This is a timely book and deliberately so. The documents collected here deal with the depredations by the U.S.S. Lexington (Captain Silas Duncan) at the end of December 1831 against a small Argentine colony on the Malvinas Islands, and with the attempts by the Argentine government to secure reparations from the United States government for the damages inflicted. The incident undoubtedly encouraged Britain to occupy the islands in 1833. Fitte considers the British occupation to be the “inevitable sequel” of the North American aggression (p. 9).

In 1829 the government of Buenos Aires, which conducted the foreign relations of the Argentine Confederation, made Luis Vernet governor of the Malvinas Islands and Patagonia. Later the same year, at Vernet’s request, Buenos Aires limited sealing and whaling in the waters within its jurisdiction and empowered Vernet to enforce the limitation. In 1831, under this mandate, Vernet took possession of three vessels flying the flag of the United States and brought one of them to Buenos Aires. There being no American chargé d’affaires in Buenos Aires at the time, the American consul, George W. Slacum, undertook to defend American rights in the matter. Slacum raised the issues of Vernet’s credentials, the legality of Argentina’s action in restricting rights which Americans had received from the Spanish, and, implicitly, Argentina’s very jurisdiction in the matter. If Vernet were not the authorized representative of the Argentine government or if that government were not sovereign in the Malvinas, then the capture of the American ships was piracy.

The negotiations had reached no conclusion when Captain Duncan brought the U.S.S. Lexington into Buenos Aires harbor in November 1831. It is clear from these documents that Duncan and Slacum were arrogant and demanding in their communications with the Argentine government. The Argentines dragged out the negotiations while they moved the suit against the American fishermen through the local courts. Tired of waiting, Duncan left Buenos Aires at the beginning of December, sailed to the Malvinas Islands, leveled the small establishment there, took on board all the colonists, and sailed back to Buenos Aires. Whereas before Slacum had demanded justice for the American fishermen whose boats had been captured, now the Argentine government demanded satisfaction for the damages done at the Malvinas Islands. However, negotiations in Buenos Aires made no progress during the remaining residence of the obnoxious Slacum or his successor.

The terms of the dispute remained unchanged until December 4, 1841, when Secretary of State Daniel Webster told the newly appointed Argentine minister to the United States, Carlos Maria de Alvear, that the United States government could see no reason to discuss the issue further until the question of the sovereignty in the islands had been settled. If Great Britain’s sovereignty in the islands was recognized, then there was no case to be made for Vernet or against Duncan. Matters stood thus until Domingo F. Sarmiento, urged on by Vernet, raised the issue once again in 1866 while he was minister to the United States. It was raised again with more energy in 1884. Negotiations continued until May 4, 1887, when Minister Vicente Quesada submitted a lengthy memorandum to Secretary of State Thomas F. Bayard. That memo was never answered and is the last document in this book. The issue remains unresolved. This reader shares Fitte’s hope that the British will give the Malvinas to the Argentines, and that the United States will follow with a generous solution to this dispute such as will satisfy Argentine national honor.

Fitte has done historians a great service in bringing together so many documents. While most of the American documents are published in William R. Manning (ed.), Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States: Inter-American Affairs, 1831-1860, I, he has added some interesting items from the United States Navy records, the British Public Record Office, and the Argentine archives and even from the Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores y Culto, Departamento de Soberanía Territorial, División Antártica y Malvinas. It is a pity that Argentine historians such as Fitte, who have enjoyed the hospitality of the American and British archives, cannot bring their government to offer foreigners the same or similar privileges in the Argentine ministerial archives.

Although he claims that he will let the mute documents speak for themselves, Fitte’s introductions to each document are anything but objective. His passion and partisanship somewhat weaken his claim for a verdict in favor of Argentina on the basis of these “objective” documents. While printing errors are few, pages 497-512 of the review copy are missing, cutting out the bulk of a crucial memorandum.