ORIGIN OF THE MONROE DOCTRINE.

383

security. The war if 1812, brought home the idea of neutrality to the American people and awakened their sympathies for the struggling South American republics. It was an easy matter, therefore, for Monroe to follow the principle which his predecessor had urged, and the speedy success which attended the Spanish colonies in their revolt, gave opportunity for the United States to put the doctrine in practice. The affairs of these quasi-Republics reached such a stage in 1817, that our government felt obliged, while pursuing a policy of neutrality with Europe, at the same time to inaugurate one of commercial reciprocity with them. This new phase of our international relations marked a transition in our general policy as appears in the discussion of the subject by Monroe in his message to Congress in 1817.2 The radical character of the change is apparent now and it may be said that since that time no political party has ignored the policy of neutrality or neglected to urge the extension of our commercial relations based upon the principle of the policy.

Monroe took up the subject again in 1818,3 and declared that the United States had good cause to be satisfied with the policy which it had adopted. This was a strong advocacy of the policy when we consider Monroe's negative character as a statesman. During the summer of 1819, the new Republics formed stable governments. Monroe in his next annual message, convinced of the inability of Spain to regain her former Provinces, urged Congress to revise our laws so as to prevent all violations of neutrality. But in his general discussion of a neutrality policy he carried its meaning a step nearer one of a

1 March 5, 1817; Id., II, 4.

2 December 2; Richardson, II, 11.

November 17, 1818; Id., 39.

384

EFFECT OF ITS ANNOUNCEMENT.

guarantee by the United States of the supremacy of republican institutions in both North and South America.1 During the five years that followed the idea strengthened in America that our government was the natural protector of the Western world2 and its republican institutions. Thus far our government had never been consulted respecting any European policy, and European nations still looked upon South America as an open field. This was the general situation when Canning began correspondence on the subject with our government in 1820.

The immediate effect of the promulgation of the Monroe doctrine was to assure the new Republics of their independence, but it should be added, opinions have since widely differed, whether in any sense it pledged the United States to maintain a protectorate over them, but there is little doubt that the American people had already reached the conclusion that the doctrine pledges them to protect republican institutions in the new world. Certainly Monroe's announcement and the moral support which it immediately received and has since received, put an end to all dreams of European interference in American affairs and practically foretold the ultimate retirement of Spain from the new world. England promptly recognized the policy, but with one exception it has been formulated by only one branch of our government. In January, 1824, Clay embodied the doctrine in the resolu

1 December 7, 1819; Id., 254.

2 See Adams to Canning, October 2, 1820; Memoirs, V, 182; see also Monroe's Fourth Annual Message, November 14, 1820; Second Inaugural Address, March 4, 1821; Fifth Annual Message, December 3, 1821; Special Message, March 8, 1822, in Richardson, II. Gallatin to Chateaubriand, Gallatin's Writings, II, 271; Adams to the Russian Minister, Memoirs, July 17, 1823, VI, 163; Adams to Richard Rush, July 22, 1823; Register of Debates, 1825-1826, II, Part 2, p. 31.

APPLICATIONS OF THE DOCTRINE.

385

tion which he offered in the House of Representatives,1 but the resolution did not pass and Congress has never incorporated it specially in legislation. But the principle of the doctrine was asserted by the House of Representatives in its resolution of April, 1826, that the people of the United States, in case of European interference in American affairs, would consider themselves free to act as their honor and policy might at the time dictate.2 In later times, no fewer than seven of our Presidents have reasserted the doctrine on critical occasions, and it has become a permanent quality of our diplomatic correspondence. It may now be said to have become a part of the unwritten law of the Constitution.3

1 January 20; Benton's Debates, VII, 650. 2 April 20, 1826; House Journal, 451.

3 Tyler, December 30, 1842; Richardson, IV, 212; Polk, December 2, 1845, Id., 398; December 7, 1847, Id., 540 and April 29, 1848, Id., 582; Buchanan, December 6, 1858, Id., V, 512; and December 3, 1860, Id., 646: Grant, May 31, 1870, Id., VII, 61; December 5, 1870, Id., 129: Cleveland, December 2, 1895, Id., IX, 632 and December 17, 1895, Id., 655, (in re Venezuela.) Also see Clay to Minister Poinsett, March 25, 1825; Register of Debates, 1825-1826, II, Pt. 2, App. 84: Secretary Buchanan to Minister Heise, June 4, 1838, Wharton's Digest, I, 287; Clayton-Bulwer Treaty, April 19, 1850; Treaties and Conventions, 441: Secretary Everett to Comte De Sartiges, December 1, 1852; Wharton's Digest 563; Secretary Cass to Minister Dodge, October 21, 1858; Wharton's Digest, I, 288: to Minister McLane, September 20, 1860; Id., 299: Seward to Minister Corwin, April 6, 1861, Senate Executive Documents, 37th Congress, second session, I, 69: Seward to Dayton, September 26, 1863, House Executive Documents, 38th Congress, First Session, II, 782; October 23, Id., 799; House Resolutions, April 4, 1864, Congressional Globe, 1863-1864, II, 1408: Seward to the Marquis De Monthalon, December 6, 1865, Senate Executive Documents, 39th Congress, First Session, I, 100: Seward to Minister Kilpatrick, June 2, 1866, House Executive Documents, 39th Congress, Second Session, I, Pt. 2, p. 413: House Resolution, March 27, 1867, Congressional Globe, 392; Report to President Grant by Secretary Fish, July 14, 1870, Senate Executive Document, 41st

386

CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A PROTECTIVE TARIFF.

The question of the constitutionality of protective tariff was raised in 1789 and again in 1816, but it was first exhaustively discussed in the debates on the tariff of 1824.1 The National Republicans, under the leadership of Clay, advocated the principle of protection and found support for their arguments in the liberal construction of the Constitution, which characterized the decision of the Supreme Court under Marshall.2 The whole matter of laying a tax, they claimed, was one of discretion with Congress. Moderate protectionists, of whom Webster at this time was one, held that the whole question was one of expediency. He feared that if protection was carried too far commerce would be destroyed. The advocates of a tariff act of which the distinctive feature would be its revenue clause, preferred the opinion which Webster had uttered in 1820, that Congress has no power to determine what occupations society should follow and what it should abandon. They held that the rightful power of Congress to levy a tax went no further than to raise money necessary for the lawful purposes of the government. If the right to pass a tariff act depended wholly on expediency, its exercise would cease to respond to the necessities of the people, but would be determined by politics only. The attitude of parties over the tariff of 1824, did not materially change in later times. The National RepubliCongress, Second Session, III, No. 112, pp. 7, 9: Hayes's Special Message, March 8, 1880, Richardson, VII, 585: Secretary Blaine to Minister Morgan, June 1, 1881, Wharton's Digest, I, 331: to Minister Lowell, November 19, 1881, Id., II, 212: to Minister Trescot, December 1, 1881, Wharton's Digest, I, 344: Secretary Frelinghuysen to Trescot, January 9, 1882, Id.: to Minister Reid, January 4, 1883, Id., 295; Harrison's Inaugural, March 4, 1889, Richardson, IX, 10.

1 Act of May 22, 1824; Statutes at Large, IV, 25.

2 Gibbons vs. Ogden; 9 Wheaton, 1 (1824.)

3 Works, III 94; Speech of April 1 and 2, 1824.

THE COMING OF JACKSON.

387

cans grounded their faith in the matter of national expediency and a liberal construction of the Constitution. Finding a well made up creed in that celebrated report on American manufactures, which Hamilton, while Secretary of the Treasury, made to Congress in 1791. The Democrats, following the letter of the Constitution, stood substantially on the same ground which Jefferson had taken when he opposed chartering the first United States bank. The tariff of 1828, styled by its enemies, the tariff of abominations, reopened the whole controversy of the power of Congress to levy taxes, and was the immediate cause of a great struggle and ultimately of a great compromise which followed.

Jackson came to the Presidency in 1829, convinced that he was the chosen of the people to institute great public reforms.1 His inauguration occurred amidst the debate over the tariff. He left no one in doubt of his own understanding of the method in which the revenue should be raised and distributed. It should be done, he said, without discrimination against any great interest in the country, and he was careful to draw a parallel between this nice balance of administration and the distinction between the rights of what he called the sovereign members of the Union and the powers which they had granted to the Confederacy; for the States were still considered sovereign, and the Union was still called a Confederacy. Jackson professed to take a strict construction view of executive powers. The President should administer the laws. The tariff act of 1828 was scarcely in the statute books before vociferous protests were heard from various quarters. Five Southern States pronounced it destructive of the best interests of their people.2 Protests of this kind had 1 Inaugural, March 4, 1829; Richardson, II, 436.

2 Georgia, Alabama, North Carolina, South Carolina and Virginia, 1828-29; reprinted in Elliot's pamphlets.