« PreviousContinue »
THE MONROE DOCTRINE NOT INIMICAL TO ESTABLISHMENT OF MONARCHICAL GOVERNMENT IN THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE
Writing on August 2, 1824, to Mr. Madison, President Monroe said:
Mr. Salazar, the Minister from Columbia [sic], stated lately, by order of his gov., that a Frerch agent was expected at Bogota, having already arrived at the port, with power to treat with his govt. respecting its independence. He observed that his govt. had been advised, from an authentic source, that the govt. of France would acknowledge its independence on one condition, the establishment of monarchy, and leave the person to be placed in that station to the people of Columbia. That Bolivar would not be objected to if preferred by them. He asked, should the proposition be rejected, and France become hostile in consequence, what part the U States would take in that event? What aid might they expect from us? The subject will of course be weighed thoroughly in giving the answer. The Executive has no right to compromit the nation in any question of war, nor ought we to presume that the people of Columbia will hestitate as to the answer to be given to any proposition which touches so vitally their liberties.1
In 1851, the United States dealt with the Empire of Haiti in a controversy between the Empire and the Dominican Republic without any suggestion that the existence of an empire was contrary to the Monroe Doctrine. This incident has been narrated in some detail
in another section.
In connection with the setting up of Maximilian as Emperor of Mexico the Government of the United States reiterated a principle which it had announced on March 3, 1862. In an instruction from Secretary Seward to Mr. Dayton, our Minister to France (March 31, 1862), that the President deemed it his
duty to express to the allies, in all candor and frankness, the opinion that no monarchical government which could be founded in Mexico, in the presence of foreign navies and armies in the waters and upon the soil of Mexico, would have any prospect of security or permanence.*
No objection was made, however, to the establishment of a monarchy as such; and this attitude was, of course, the natural result of the establishment without protest upon the part of this Government of the early monarchies in Mexico, at the time when Mexico was seeking to make good her independence from Spain, and the establishment of the monarchical form of government in Brazil.
1 Writings of James Monroe, vol. vII, p. 31.
"Moore, International Law Digest, vol. VI, pp. 509 et seq. 'MS., Instructions, France, vol. xvi, p. 119.
Mr. Blaine, Secretary of State, in an instruction to Mr. Osborn, our Minister to Brazil, in which the Minister was directed to extend to Brazil an invitation to an international American peace congress which it was proposed to hold in Washington in November of 1882, said:
Brazil holds, in the South, much the same relationship to the other countries that the U. S. does in the North. Her domanial extent, her commerce and her advancement in the path of successful progress, exerts a beneficial and lasting influence on South America. Her intercourse with her neighbors has been marked by peace and good will, and, on memorable occasions, Brazil has lent wise counsels in momentous arbitrations. All this tends to make that Empire as necessary a factor in securing peace and harmony in America as the U. S. itself, while its interests in the great and humane results proposed are fully commensurate with our own. Moreover, the good friendship between Brazil and the U. S. is singularly strong. The ties which join them are intimate and permanent. What, then, is more natural than that these two great Powers should earnestly unite in a movement which, it is hoped will mark a historical epoch in America, and exert its influence on countries beyond the seas, and on generations yet unborn? *
Concerning this question, Dana in his note 36 to Wheaton says:
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 cetrainly be free to adopt what institutions they pleased, in case of successful rebellion, or of peaceful separation from their parent States."
* Ibid., Brazil, vol. xvII, p. 207.
* Wheaton, Elements of International Law, 8th ed. (Dana), pp. 111-112.
THE MONROE DOCTRINE DOES NOT CONTEMPLATE THAT THE POSSESSION OF AMERICAN COLONIES BY A EUROPEAN POWER MAKES OF THE EUROPEAN POWER ITSELF AN AMERICAN STATE
In his famous instruction of July 20, 1895, to Mr. Bayard, the American Ambassador to England, Mr. Olney stated:
It has been intimated, indeed, that in respect of these South American possessions Great Britain is herself an American state like any other, so that a controversy between her and Venezuela is to be settled between themselves as if it were between Venezuela and Brazil or between Venezuela and Colombia, and does not call for or justify United States intervention. If this view be tenable at all, the logical sequence is plain.
Great Britain as a South American state is to be entirely differentiated from Great Britain generally, and if the boundary question can not be settled otherwise than by force, British Guiana, with her own independent resources and not those of the British Empire, should be left to settle the matter with Venezuela-an arrangement which very possibly Venezuela might not object to. But the proposition that an European power with an American dependency is for the purposes of the Monroe doctrine to be classed not as an European but as an American state will not admit of serious discussion. If it were to be adopted, the Monroe doctrine would be too valueless to be worth asserting. Not only would every European power now having a South American colony be enabled to extend its possessions on this continent indefinitely, but any other European power might also do the same by first taking pains to procure a fraction of South American soil by voluntary cession.
The declaration of the Monroe message--that existing colonies or dependencies of an European power would not be interfered with by the United States-means colonies or dependencies then existing, with their limits as then existing. So it has been invariably construed, and so it must continue to be construed unless it is to be deprived of all vital force. Great Britain can not be deemed a South American state within the purview of the Monroe doctrine, nor. if she is appropriating Venezuelan territory, is it material that she does so by advancing the frontier of an old colony instead of by the planting of a new colony. The difference is matter of form and not of substance and the doctrine if pertinent in the one case must be in the other also.1
1 Foreign Relations of the United States, 1895, pt. 1, pp. 559-560.
THE RELATION OF THE MONROE DOCTRINE TO THE SUBVERSION BY EUROPEAN POWERS OF REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT ON THIS HEMISPHERE
Mr. Seward in his instruction to Mr. Kilpatrick, our Minister to Chile, on June 2, 1866, regarding the controversy between Spain and Chile, said:
On the other hand, we maintain and insist with all the decision and energy which is compatible with our existing neutrality, that the Republican system which is accepted by the people in any one of those States shall not be wantonly assailed, and that it shall not be subverted as an end of a lawful war, by European Powers. We thus give to those Republics the moral support of a sincere, liberal, and as we think it will appear, a useful friendship. We could claim from foreign States no concession to our own political, moral, and material principles or interests, if we should not conform our own proceedings in the needful intercourse with foreign States to the just rules of the laws of nations.' On October 23, 1863, Mr. Seward instructing Mr. Dayton, our Minister to France, with reference to the war then carrying on in Mexico, stated:
It is proper, also, that Mr. Drouyn de l'Huys should be informed that the United States continue to regard Mexico as the theatre of a war which has not yet ended in the subversion of the government long existing there, with which the United States remain in the relation of peace and sincere friendship; and that, for this reason, the United States are not now at liberty to consider the question of recognizing a government which, in the further chances of war, may come into its place. The United States, consistently with their principles, can do no otherwise than leave the destinies of Mexico in the keeping of her own people, and recognize their sovereignty and independence in whatever form they themselves shall choose that this sovereignty and independence shall be manifested."
Closely connected with the declarations made by various officers of this Government regarding the subversion of republican form of government in the Americas by European powers, are statements expressing concern with reference to states which have institutions similar to our own. Among the many statements of this character the following may be mentioned.
Mr. Seward, acknowledging a joint note from France, Great Britain, and Spain, stated on December 4, 1861, after declining to
1MS., Instructions, Chile, vol. xv, p. 334.
Papers relating to Foreign Affairs (Diplomatic Correspondence), 1863, vol. I, p. 726.
participate in a joint action against Mexico and the entering into a joint convention with the powers named:
Mexico being a neighbor of the United States on this continent, and possessing a system of government similar to our own in many of its important features, the United States habitually cherish a decided good will towards that republic, and a lively interest in its security, prosperity, and welfare. Animated by these sentiments, the United States do not feel inclined to resort to forcible remedies for their claims at the present moment, when the Government of Mexico is deeply disturbed by factions within, and war with foreign nations. And, of course, the same sentiments render them still more disinclined to allied war against Mexico, than to war to be urged against her by themselves alone."
Mr. Seward, writing again to Mr. Dayton, Minister to France, on March 3, 1862, regarding the French intervention in Mexico and the proposed establishment of a monarchy therein stated:
That, under such circumstances, the new government must speedily fall unless it could draw into its support European alliances which relating back to the first invasion, would in fact make it the beginning of a permanent policy of armed European monarchical intervention, injurious and practically hostile to the most general system of government on the continent of America, and this would be the beginning rather than the ending of revolution in Mexico.*
On another occasion, Mr. Seward, writing to the Marquis de Montholon, the French Minister at Washington (under date of December 6, 1865), stated:
We recognize the right of sovereign nations to carry on war with each other if they do not invade our right or menace our safety or just influence. The real cause of our national discontent is that, the French army which is now in Mexico is invading a domestic Republican Government there, which was established by her people, and with whom the United States sympathize most profoundly, for the avowed purpose of suppressing it, and establishing upon its ruins a foreign monarchical government whose presence there, so long as it should endure, could not but be regarded by the people of the United States, as injurious and menacing to their own chosen and endeared republican institutions."
In his famous despatch of July 20, 1895, to Mr. Bayard, the American Ambassador to England, Mr. Olney stated:
What is true of the material, is no less true of what may be termed the moral interests involved. Those pertaining to Europe are peculiar to her and are entirely diverse from those pertaining and peculiar to America. Europe as a whole is monarchical, and, with the single important exception of the Republic of France, is committed to the monarchical principle. America, on the other hand, is devoted to the exactly opposite principle-to the idea that every people has an inalienable right of self-government—and, in the United States of America, has furnished to the world the most conspicuous and conclusive example and proof of the excellence of free institutions, whether from the standpoint of national greatness or of individual happiness. It can not be