legitimate source, and it was recommended to Englishmen by the ready acceptance which it had met with from all orders of the Portuguese people. But it would not be for the British nation to

usual in the annual message, Mr. Monroe passes, towards its close, to speak of the efforts in Spain and Portugal to improve the condition of the people, and of the general disappointment of the expectations of the American people in favor of the liberty and happiness of their fellow-men on that side of the Atlantic, and says: "In the wars of the European powers, in matters relating to themselves, we have never taken any part, nor does it comport with our policy so to do. It is only when our rights are invaded or seriously menaced that we resent injuries, or make preparation for our defence. With the movements in this hemisphere we are, of necessity, more immediately connected, and by causes which must be obvious to all enlightened and impartial observers. The political system of the allied powers is essentially different in this respect from that of America. This difference proceeds from that which exists in their respective governments. And to the defence of our own, which has been achieved by the loss of so much blood and treasure, and matured by the wisdom of our most enlightened citizens, and under which we have enjoyed an unexampled felicity, this whole nation is devoted. We owe it, therefore, to candor and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers to declare, that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety. With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power, we have not interfered, and shall not interfere. But with the governments who have declared their independence and maintained it, and whose independence we have, on great consideration and on just principles, acknowledged, we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any other manner their destiny, by any European power, in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States. In the war between those new governments and Spain, we declared our neutrality at the time of their recognition; and to this we have adhered, and shall continue to adhere, provided no change shall occur which, in the judgment of the competent authorities of this government, shall make a corresponding change on the part of the United States indispensable to their security." Then, speaking of the recent forcible interposition by the allies in the internal concerns of Spain, he says: "To what extent such interposition may be carried, on the same principle, is a question in which all independent powers whose governments differ from theirs are interested, and even those most remote, and surely none more so than the United States. Our policy in regard to Europe, which was adopted at an early stage of the wars which have so long agitated that quarter of the globe, nevertheless remains the same; which is, not to interfere in the internal concerns of any of its powers; to consider the government de facto as the legitimate government for us; to cultivate friendly relations with it; and to preserve those relations by a frank, firm, and manly policy, meeting in all instances the just claims of every power, submitting to injuries from none. But, in regard to these continents, circumstances are eminently and conspicuously different. It is impossible that the allied powers should extend their political system to any portion of either continent without endangering our peace and happiness; nor can any one believe that our Southern brethren, if left to themselves, would adopt it of their own accord. It is equally impossible, therefore, that we should behold such interposition in any form with indifference. If we look to the comparative strength and resources of Spain and those new governments, and their distance from each other, it must be obvious that she can never subdue them. It is still the

force it on the people of Portugal, if they were unwilling to receive it; or if any schism should exist among the Portuguese themselves, as to its fitness and congeniality to the wants and wishes

true policy of the United States to leave the parties to themselves, in the hope that the other powers will pursue the same course.'

This message of President Monroe reached England while the correspondence between Mr. Canning and the Prince Polignac was in progress; and it was received not only with satisfaction, but with enthusiasm. Mr. Brougham said: "The question with regard to Spanish America is now, I believe, disposed of, or nearly so; for an event has recently happened than which none has ever dispersed greater joy, exultation, and gratitude over all the free men of Europe: that event, which is decisive on the subject, is the language held with respect to Spanish America in the message of the President of the United States." Sir James Mackintosh said: "This coincidence of the two great English commonwealths (for so I delight to call them; and I heartily pray that they may be for ever united in the cause of justice and liberty) cannot be contemplated without the utmost pleasure by every enlightened citizen of the earth." This attitude of the American government gave a decisive support to that of Great Britain, and effectually put an end to the designs of the absolutist powers of the continent to interfere with the affairs of Spanish America. Those dynasties had no disposition to hazard a war with such a power, moral and material, as Great Britain and the United States would have presented, when united in the defence of independent constitutional governments.

It is to be borne in mind that the declarations known as the Monroe Doctrine have never received the sanction of an act or resolution of Congress; nor have they any of that authority which European governments attach to a royal ordinance. They are, in fact, only the declarations of an existing administration of what its own policy would be, and what it thinks should ever be the policy of the country, on a subject of paramount and permanent interest. Thus, at the same session in which the message was delivered, Mr. Clay introduced the following resolution: "That the people of these States would not see, without serious inquietude, any forcible interposition by the allied powers of Europe, in behalf of Spain, to reduce to their former subjection those parts of the continent of America which have proclaimed and established for themselves, respectively, independent governments, and which have been solemnly recognized by the United States." But this resolution was never brought up for action or discussion. It is seen also, by the debates on the Panama mission and the Yucatan intervention, that Congress has never been willing to commit the nation to any compact or pledge on this subject, or to any specific declaration of purpose or methods, beyond the general language of the message.

In the debates on the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, in 1855-56, above referred to, all the speakers seemed to agree to this position of the subject. Mr. Clayton said: “In reference to this particular territory, I would not hesitate at all, as one Senator, to assert the Monroe Doctrine and maintain it by my vote; but I do not expect to be sustained in such a vote by both branches of Congress. Whenever the attempt has been made to assert the Monroe Doctrine in either branch of Congress, it has failed. The present Democratic party came into power, after the debate on the Panama mission, on the utter abnegation of the whole doctrine, and stood upon Washington's doctrine of nonintervention. You cannot prevail on a majority, and I will venture to say that you cannot prevail on one-third, of either house of Congress to sustain it." Mr. Cass said: "Whenever the Monroe Doctrine has been urged, either one or the other house of Congress, or both houses, did not stand up to it." Mr. Seward said: "It is true that

of the nation. They went to Portugal in the discharge of a sacred obligation, contracted under ancient and modern treaties. When there, nothing would be done by them to enforce the establishment each house of Congress has declined to assert it; but the honorable senators must do each house the justice to acknowledge that the reason why they did decline to assert the doctrine was, that it was proposed, as many members thought, as an abstraction, unnecessary, not called for at the time." Mr. Mason spoke of it as having "never been sanctioned or recognized by any constitutional authority." Mr. Cass afterwards, in a very elaborate speech (of Jan. 28, 1856), gave his views of the history and character of the doctrine. He placed it upon very high ground, as a declaration not only against European intervention or future colonization, but against the acquisition of dominion on the continent by European powers, by whatever mode or however derived; and seemed to consider it as a pledge to resist such a result by force, if necessary, in any part of the continent. He says: 'We ought years ago, by Congressional interposition, to have made this system of policy an American system, by a solemn declaration; and, if we had done so, we should have spared ourselves much trouble and no little mortification." Referring to Mr. Polk's message, in 1845, he said there was then an opportunity for Congress to adopt the doctrine, not as an abstraction, but on a practical point. "We refused to say a word; and, I repeat, we refused then even to take the subject into consideration." He denied the correctness of Mr. Calhoun's explanation (vide supra), and contended that the non-colonization clause was intended to be, and understood by England to be, a foreclosure of the whole continent against all future European dominion, however derived. It may well be said, however, and such seems now to be the prevalent opinion, that the complaints of Mr. Cass and others of his school, of the neglect and abandonment of the Monroe Doctrine, apply rather to their construction of the doctrine than to the doctrine itself.

"

That the declarations in Mr. Monroe's message arose out of the apprehension that the Holy Alliance sought to extend its system to the American colonies, and possibly to independent American States, there can be no doubt. The only points made by Mr. Monroe are Any attempt on their part to extend their system [the political system of the Holy Alliance] to any portion of this hemisphere;" and "Any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them [the American States], or controlling in any other manner their destiny." It is observable that the protest is against certain modes of European action, and not against new acquisitions specifically, nor even inferentially, if made, for instance, by treaties in which there should be no coercion and no interposition by third powers, or by conquest in a war not waged for the policy or purpose objected to. Mr. Jefferson, in his letter above referred to, had noticed this subject, and placed among the acts we should oppose "their transfer to any power by conquest, cession, or acquisition in any other way." Still, Mr. Monroe's Cabinet made no declaration on the point of transfer of dominion. It is also to be observed that Mr. Canning's proposition to Mr. Rush was for a joint declaration by the two governments of a double proposition, - 1st, That they did not aim at the possession of any portion of the Spanish colonies for themselves; and, 2d, That "they could not see the transfer of any portion of them to any other power with indifference." This double proposition, communicated by Mr. Rush to the President and by him to Mr. Jefferson, and recommended by Mr. Jefferson and laid before the Cabinet, is still not adopted in the message. Confining itself to a declaration against interposition to oppress or control, or to extend the system of the Holy Alliance to this hemisphere, the message avoids committing the government on the subject of

of the constitution; but they must take care that nothing was done by others to prevent it from being fairly carried into effect. The hostile aggression of Spain, in countenancing and aiding the party

acquisition, either by the United States or the European powers, and whether by voluntary cession or conquest. Possibly the administration may have paused at Mr. Jefferson's caution in his letter referred to: — 'But we must first ask ourselves a question, — Do we wish to acquire any one or more of the Spanish provinces? — before we can unite in the proposed joint declaration." Mr. Jefferson confesses that, in his opinion, Cuba would be "the most interesting addition that could ever be made to our system of States;" yet is willing, in view of the great advantages to be gained by the joint declaration, to forego Cuba. The slaveholding interest was clearly looking to Cuba, not only as an addition to its political power in the Union, but to prevent abolition of slavery there by some other power; and it is known that Mr. Adams had a noticeable leaning in favor of its importance to us in a military and commercial view. The Texas question was already looming in the distance; and it was but three years since we had acquired Florida, and but twenty years since we had purchased the vast Louisiana territory. Twenty-two years after this, we annexed Texas; and, twenty-five years after, we acquired by conquest California and New Mexico; and, for several years before the civil war of 1861, the slave-power in the Union was exerting itself to annex Cuba. It is true the government had, as has been seen, exchanged declarations with England as to Cuba; but then, as later, when, in 1854, the tripartite alliance for the retention of Cuba by Spain was proposed, we were not willing to commit ourselves to absolute guaranties on that point: and a successful revolution in Cuba might have made, at any time, an opening for her annexation. When we compare the declarations in the message with the joint declaration proposed by Mr. Canning and recommended by Mr. Jefferson, and consider our own prior history and our then position, it certainly is a fair inference that the administration purposely avoided any specific and direct statement as to transfer of dominion by competent parties, in the way of treaty, or by conquest in war.

In further explanation of the Monroe Doctrine, it is to be noticed that it is correctly called a doctrine, and no more. There is no intimation what the United States will do in case of European interposition, or what means it will take to prevent it. The United States have steadily refused to enter into any arrangement with the other American States for establishing a continental system on that point, or for mutual defence, or even to commit themselves in the way of pledge or promise. When the Spanish-American States wished to treat the message of 1823 as a "pledge" to them for the future, that construction of it was successfully resisted by the opposition, however favorably it may be thought Mr. Adams and his Cabinet at first regarded it. And public opinion may be considered as settled on the point that the action of the nation, in any case that may arise, must be unembarrassed by pledge or compact; and, further, as equally settled, against the introduction of any thing approaching the nature of a Holy Alliance for this continent, though it be in the interests of republican institutions.

It has sometimes been assumed that the Monroe Doctrine contained some declaration against any other than democratic-republican institutions on this continent, however arising or introduced. The message will be searched in vain for any thing of the kind. We were the first to recognize the imperial authority of Don Pedro in Brazil, and of Iturbide in Mexico; and more than half the northern continent was under the sceptres of Great Britain and Russia; and these dependencies would certainly

opposed to the Portuguese Constitution, was in direct violation of repeated solemn assurances of the Spanish cabinet to the British

be free to adopt what institutions they pleased, in case of successful rebellion, or of peaceful separation from their parent States. (See Mr. Seward's correspondence respecting Mexico, from 1862 to 1866, as illustrative of the position of the United States at the present time on this subject, given at length in note 41 to § 76 infrà).

As a summary of this subject, it would seem that the following positions may be safely taken: I. The declarations upon which Mr. Monroe consulted Mr. Jefferson and his own Cabinet related to the interposition of European powers in the affairs of American States. II. The kind of interposition declared against was that which may be made for the purpose of controlling their political affairs, or of extending to this hemisphere the system in operation upon the continent of Europe, by which the great powers exercise a control over the affairs of other European States. III. The declarations do not intimate any course of conduct to be pursued in case of such interpositions, but merely say that they would be "considered as dangerous to our peace and safety," and as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States," which it would be impossible for us to "behold with indifference;" thus leaving the nation to act at all times as its opinion of its policy or duty might require. IV. The declarations are only the opinion of the administration of 1823, and have acquired no legal force or sanction. V. The United States has never made any alliance with, or pledge to, any other American State on the subject covered by the declarations. VI. The declaration respecting non-colonization was on a subject distinct from European intervention with American States, and related to the acquisition of sovereign title by any European power, by new and original occupation or colonization thereafter. Whatever were the political motives for resisting such colonization, the principle of public law upon which it was placed was, that the continent must be considered as already within the occupation and jurisdiction of independent civilized nations.

On this subject, the reader is referred to the following authorities:- Mr. Adams to Mr. Rush, July 2, 1823; Mr. Monroe's message, Dec. 2, 1823; Mr. Rush's Memoranda of Residence at the Court of London; Stapleton's Life of Canning; Briefwechsel zwischen Varnhagen von Ense und Oelsner, vol. iii.; Mr. Clay's resolution, offered Jan. 20, 1824; the ukase of the Emperor Alexander, Sept. 4, 1821; the treaty between the United States and Spain, 22 February, 1819; the Nootka-Sound Convention between Spain and Great Britain of 28 October, 1790; Mr. Monroe's annual message, Dec. 7, 1824; Mr. Adams's messages of Dec. 26, 1825, and March 26, 1826; Mr. Clay's despatch to Mr. Poinsett, March 25, 1825; Mr. Webster's speech on the Panama mission, Webster's Works, iii. 178; Mr. Everett's speech on the same, Cong. Debates, 1826; Mr. Calhoun's speech on the Yucatan question, Calhoun's Works, iv. 454; Mr. Polk's annual message of Dec. 2, 1845; his special message on Yucatan, of April 29, 1848; the debate in the Senate on the Yucatan question, April and May, 1848, Congress. Globe, 1848, p. 712 et seq.; the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, United-States Laws, x. 995; Debates in the United-States Senate on the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, 1855-56, Congress. Globe and Appendix for 1st Sess. 34th Cong.; North-American Review, 1856, p. 478; Mr. Everett's letter of Sept. 2, 1863, on the Monroe Doctrine, in the New-York Ledger; Letter of J. Q. Adams on the same, to the Rev. Dr. Channing, of Aug. 11, 1837; Mr. Canning's speech of Dec. 12, 1826; Mr. Buchanan's article on the Monroe Doctrine, in his History of his Administration, p. 276.]- D.