cided by the government that the Monroe doctrine should be sacrificed, in order that we might be able to 'whip the South.' We see the result to-day in the firm establishment of the Mexican empire, a result which the government must have foreseen. The only alternative left to us now is to recognize that empire, or to go to war with France, Austria, Belgium, Spain, Italy, and England, in order to root it out. The idea that Maximilian will abdicate, or that he will be deserted by his European allies, is too preposterous to be noticed."

On the 26th of September, 1863, Mr. Seward wrote to Mr. Dayton, our minister to Paris: "The United States have neither the right nor the disposition to intervene by force on either side, in the war which is going on between France and Mexico." On the eleventh of the same month, he wrote to Mr. Motley, our minister to Austria: "When France made war against Mexico, we asked of France explanations of her objects and purposes. She answered, that it was a war for the redress of grievances; and that she did not intend permanently to occupy or dominate in Mexico, and that she should leave to the people of Mexico a free choice of institutions of government. Under these circumstances the United States adopted, and they have since maintained, entire neutrality between the belligerents, in harmony with the traditional policy in regard to foreign wars.

CHAPTER IX.

Policy of President Johnson's Administration toward Mexico-His Message in December, 1865—Our Policy to be Based upon the Principle of Non-Intervention-We must Finally Recognize the Government de Facto-Why Mr. Logan was Appointed Minister to Mexico-Why he Refused the Appointment-Why Mr. Campbell was Appointed-Why Mr. Campbell is Not Permitted to go to Mexico-No Constitutional Republican Government in Mexico in Existence-Juarez a Usurper.

THE policy of the United States toward Mexico, from 1861 to 1865, might have been right or wrong. President Johnson had nothing to do with it. On his accession to the Presidency, he found that the republic of Mexico no longer existed, and that it had been succeeded by an empire which was firmly established, and which had been formally recognized by the eight great powers of the earth. He found, that of all the great powers of the earth, the United States was the only one that was not holding diplomatic relations with Mexico. He found, that for the first time in our history, the United States had failed to recognize a de facto government. On further inquiry and study, he found it to be an unquestionable fact that the new government in Mexico had been established by the will of the people, and was heartily supported by nine tenths of the popu

lation of Mexico, including all the honest and industrious people, all the merchants, all the men of wealth and property, all the educated and professional men, and by the church. He found that it was opposed solely by a few bands of guerillas.

The question for him to determine was, whether he should interpose and uproot all this, and, by forcing a republican government upon Mexico, throw back that country into its former condition of anarchy and weakness, or whether, on the other hand, he should observe our settled policy of non-intervention in the affairs of other nations, and leave Mexico to the enjoyment of that government which she had chosen, and under which, for three years, her people had been so happy and prosperous.

The Washington correspondent of the New York News," in his letter of December 8, 1865, in speaking of the message which President Johnson had just sent in to Congress, says:

"There is nothing either in the character of Andrew Johnson, or in the circumstances by which he is surrounded, which require him to use the language of ambiguity in speaking of the relations in which we stand toward Mexico. If the government intends to uphold the Monroe doctrine in Mexico, there is no reason why the President should not plainly say so. But he does not say it, nor can any such intention be implied from what he does say. Napoleon has done a

certain work in Mexico. What he has done there is finished and complete. There is nothing more for him to do there. But the whole world knows what he has done: namely, that he has established in Mexico a strong and permanent government. Now, if Mr. Johnson objected to that; if he objected to what Napoleon has done in Mexico; if he intended to take any measures to undo what Napoleon has done; if he intended to take any measures whatever for the expulsion of Maximilian and the resuscitation of the Mexican republic, he would have said so, plainly and unequivocally, in his message. But he says nothing of the kind. He does not complain of or object to, any thing that Napoleon has done in Mexico. He does say, in a very vague and indefinite manner, that we might protect ourselves against designs inimical to our own government; but he does not say that the government has any design to interfere in favor of a republic in Mexico. On the contrary, alluding to the fact that the Mexicans seem to have chosen a monachy instead of a republic, he says, that "Republicanism is the only government suited to our condition; but we have never sought to impose it upon others."

"INTENTIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT TOWARD MEXICO.

Again, in the whole Message there is not one word of sympathy for the Mexican republic; not one word of regret that the republic has fallen, and has been succeeded by an empire; not one word of encouragement to Juarez and his followers. This studied omission

must mean something. It can only mean that the government does not feel any such sympathy or regret. Mr. Johnson is not the man to suppress the sentiments of the government on such a subject. A correspondence between the United States and France, on the subject, is alluded to. We are not left in the dark as to the nature of that correspondence. Napoleon's designs in regard to Mexico have been plainly and unequivocally expressed, and have been before the world ever since 1863. He concealed nothing from the first. The purpose which he had in view, and which was announced as early as 1863, has been fully accomplished. There is nothing more in Mexico for him to do; and he has no designs,' 'inimical' or otherwise, 'toward the United States,' or 'against our government.' He has even offered to withdraw from Mexico all the French troops, if we will maintain our former neutrality toward Mexico. On our part, the correspondence alluded to by the President has been carried on by Mr. Seward. Mr. Seward is not a man whose foreign policy is subject to sudden changes. We have Mr. Seward's diplomatic correspon. dence down to the end of the year 1864. We have his letters to all of our foreign ministers long after the empire in Mexico was firmly established, and his instructions to them on that subject. There is no ambiguity in those letters. He speaks plainly and to the point. And the whole tenor of what he says is this: that, under no circumstances, will the United States interfere in what is going on in Mexico; that we will continue to preserve the most perfect neutrality between