Among other things, he wrote an article titled "The Foreign Policy of the Garfield Administration", in which he revealed that his idea for a Conference had a second motive in addition to avoiding war: commercial relations.

Two nations which might have been expected to play a major role, were passive: Brazil because of internal political developments (the Empire was giving way to the Republic), and Mexico, which under the long-term authoritarian rule of Porfirio Díaz had a special and deferential relationship with the United States.

Almost hidden by the controversy over arbitration, conquest rights and customs unions was the conference's perhaps more significant achievement: the concept of regular inter-American meetings and the creation of permanent secretariat.

[2] He underscored the seriousness of the challenge, noting that some reports were circulating that Argentina and Chile, and perhaps others, would stay away from the inaugural session and even withdraw from the conference, if Blaine were named president of the congress.

Faced with this opposition, and not wishing to have a still-born conference, Blaine quietly withdrew his name, and the head of the U.S. delegation (international lawyer John B. Henderson) was selected instead.

Blaine named journalist and diplomat William Eleroy Curtis as the State Department's executive agent in charge of planning the conference.

[4] This was one of Blaine's key goals, since he believe that compulsory arbitration (at least for the Latin Americans) was the most effective way of settling international problems and border disputes such as the one which had led to the War of the Pacific.

[citation needed] To oppose the U.S. arbitration plan the Latin delegations supported a joint proposal drafted by Argentina's Sáenz Peña and co-sponsored by Brazil.

Martí describes the tension as the outnumbered U.S. delegation began to weaken in its defense of Blaine's draft: "Discretion commands us to be quiet regarding some of the scenes which were nothing less than dramatic and which carried a strong dose of healthy arrogance.

In one of them a white-bearded delegate who carries within him the power and refinement of his nation, ripped apart the weak attempts by the famous secretary of state to impose permanent arbitration and covert domination.

In its stead he proposed an exemplary draft of possible and fair arbitration, written by Argentine hands; a fortunate accord coming from Spanish America which would not endanger either our independence or decorum..."[5]).

[6] Two issues closely related to the arbitration question were the sovereign equality of states and the assertion that military conquest should generate no territorial rights for the victory.

Peru and Bolivia, supported by Argentina, wanted a strong condemnation of any right by virtue of military conquest, but there was a real threat that the Chilean delegation would withdraw if they felt they were being attacked.

Martí records the drama of the long debate, with the Chilean delegate sitting in silence, resting his chin in his hand, staring at the rich red carpet, saying nothing.

And thus once more the Argentine delegation led the challenge to the North Americans, arguing that the proposed customs union would cut off their commerce with the Old World in favor of the United States.

The debate produced what was probably the singly most dramatic moment of the conference as Saénz Peña reached the climax of his speech, ending with a phrase, which an Argentine observer has aptly called "a slogan which became a doctrine for Argentina" in her opposition to U.S. leadership in the inter-American system (32).

Coupled with the establishment of a permanent secretariat, a library, and a data bank on matters pertaining to trade, commerce and transportation, the conference provided concrete instruments for consolidating Martí's "nuestra America".

The easy assumption that the U.S. delegation would be able to convince their Latin American colleagues to approve resolutions giving the U.S. great advantages in matters of arbitration, customs unions and trade were demolished in the face of strong opposition.

But the opposition was not simply negative reaction to the initiatives of the stronger nation: it was accompanied by counter-proposals which in the long run were accepted, albeit grudgingly, by the United States.