
break the bonds of the confederate nobles.
Thus a Stuart king showed himself a traitor by becoming
assassin, setting a doubly bad example, which his descendants
followed only too often. They seemed to have kept the taint of their
ancestor in their blood, until the people of England had perforce to
behead one and drive out the other. The original Chapel Royal,
erected in 1594 by that Stuart who became the first English king with
the name of James, is now a storeroom and armory. It completes the
series of apartments which the tourist cares to enter and examine.
It is not the interior architecture of Stirling Castle that repays the
cultivated visitor, but rather the view from the battlements, over the
glorious and eloquent landscape of mid-Scotland. A small opening in
the parapet wall of the garden, termed the “Lady’s Lookout,”
furnishes for us our best point of view. Westward are the Highland
Mountains and between us and them lies the Vale of Menteith.
Farther toward the setting sun, robed in its azure hue, rises Ben
Lomond which mirrors itself in the loch of the same name, while Ben
Venue, Ben A’in, Ben Ledi, and the cone of Ben Voirlich, followed in
succession, the chain ending with the humbler summit of Uam-var.
All of these we saw in imagination, long ago, when, while reading
Scott, they rose in mind before us to “sentinel enchanted land.” North
and east are the Ochil Hills and the windings of the Forth, while
southward are the Campsie Hills. From the town at our feet the
turnpike road draws the eye along to the ruins of Cambuskenneth
Abbey, while reared aloft is the Wallace Monument and within view
are the Abbey Craig and the Bridge of Alan.
As we look at the old cannon, now serving for ornaments and
mementoes, we ask, Who, when this castle of Stirling was built,
could have conceived the power of artillery in our century? Scott
tells, in his picturesque way, of a cannon ball shot against a party of
rebels on their way to Edinburgh; but to-day one need only mount a
fifteen-inch rifled cannon or a sixteen-inch mortar on these ramparts,
to tumble down the whole structure by mere concussion and recoil.
Yet in the old days of catapults and smooth-bore cannon, it was quite
possible for “gray Stirling, Bulwark of the North,” to command the
point between the Highlands and the Lowlands. By stationing a party
at the Ford of Frew, near Aberfoyle, the main passage from the
mountain district was completely closed. Thus it was true that the
Forth on which Stirling Castle was situated “bridled the wild
Highlander.”
It is said that the merry King James V (1512–42) put on various
disguises, in order to ramble incognito about his realm to see that
justice was regularly administered—and also to indulge in gallantry.
Sir Walter Scott, in “The Lady of the Lake,” pictures him as the
Knight of Snowdon, who meets and kills Roderick Dhu and rewards
Ellen Douglas and Malcolm Graham.
On such occasions, the king took his name from Ballingeich, a
place near the castle. It is said that the two comic songs, “The
Gaberlunzie Man” and “The Jolly Beggar” were founded on the
success of this monarch’s amorous adventures when travelling in the
disguise of a beggar.
Around the castle is an excellent path, called “the Back Walk,”
furnished by a citizen long ago, and a stone seat has been erected
to accommodate the aged and infirm who resort to this spot. The
guide in the castle points out many another spot, around which
romantic or historical associations cluster, though as a rule these are
more interesting to a native than to a foreign tourist.
Looking at the Grey Friars’ Church, built in 1494 by James IV
and added to by Archbishop Beaton, uncle of the cardinal, we find a
type of architecture peculiar to Scotland; that is, of the later pointed
Gothic. Though contemporary with the depressed, or perpendicular,
style of architecture in England, this edifice might appear a century
older than it is. The later forms of English Gothic architecture,
however, were never adopted in Scotland, for the Scots preferred to
follow the taste of their friends in France rather than that of their
enemies in England. Here King James I of Great Britain was
crowned, John Knox preaching the coronation sermon. It was this
same James, “the wisest fool in Christendom,” under whose reign
the Bible was again translated,—then a “revised,” but now, for
centuries, the “accepted” version,—and to whom the translators
dedicated that presentation address which to Americans is positively
disgusting in its fulsome laudation.
From the fact that the nobles and gentry, on the estates adjoining
provincial towns, had their winter residence in the city also, we find
to-day, on either side of the Main Street of Stirling, what were once
ancient mansions. These are now tenanted by humbler occupants.
They show turrets and the crow-step gables, like those we meet with
so frequently in Holland. The man who reared one of these dwellings
foresaw the mutability of all things earthly and even in time the
probable fall of his house. He seemed to read that law of Providence
which raises the beggar from the dunghill and depresses the kings
from their high seats to the level of common folks—as was sung long
ago by the Virgin Mary and which under the old Manchu dynasty of
China was enacted into a law. In the Central Empire every
generation of the Imperial family stepped down one degree lower,
until, in the ninth generation, they were able to claim the status and
honors of the commoner.
In modern English, the quaint inscription on the Stirling mansion
would read:—

“Here I forbear my names or arms to fix,

Lest I or mine should sell these stones or sticks.”

Discovering, as we do, many evidences of French taste and

importation, not only at Stirling, but throughout Scotland, besides
noting so many points of contact between Scottish and French
history, we can hardly wonder why Scottish people feel so much at
home in the United States and why Americans and Scotchmen get
along so well together. American taste in dress and household
matters is certainly not English, nor were our ideas on the subjects of
art and decoration inherited from our British ancestors. Our historic
record and vocabulary, with the tendency of Americans to-day to go
to Paris rather than London for their garments, the cultivation of their
tastes, and for many of their ideas, show that the United States, like
Scotland, has been mightily influenced by French taste. We, Scots
and Yankees, are alike debtors to the land in which feudalism,
chivalry, and Gothic art, and not a few canons of taste and things of
beauty, reached their highest development.
 CHAPTER XI
OBAN AND GLENCOE—CHAPTERS IN
HISTORY

Oban is the heart’s delight for a tourist, provided he does not

arrive when the hotels are overcrowded. If one can get a room upon
the high ridge overlooking the shining waters, he will have a view
that is inspiring.
One can reach Oban either by the Caledonian Railway, by way
of Stirling and Callander, or on the water through the Crinan Canal.
This is an artificial highway, nine miles long, which was cut to avoid
the much longer passage of seventy miles round the Mull of Cantyre,
when going from Glasgow to Inverness. This shorter canal was
excavated toward the end of the eighteenth century, but its life has
not been without those accidents which we, from digging the
Panama Canal, have learned are inevitable. In 1859, after a heavy
rain, one of the three reservoirs which supply the canal, the highest
being eight hundred feet above the canal, burst. The torrent of water
rushing down the mountain-slope washed away part of the bank and
filled the canal with earth and stones for upwards of a mile.
Nevertheless, both the Crinan and Caledonian Canals pay well, and
from the surplus earnings are kept in good order.
At Oban, sheltered and with a delightful climate, we look out
upon the pretty little island of Kerrera, an old fortress of the
MacDougalls, which now serves for use as well as beauty. It not only
screens the town from the Atlantic gales, but virtually converts the
bay into a land-locked harbor.
Instead of the little village and fishing-station, which Dr. Johnson
looked upon in 1773, Oban is now a bustling town, which is very
lively and crowded in summer, withal the paradise of the tourist and
shopper. Here any pater familias, with loose change in his pocket,
when travelling with his wife and daughters, is apt to be, on entering
one of those splendid shops, as wax in their loving hands. Silks,
plaids, gay woollens, delightful things of all sorts in dry goods—
which ladies especially can so well appreciate—are here in luxurious
abundance, and at prices that do not seem to soar too high. As for
tartans, one can study in color and pattern not only a whole
encyclopædia of the heraldry of the clans, but may be shown
combinations of checks and stripes, wrought into tartans never
known in dream, use, or history, by any Highland clan. Nevertheless
these unhistorical and expensive plaids are delightful to look at and
will make “cunning” sashes and “lovely” dress goods.
Not the least of our pleasant memories of Oban are associated
with those wonderful products of the loom. Whether coming from the
splendid machinery of the great mills, built with the aid of capital and
thus reaching the highest perfection of craftsmanship joined to the
last refinement of invention and experiment, or simply the handwork
of the crofters in the distant isles, these tartans show a wonderful
evolution of national art. From many women and girls on the islands
far out at sea, without much of human society and whose dumb
friends are but dogs, cattle, and sheep, come reminders of their
industry and taste that are touching to both one’s imagination and
sympathies. Let us hope that not too much of the profits of this
cottage industry goes into the hands of those who control the trade.
Let the worker be the first partaker of the fruits of his toil.
In going up by water through Scotland’s great glen and canal, at
our leisure, we shall stop at the places worth seeing. Moreover, the
twenty-eight locks forming “Neptune’s Staircase” will enable us to
alternate pedestrianism with life on deck. First, after a ride of an hour
and a half, we come to the town called Ballaculish. It has an
imposing situation at the entrance of Loch Leven, and is not far away
from the wild glen, which has left, in its name and associations, such
a black spot on the page of Scotland’s annals during the reign of
William III.
 With our Boston and Buffalo friends, we chatted over British
politics in the past, reopening leaves of history, as we steamed to
Ballaculish, or progressed on our way on wheels to Glencoe. Except
shops and hotels, and the old slate quarries, by which the roofs of
the world are covered,—since the quarries send many million roofing
slates abroad every year,—there is little to see in this town on the
loch.
Next day we mounted the top of the stage-coach, which was
equipped with plenty of seats and was geared to fine horses, and
started for our ride into the upper and lower valleys of Glencoe,
which form a ravine about eight miles long. Accompanying us was
the mountain stream called the Cona, that is, “the dark Cona” of
Ossian’s poems, while the scarred sides of the hills show the beds of
numerous mountain torrents. These, in springtime, must display an
impressive activity. Halfway up the glen, the stream forms a little
loch. Toward Invercoe, the landscape acquires a softer beauty. Lord
Strathcona of Canada had not yet, in 1900, purchased the heritage
of the Macdonalds of Glencoe, or built his stately mansion. Yet the
wild glen is well worth seeing, either by starting from the
northeastern base or by coming up from Ballaculish. We spent a
half-hour in “Ossian’s Cave.”
All natural associations, however, whether weird or beautiful, and
even the Cave of Ossian faded into insignificance compared with the
thrilling story of the terrible massacre of February 13, 1690, when six
score soldiers, most of them of Campbell’s clan, who had a personal
spite against the Macdonalds, lived for twelve days in the glen, in
order to become all the more successful murderers in the end. After
receiving the hospitality of the villagers, they began early in the
morning, before daylight, the massacre of men, women, and
children. The work of butchery was finished by fire and the flocks
and herds were driven off.
From childhood we had heard this story. Who that has lived in
Schenectady, New York, which suffered a like fate with Glencoe,
during “King William’s War,” or who has studied, without family
prejudice, the episode of Jacob Leisler, the people’s champion on
Manhattan, but has heard of the many horrors for which William was
blamed and unjustly condemned?
What was the share of King William III in this Glencoe
transaction? The subject has been discussed in pamphlets and
books. Turning to Macaulay, the Whig historian,—since
historiography, as with Grote, for example, is often political
pamphletism,—who found his greatest hero in the Dutch Deliverer,
we are told that His Majesty knew of the Macdonalds only as a
rebellious clan who had rejected his conciliatory offers. The
Government had, in good season, fixed the day for rebellion to
cease, and in signing the order for their extirpation, His Majesty
merely meant that the existence of the clan as a predatory gang
should be broken up. Indeed, their stronghold had long been called
“a den of thieves.” William did not know that the certificates of loyalty
to the throne, made in correct form by MacIan, the chief of the
Macdonalds at Glencoe, had been delayed for a week after the date
of possible pardon, and that this certificate had been suppressed so
that when he signed the order of attack, he was ignorant of the
situation. It is not for us to give judgment in the case.
On the second visit our travel mate, Frances, on seeing the dark
glen, felt like a child entering into a haunted chamber, almost
expecting the ghosts of the Macdonalds to rise up and call for
justice.
Nevertheless, while twice visiting Glencoe, and still again and
more, when in Ireland, in 1913, I wondered why no complete life of
William III, King of England and Stadholder of the Dutch Republic,
and one of England’s best rulers, had ever been written. Pamphlets,
sketches, materials to serve, biographical chapters there are, but no
work at once scholarly and exhaustive. There is abundant material
for such a biography, and if written with historical accuracy and
literary charm, it would be not only a great contribution to literature,
but would serve to allay prejudices that still rankle. Such a work, so
greatly needed, would help to solve some of those terrible problems
generated by age-long misrule and misunderstanding, that have
made Ireland the weakest spot in the British Empire and a reproach
to English government. It may even be true to assert that the political
condition of Ireland in 1913 was one of the potent causes
precipitating war in Europe. Personally, I believe, from having
studied the life of King William, from documents in Holland and
England, that he is not responsible for one half of the cruelties with
which the Irish Nationalists, mostly of alien form of faith, charge him.
Nor does he deserve the censure and reproach which so many
Scottish writers and prejudiced Englishmen have heaped upon him.
Nor could he possibly have been the “sour” Calvinist of popular
tradition. From his reign the Free Churchmen date their freedom.
It is not at all creditable that such a hiatus exists in the library of
English biography, for the fame of William is as surely and as
constantly increasing as is that of William Pitt, Millard Fillmore, and
Abraham Lincoln. In 1914 a new statue of this royal statesman was
reared and dedicated in one of the towns of England. It was this
champion of representative government who, with sword and pen,
curbed in Louis XIV of France that same spirit of ambition which was
manifested by Philip II and has been shown by William of Germany.
The Stadtholder of Holland saved Europe to the principles of Magna
Charta and of constitutional government.
Just before our first visit to Scotland, Quandril had been reading
Scott’s story of “Aunt Margaret’s Mirror,” the scenes of which
romance are laid in Lady Stair’s house and “close.” Since that time
Marjorie Bowen has put in fiction some of the salient incidents of the
king’s life, and thus brought him to the notice of many tens of
thousands of readers to whom he had been previously but a name.
The novel entitled “The Master of Stair” treats of the Glencoe
incident, with great detail and with wonderful vividness and great
literary power. The title of the book is identical with that of the title of
Sir James Dalrymple, first Viscount of Stair, who must bear the
blame of the odious transaction, for he was undoubtedly the principal
adviser of the king, and was perhaps personally responsible for the
treachery and cruelty which accompanied the deed. It was he who
urged this method of extirpation as an effective way of repressing
rebellion in the Highlands. In spite of his great services to the State,
this stain upon his name cannot be effaced. He is buried in the
church of St. Giles in Edinburgh.
 As for Claverhouse, or “Claver’se,” as the common folks
pronounce his name,—the “Bonnie Dundee” of Scott’s rollicking
cavalry song,—he still bears with many the Gaelic name given him,
which means “Dark John of the Battles.” How highly King William
appreciated the military abilities of one whom he had known in the
Belgic Netherlands as a soldier of fortune in the Dutch army, and
who is said to have there, on one occasion, saved William’s life, is
shown, when on hearing the news of the death, at Killiecrankie, of
his friend, Claverhouse, the Viscount of Dundee, who had become
his enemy, he remarked, “Dundee is slain. He would otherwise have
been here to tell the news himself.”
At Drumclog, near Loudon Hill, where the Covenanters obtained
a temporary victory over Claverhouse, a stone has been erected to
commemorate the triumph. For many years an annual sermon, on
the 1st of June, was preached on the field. Perhaps this may even
yet be the case, but, under the shadow of the great world-war of the
twentieth century, it is probable that these local anniversaries suffer,
are ignored, or their celebrations are postponed to a happier time.
Happily for Scotland’s people, they have the gift of song, which
lightens many labors. Even on the days we visited Glencoe’s dark
ravine, we heard, toward the end of the afternoon, sounds of melody
from the toilers in the grain-fields. It came like a burst of sunshine
after a dark and cloudy day.
This inborn love of music among the Highlanders was shown
when the women reaped the grain and the men bound up the
sheaves. The strokes of the sickle were timed by the modulations of
the harvest song, by which all their voices were united. The sight and
sound recalled the line in Campbell’s poem, “The Soldier’s Dream,”
committed to memory in boyhood:—

“I heard my own mountain goats bleating aloft,

And knew the sweet strain that the corn reapers sung.”
 “They accompany in the Highlands every action, which can be
done in equal time, with an appropriate strain, which has, they say,
not much meaning, but the effects are regularity and cheerfulness,”
writes the historian of Scottish music. The ancient song, by which the
rowers of galleys were animated, may be supposed to have been of
this metrical kind and synchronous. There is an oar song still used
by the Hebridians, and we all recall the boat song in “The Lady of the
Lake,” which begins:—

“Hail to the chief who in triumph advances.”

Finely, in “Marmion,” is the story of rhythmic motion joined to

song to lighten labor, told by Fitz-Eustace, the squire, concerning the
lost battle, on which Scott comments, with an American reference:—

“Such have I heard, in Scottish land,

Rise from the busy harvest band,
When falls before the mountaineer,
On lowland plains, the ripened ear.
Now one shrill voice the notes prolong,
Now a wild chorus swells the song;
Oft have I listened, and stood still,
As it came softened up the hill,
And deemed it the lament of men
Who languished for their native glen;
And thought, how sad would be such sound,
On Susquehanna’s swampy ground,
Kentucky’s wood-encumbered brake,
Or wild Ontario’s boundless lake;
Where heart-sick exiles, in the strain,
Recalled fair Scotland’s hills again!”

Yet it is not in secular music only that the Scots excel. They have
also a rich treasury of devotion and praise, though for centuries the