shut out Europe, its rulers and its systems of monarchy forever from this hemisphere; for by such means only could the germ of self-government expand, and the luxuriant growth of this hardy plant make it impossible that the monarchical idea should ever strike a deep root in American soil. . . . When liberty struggled in America we were not - we could not be neutral. The time of announcement and the choice of expression, nevertheless, awaited events. . . . It was the courage of a great people personified in a firm chief magistrate that put the fire into those few momentous though moderate sentences, and made them glow like the writing at Belshazzar's feast.

JAMES SCHOULER, History of the United States. III. 289–290.

TUCKER (1885)

The argument that the Monroe Doctrine can have no validity because it has never received legislative sanction, carries with it no weight. Many rules of international law impose an obligation derived from usage alone. The original declaration of Mr. Monroe is a precedent acknowledged by the American people, and to a certain extent acquiesced in by European authorities. Hardly a President since Mr. Monroe has omitted to refer to it in language of approval. It has always been regarded as a question independent of party politics, save perhaps in its application to the Congress at Panama. It has been persistently asserted by the majority of American statesmen; and to declare that it cannot obtain as a universal obligation is practically to throw discredit upon Washington's farewell address, whose recommendations, though never embodied in statutes or approved by resolution of Congress, have frequently shaped the foreign and domestic policy of the government. . . . Finally, the Monroe Doctrine is to America what the Balance of Power is to Europe. The analogy may not be complete, because several nations in Europe unite to preserve a ratio of power, while on this hemisphere the influence of the United States is paramount. But it is this feature which is especially worthy of note.

GEORGE F. TUCKER, The Monroe Doctrine. 130-131.

PRESIDENT CLEVELAND (1895)

Without attempting extended argument in reply to these positions it may not be amiss to suggest that the doctrine upon which we stand is strong and sound because its enforcement is important to our peace and safety as a nation, and is essential to the integrity of our free institutions and the tranquil maintenance of our distinctive form of government. It was intended to apply to every stage of our national life, and cannot become obsolete while our Republic endures. If the balance of power

is justly a cause for jealous anxiety among the governments of the old world, and a subject for our absolute non-interference, none the less is an observance of the Monroe Doctrine of vital concern to our people and their Government.

Assuming, therefore, that we may properly insist upon this doctrine without regard to "the state of things in which we live," or any changed conditions here or elsewhere, it is not apparent why its application may not be invoked in the present controversy.

If a European power, by an extension of its boundaries, takes possession of the territory of one of our neighbouring Republics against its will and in derogation of its rights, it is difficult to see why to that extent such European power does not thereby attempt to extend its system of government to that portion of this continent which is thus taken. This is the precise action which President Monroe declared to be "dangerous to our peace and safety," and it can make no difference whether the European system is extended by an advance of frontier or otherwise.

. . . The Monroe doctrine finds its recognition in those principles of international law which are based upon the theory that every nation shall have its rights protected and its just claims enforced.

GROVER CLEVELAND, Special Message, Dec. 17, 1895.

OLNEY (1895)

That there are circumstances under which a nation may justly interpose in a controversy to which two or more other nations are the direct and immediate parties is an admitted canon of international law. The doctrine is ordinarily ex

pressed in terms of the most general character and is perhaps incapable of more specific statement. It is declared in substance that a nation may avail itself of this right whenever what is done or proposed by any of the parties primarily concerned is a serious and direct menace to its own integrity, tranquillity, or welfare. The propriety of the rule when applied in good faith will not be questioned in any quarter. On the other hand, it is an inevitable though unfortunate consequence of the wide scope of the rule that it has only too often been made a cloak for schemes of wanton spoliation and aggrandizement. We are concerned at this time, however, not so much with the general rule as with a form of it which is peculiarly and distinctively American. Washington, in the solemn admonitions of the Farewell Address, explicitly warned his countrymen against entanglements with the politics or the controversies of European powers. .

During the administration of President Monroe this doctrine of the Farewell Address was first considered in all its aspects and with a view to all its practical consequences. The Farewell Address, while it took America out of the field of European politics, was silent as to the part Europe might be permitted to play in America. Doubtless it was thought the latest addition to the family of nations should not make haste to prescribe rules for the guidance of its older members, and the expediency and propriety of serving the powers of Europe with notice of a complete and distinctive American policy excluding them from interference with American political affairs might well seem dubious to a generation to whom the French alliance, with its manifold advantages to the cause of American independence, was fresh in mind.

. . The Monroe administration, however, did not content itself with formulating a correct rule for the regulation of the relations between Europe and America. It aimed at also securing the practical benefits to result from the application of the rule. Hence the message just quoted declared that the American continents were fully occupied and were not the subjects for future colonization by European powers. To this spirit and this purpose, also, are to be attributed the passages of the same message which treat any infringement of the rule

against interference in American affairs on the part of the powers of Europe as an act of unfriendliness to the United States. It was realized that it was futile to lay down such a rule unless its observance could be enforced. It was manifest that the United States was the only power in this hemisphere capable of enforcing it. It was therefore courageously declared not merely that Europe ought not to interfere in American affairs, but that any European power doing so would be regarded as antagonizing the interests and inviting the opposition of the United States.

RICHARD OLNEY, Letter to Mr. Bayard in Senate Executive Documents, 54 Cong. 1 session. (No. 31.)

WOOLSEY (1896)

But let us look at the real spirit and intent of the Monroe Doctrine. One hesitates to repeat its origin, so often has it been related. The allied powers had twice tried their hand at intervention in Spain and in Naples. This intervention was in favor of absolutism, not of established government; for in Naples a liberal movement was put down, in Spain a royalist insurrection was helped up. Emboldened by success, they then proposed to apply their new principles to this continent, and to restore to Spain those colonies of hers which were trying to gain, or had gained, their independence. Then Monroe declared that such intervention would be regarded by the United States as dangerous to itself. He announced a policy. That policy forbade the substitution of monarchical for republican forms of government on this continent by European force. It did not forbid the existence of monarchies here, as Dom Pedro could testify. It did not forbid any step which the republics themselves chose to take, but simply what was forced upon them. It was the policy which fitted the hour and the occasion. It was opportunism.

The Monroe Doctrine is not a law; it binds us to no action; it was a policy devised to meet a particular case. That case was the forcible substitution of monarchical for republican forms of government in American States by European action. It was an act of self-defence, on no other grounds justifiable. not backed by threats of force.

It was

THEODORE S. WOOLSEY, America's Foreign Policy. 223–238.

MCMASTER (1897)

The Monroe Doctrine is a simple and plain statement that the people of the United States oppose the creation of European dominion on American soil; that they oppose the transfer of the political sovereignty of American soil to European powers; and that any attempt to do these things will be regarded as "dangerous to our peace and safety.' What the remedy should be for such interposition by European powers the doctrine does not pretend to state. But this much is certain: that when the people of the United States consider anything "dangerous to their peace and safety" they will do as other nations do, and, if necessary, defend their peace and safety with force

of arms.

The doctrine does not contemplate forcible intervention by the United States in any legitimate contest, but it will not permit any such contest to result in the increase of European power or influence on this continent, nor in the overthrow of an existing government, nor in the establishment of a protectorate over them, nor in the exercise of any direct control over their policy or institutions. Further than this the doctrine does not go.

JOHN BACH MCMASTER, With the Fathers. 45.

W. F. REDDAWAY (1898)

In respect to the revolutionists of both hemispheres, then, the Monroe Doctrine is not in perfect harmony with the views of the President as previously expressed in public. It coincides, on the other hand, with the consistent teachings of Adams. Its keynote is the sharp political severance of America from Europe. In the mouth of Monroe, who had been wont to sound the praise of liberty in Spain, Portugal, and Greece, this rings false. With the strains of Adams it is in perfect harmony. . . . During several years, then, Adams had steadily treated the supremacy of the United States on the continent of North America as an established fact, and the progress of events had caused him to declare their interest in the whole of the New World. The Monroe Doctrine, however, though it announces only that they cannot " behold with indif