« PreviousContinue »
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 noncolonization 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.1
It should be observed, however, that on April 4, 1864, the House passed without dissent a resolution which contemplated that—
the Congress of the United States are unwilling by silence to leave the nations of the world under the impression that they are indifferent spectators of the deplorable events now transpiring in the Republic of Mexico, and that they therefore think fit to declare that it does not accord with the policy of the United States to acknowledge any monarchical Government erected on the ruins of any republican Government in America under the auspices of any European Power."
While this resolution does not in terms refer to the Monroe Doctrine, nevertheless, its provisions are such as to leave little doubt that the Monroe Doctrine was in the mind of the House when this resolution was passed.
1 Wheaton, Elements of International Law, 8th ed. (Dana), pp. 109-110.
THE MONROE DOCTRINE IS NOT APPLICABLE TO WARS BETWEEN AMERICAN STATES
Mr. Clay in his instruction to Mr. Forbes of January 3, 1828, with reference to the war then waging between the Argentine Republic and the Emperor of Brazil, stated that it could not be conceived
as presenting a state of things bearing the remotest analogy to the case which President Monroe's message deprecates. It is a war strictly American in its origin and its object. It is a war in which the Allies of Europe have taken no part. Even if Portugal and the Brazils had remained united, and the war had been carried on by their joint arms, against the Argentine Republic, that would have been far from presenting the case which the message contemplated.1
1MS., Instructions to United States Ministers, vol. XII, p. 51.
THE MONROE DOCTRINE HAS BEEN HELD INAPPLICABLE TO A WAR BETWEEN A PARENT COUNTRY AND ITS FORMER COLONY
In 1825 the Brazilian Chargé d'Affaires proposed upon behalf of his government:
(1) that the United States should enter into an alliance with Brazil to maintain its independence, if Portugal should be assisted by any foreign power to reestablish her former sway, and (2) that an alliance might be formed to expel the arms of Portugal from any part of the Brazilian territory of which they might happen to take possession.1
Mr. Clay, replying to this suggestion, pointed out that an early peace seemed imminent, thus disposing of the first suggestion; and that as to the second suggestion, should the allies undertake to join with Portugal the President would give to the situation such consideration as it would seem to demand. As to the treaty, Mr. Clay added, however, that the suggested alliance would be contrary to the policy the United States had pursued, which was, "that whilst the war is confined to the parent Country and its former Colony, the United States remain neutral, extending their friendship and doing equal justice to both parties."
1 Moore, International Law Digest, vol. VI, p. 437. 'MS., Notes to Foreign Legations, vol. I, p. 213.
THE MONROE DOCTRINE COVERS REANNEXATION BY SPAIN
This principle was announced on April 2, 1861, when, having received a report of the subversion of the Dominican Republic by Spanish authorities in Cuba with the aim of establishing a Spanish protectorate over that Republic or of annexing the territory to Spain, Secretary Seward declared in a note to Mr. Tassara, the Spanish Minister at Washington, that if these proceedings were sanctioned by the Spanish Government the President would be obliged to regard them as manifesting an unfriendly spirit towards the United States, and to meet the further prosecution of enterprises of that kind in regard to either the Dominican Republic or any part of the American Continent or islands with a prompt, persistent and, if possible, effective resistance.1
A few weeks later Mr. Seward instructed our Minister to Spain as follows:
we are informed by what seems reliable authority, that the Dominican Republic on the Island of San Domingo has been overthrown by a force introduced there by subjects of Spain who proceeded thither from the Island of Cuba. And on authority equally probable we are informed that the Government of Her Catholic Majesty has been speedily proclaimed on the subversion of the republic, and that this proclamation is maintained by a very large detachment of the Spanish army stationed in the West Indies. [P. 268.]
By direction of the President, I have called the attention of the minister plenipotentiary of Her Catholic Majesty at this place to these very extraordinary facts and asked for an explanation thereof. You are furnished with a copy of that communication and also with a copy of Mr. Tassara's reply. He having promised to communicate farther after consulting his Government, the President awaits that communication before taking any decisive measure concerning the transaction. You are authorized and instructed to call the attention of the Spanish Government to the subject, and in such manner as you can adopt without impropriety, urge the necessity of a prompt and satisfactory explanation. For this purpose you are authorized to say that the President will regard any attempt of Her Catholic Majesty's Government to retain the territory of the late Dominican Republic as a matter claiming very serious attention on the part of the Government of the United States. [P. 269.] The United States have a traditional policy in regard to the islands of Cuba and Porto Rico, which are dependencies of Spain. In view of the propinquity of those islands to our own coast, the United States have felt it their right and duty to watch them and prevent their falling into the hands of an inimical power. They have constantly indulged the belief that they might hope at some
'MS., Notes to the Spanish Legation, vol. ví, p. 203.
day to acquire those islands by just and lawful means, with the consent of their sovereign. In the meantime the United States have believed it to be most conducive to their present and ulterior safety and interests that Cuba and Porto Rico remain in the possession and ownership of Spain. [P. 268.]
Although there have been times when a disposition to deviate from this policy has been manifested by some parties, yet it has nevertheless been persevered in with great fidelity on the part of the Government. The President is satisfied of the wisdom of this course and is well inclined to adhere to it as steadily as any of his predecessors. [P. 268.]
But it must be borne in mind that this forbearance on our part has always proceeded on the ground that Spain is not an aggressive Power, and that she is content to leave the Spanish American independent States free from her intervention, and at liberty to regulate their own affairs and work out their own destiny. [P. 268.]2
On July 2, 1861, Mr. Schurz, our Minister to Spain (who with reference to Spain's action in Santo Domingo had already been instructed on June 7 to make a "protest against the assumption or exercise of Spanish authority in the island" and on June 22, to make such protest "in such a manner as to indicate our firm denial of the rightfulness of the annexation"—which protest Mr. Perry, Chargé at Madrid had been assured on May 21, 1861, that we should "expect to maintain ") was advised:
Mr. Tassara called upon me yesterday, and delivered to me, confidentially, a royal decree pronouncing the annexation of Dominica to Spain. Presuming that our protest against this act of the Spanish Government has been already made known in pursuance of previous instructions, this confidential communication of the form of the act itself does not seem to us to require any official proceeding on our part at the present moment. The subject in its various and complicated bearings will in due time receive the deliberate consideration of the Government."
In the war which subsequently broke out between the Spanish occupants and the people of the island, the United States "determined to maintain in regard to the conflict, just as in regard to all other foreign conflicts, the 'same neutrality' which it exacted of friendly nations in regard to its own civil war. The necessary steps were therefore taken for the enforcement of the neutrality laws."
The constant disturbances in Santo Domingo, led the Spanish Cortes to pass a bill on April 30, 1865, for the abandonment of the island.
From 1864 to 1866 war was carrying on between Spain and the Spanish American republics on the west coast of South America. So far as Peru was concerned it was surmised that Spain might enter
'MS., Instructions, Spain, vol. xv, pp. 268–269.
Ibid., pp. 279–280; Moore, International Law Digest, vol. vi, p. 517. 'Moore, ibid.