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. an act of self-defence, on no other grounds justifiable. not backed by threats of force. It was 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 ference" the extension of the political system of the Allies to any portion of the continent, speaks with warmth of those whom it terms "our Southern brethren." In this respect it savours more of Monroe than of Adams. . . . A single phrase, inserted perhaps by the President, or adopted by Adams as a harmless concession to the views of his colleagues, cannot of itself disprove his authority. ... ... The logical conclusion seems to be that the conception of the Monroe Doctrine and much of its phraseology came from Adams, and that the share of Monroe did not extend beyond revision. . . ... In insisting upon the right of every people to choose its own form of government without external interference, also, the declaration is affirming but not creating, the Law of Nations. The kernel of this part of the Monroe Doctrine then in its second form as in its first, is a vague declaration of policy and in no way a formulation of rules prevailing between states. . . No line or paragraph of the Monroe Doctrine, therefore, represents an addition to the body of rules prevailing between States. From the first word to the last, it is a declaration of the policy of a single power. In its latest development, then, as throughout its history, the Monroe Doctrine has induced confusion of thought. The flood of sentiment and rhetoric poured out on both sides of the Atlantic has in great part obscured the truth. It has served, none the less, to establish the position of the Monroe Doctrine as a political force, which however esteemed must be recognized. Above all, by the Old World and the New, it must be understood. WILLIAM FIDDIAN REDDAWAY, Monroe Doctrine. 82-151. ᎻᎪᎡᎢ (1901) No one who knows the cautious and somewhat sluggish mind of Monroe could suppose a priori that he had the genius to meet and counteract the double danger; the real author and probable penman of the famous declaration of 1823 was John Quincy Adams, then Secretary of State. He had already rapped the knuckles of the Russian ambassador on the Oregon question, and he threw all his immense energy into the task of nerving up the President to a strong announcement. The result was the annual message of December 2, 1823, embodying what was thereafter called "The Monroe Doctrine," the essentials of which are three statements. . . . It will be seen that the Monroe doctrine was not intended by Monroe to be a code of international law, but was called out by a special set of circumstances long since outgrown aggressions by Russia and by allied Europe. So far as it referred to the future, the doctrine was intended to state a kind of quid pro quo. . . The extension of the term Monroe Doctrine from the limited form given it by John Quincy Adams to that stated by Secretary Olney has of course a reason: there is an apparent advantage, when the United States takes up a position in American diplomacy, in bringing it within the Monroe Doctrine; because it may then be urged that foreign powers which ignore or question our positions have had many decades of notice, and hence are sinning against light. But it is impossible to appeal to a part of the principle and to ignore the rest; and the history of the doctrine shows absolutely that down to 1895 the United States always asserted a special American influence, on the ground that it left to European powers a similar special interest in Europe. This is simply a doctrine of the permanent subdivision of the earth into two spheres of influence, each of which could get on without the other, and in each of which the interference of the other would be unwarranted. There was really no such separation in 1823, and every year draws the ends of the earth closer together. To claim the Monroe Doctrine as still our guiding principle is to suggest to other nations that the United States has no power outside America. The two areas are not separate and never can be separated; the United States is a world power, and cannot claim the special privileges of a diplomatic recluse, and at the same time the mastery of the Western Hemisphere. ALBERT BUSHNELL HART, The Monroe Doctrine, in Harper's Monthly, 1901. |