Page images


and South America. Impliedly, colonization is considered antagonistic or detrimental to the "free and independent condition which they" (the "American continents") have assumed and maintained." The "rights and interests" of the United States were involved in this principle.

2. The United States would consider any attempt on the part of the "allied powers" to extend their system to any part of "this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety."

This in terms covered the "allied powers," at this time, Austria, France, Russia. and Prussia; it covered the whole Western hemisphere, those parts occupied by the Spanish colonies and other parts; it was aimed at the allied "system."

3. "With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we have not interfered and shall not interfere."

It would seem, having in mind the sentence following and the expressions of paragraph 49 of the message, that this sentence might be interpreted as indicating we would not have had, at that time, any objection to reconquest by Spain of the colonies which had gained and maintained their independence and which we had recognized. This is not clear beyond doubt, because later in his message, President Monroe declared that while it had become evident, looking at the comparative strength and resources of Spain and those colonial governments and their distance from each other, that Spain could never subdue them, yet we would leave the parties to themselves. (Of course later we took a definite position against reannexation or reconquest by Spain.)

4. With reference to Spanish colonies which had declared and maintained their independence and which we had recognized, the United States "could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them or of controlling in any other manner their destiny. by any European power, in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition towards the United States."

This declaration related to all European powers, not specifically excluding Spain; it specifically referred to the revolted Spanish colonies; it went beyond the reassumption of control over them by Spain or the extension to them of the allied "system"; it covered interposition in their affairs not only for the purpose of oppressing them, but for the purpose of controlling in any other manner their destiny by any European power.

5. Specifically, the United States declared that it was "impossible that the allied powers should extend their political system to any part of either continent without endangering our peace and happiness." It was equally impossible that we should behold "such interposition " by the allied powers in any form with indifference.

This being directed against the allied powers, did not, ex vi termini, include Spain, and at this time Great Britain was not counted within the group that was popularly so designated.

6. It was still "the true policy of the United States" to leave the parties, that is, the revolted colonies and Spain, to themselves to adjust their difficulties as they saw fit.

This was the Monroe Doctrine. Under it future colonization by European powers was to be regarded as antagonistic or detrimental to the free and independent condition of these continents; the extension of the allied "system" to any part of this hemisphere was considered dangerous to our peace and safety; interposition by any European power, for the purpose of oppressing or controlling the destiny of the rebelled Spanish colonies which we had recognized was to be regarded as a manifestation of an unfriendly disposition towards the United States; our peace and happiness would be endangered should the allied powers extend their political system to any part of either continent, and the interposition of those powers in any form could not be viewed with indifference; the true policy of the United States was to leave Spain and her rebelled colonies to adjust their difficulties between themselves.

The Doctrine was thus one of self-preservation for the United States.

[ocr errors]

The provisions of the declaration fall obviously into two classes: those relating to "future colonization by any European power" on the "American continents"; and those relating to political operations, though the formula "interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any other manner their destiny seems sufficiently broad to cover other than purely political "interpositions." The distinctly political inhibitions run against the allied powers, and "to any portion of this hemisphere," or, as stated in the second formula, "to any part of either continent"; the inhibitions as to "interposition " run against "any European power,” and in terms relate to Spanish American " governments who have declared their independence and maintained it, and whose independence we have, on great consideration and just principles, acknowledged." In this memorandum no attempt is made to trace separately the development of these different classes of inhibitions, nor to identify, as belonging to the one class or the other, the occasions on which the Doctrine or its underlying principles have been invoked by this Government.


The reason these matters were regarded by President Monroe and his Cabinet as antagonistic and detrimental, as dangerous to our peace and safety, as a manifestation of an unfriendly disposition towards the United States or as endangering our peace and happiness, is best understood when we consider the historical facts-the circumstances which at that time were in the minds of Monroe, Adams, Calhoun, Jefferson, and Madison. For it was the views and discussions of these men which lay behind and which shaped and framed the announcement which President Monroe made to the world, as well as determined the terms in which the declaration was couched.


Of the many historical facts, the recollection of which must have influenced these men in the consideration and disposition of the questions before them, the principal ones must have been these:


There were four principal intercolonial wars between the French and English colonies in America: King William's War (1689-1697), Queen Anne's War (1702-1713), King George's War (1744-1748), and the French and Indian War (1755-1763).

The causes and results of these wars shed a revealing light upon their relationship to and effect upon the growth and development of the colonies.


King William's War was the colonial echo of a war between England and France, Louis XIV having declared war against King William III as the usurper of the rights of James II, and England having declared war against Louis XIV "on account of his proceedings, which were hostile to the freedom and religion of England, not against the French." At this time the British colonies stretched from the Bay of Fundy on the north to the Altamaha River on the south, and as far west as the Appalachian system of mountains. On the north of the British colonies was New France; to the west, was territory claimed by the French from occupancy of the Mississippi and by the English from occupancy of the coast; to the south, was Florida, then belonging to Spain. The war was a costly experience for the American colonists in actual hardship and suffering, in men lost and injured, and in money. Sir William Phipps commanded a fleet which with 1800 New England militiamen captured Port Royal and Acadia, though the latter was afterwards lost. There were five years of bushranging along the New York and New England border. The treaty of Ryswick in 1697, restored the British and French colonies to their pre-war status.


Thus was fought and concluded a war in the causes and issues of which the colonies were in no wise concerned, for the support of which the colonists furnished more than their proportion of men and money, and at the end of which the mother powers in Europe


1 Leopold von Ranke, A History of England Principally in the Seventeenth Century, vol. iv, p. 592.

'Reuben Gold Thwaites, The Colonies, Map No. 3.



adjusted their differences with a sovereign disregard of the interests of the colonists. All that the colonists had lost and endured went

for naught.

King William's War was immediately followed by what is known in Europe as the War of the Spanish Succession, and what is known in the United States as the Queen Anne's War (1702-1713). This war had its origin in the placing by Louis XIV of his grandson upon the throne of Spain and the acknowledgment or recognition by Louis XIV of James II as the rightful king of England. The repercussion in the American colonies was virtually the same as that in King William's War. After two unsuccessful attempts, New England troops finally captured Acadia. The treaty of Utrecht (1713) ended the war in Europe and in the United States. This time England herself retained the country which her American colonies had conquered, the treaty recognizing England's right to Acadia. Parkman points out that the colonies fought this war at a heavy expense for the place and time.

In neither the causes of this war, nor the issues thereof, were the colonies, British or French, concerned. They again fought because the mother countries were fighting, and because, being contiguous, they could reach one another's throats.

The third intercolonial war (King George's War) was the American echo of the War of the Austrian Succession which began in 1741. In Europe, war was declared because of the succession of Maria Theresa to the throne of Austria by virtue of the "pragmatic sanction" which was disapproved by England and Prussia but supported by France." War broke out in the colonies because there was war in Europe. The chief operation in the colonies connected with this war was that incident to the capture by New England troops (assisted by troops from Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York) of the strong fortress of Louisburg on the Island of Cape Breton. This operation is perhaps the outstanding colonial military achievement of the entire colonial period. The treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle (1748) turned back to France this great fortress. Thwaites states that over this outcome "disappointment was openly expressed, and tended still further to strain the relations between the colonies and the motherland." 10

Once more the colonies had expended quantities of blood and money in a conflict barren for them and originating in a European



6 Thwaites, The Colonies, pp. 253–254.

7 Francis Parkman, A Half-Century of Conflict, vol. 1, p. 2.

* Ibid., p. 185.


Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.) vol. x1, pp. 739, 861.

Thwaites, The Colonies, p. 255, and France in America, pp. 111 et seq.; Encyclopedia Americana, vol. VI, p. 292.

war with the causes and issues of which they were not concerned. Belligerent parent countries and territorial contiguity were the sole colonial reasons for war.

The final intercolonial war, or the Seven Years' War, also called the French and Indian War (1755-1763), was the result of the coalition of France and other European powers against Prussia which was joined by England, " and between England and France as usual a maritime and colonial war broke out at the first pretext." By this time France had virtually made good her claim to the great Mississippi Valley which was known as Louisiana, the original colonies of France around and northeast of the Great Lakes being known as New France.11

This war, so far as the British colonies were concerned, gave Braddock's humuliating defeat, and Wolfe's brilliant victory. The war ended with the treaty of Paris (1763) which gave to England that part of the Mississippi Valley which lies east of the Mississippi River (excepting New Orleans) and north of the Ohio, and New France.12

While England benefited by this war, the British colonies themselves received only the indirect reward of the elimination of potentially hostile neighbors.

An accurate and complete statement of the cost to the American colonies in men, materials, and money is not possible. Statistics which have been found show that in the Seven Years' War alone not fewer than 30,000 colonists served in the armed forces, and not less than $20,000,000 were spent. Earlier wars drained the colonies proportionately.

So far as the colonies themselves were concerned, these wars netted them nothing. England, not the colonies, gained Acadia at the end. of Queen Anne's War; and England, not the colonies, gained New France, that is Canada, and the northeast quarter of Louisiana, that is the area later known in American history as the Northwest Territory. In the causes of none of these wars were the colonies directly involved; in the outcome of none of them were they immediately concerned. The wars had been fought, colonial life had been freely given, large colonial funds had been expended, and great suffering and hardship had been endured merely because the mother countries in Europe were quarreling over matters, the outcome of which was in no way related to the colonies. The colonies were at war

"Thwaites, The Colonies, Map No. 4.


Thwaites, France in America, chaps. 11-15, 18; George McKinnon Wrong, The Conquest of New France, chaps. 8 et seq.; articles on the " 'Northwest Territory," Encyclopedia Americana, vol. xx, p. 432 and The New International Encyclopædia, vol. XVII, p. 238.

« PreviousContinue »