NATURE OF THE ISSUE.

377

Time

gress to prescribe conditions for the territories and the States, but it was also a triumph for slavocracy in that a new slave State had been admitted into the Union. alone could determine whether the compromise would prove permanent. The great constitutional issues from the adoption of the Constitution to the adoption of the Missouri Compromise were essentially a series of contests between the States and the United States for sovereignty. As yet neither power had triumphed. The organization and administration of government were matters of compromise. We shall see how this spirit of compromise dominated another generation.

ILLINOIS

Erie

RE E

1OHIO

XY

JERSEY

TLANTIC

UNITED STATES

SHOWING

FREE SOIL

AND

SLAVE SOIL

1821

GULF

OF

XE X

CHAPTER II.

THE CONTEST COMPROMISED.

While the Missouri Compromise was pending, events in South America were shaping an international policy for the United States, which was not of our own seeking and was destined to survive the period in which it originated and to give a unique position to our government. Early in the nineteenth century, the Spanish-American States revolted and asked the United States for recognition of their independence. The unsettled state of Europe, after the fall of Napoleon, led the ruling Houses of France, Russia, Prussia and Austria to unite for the purpose of maintaining peace and redressing revolutions within each other's domain, and especially to repress all attempts at liberal government. This was the so-called Holy Alliance of 1815. About this time the Spanish colonies in South America had met with such success in their efforts for independence, that Spain began to doubt her ability to subjugate them, and rumor passed through the world, that the Alliance contemplated offering assistance to Spain. Interference of this kind was construed by England as inimical to her interests, and Canning, her Prime Minister, intimated to our Ambassador at the Court of St. James, Richard Rush, that the United States should take decided action against it. President Monroe submitted the wishes of the British government to his cabinet, and also to Jefferson and Madison. The reply of Jefferson covered the whole principle involved. The question, he said, was the most momentous which had come before him since that of American independence. "That made us a nation; this sets our compass and points

380

THE MONROE DOCTRINE.

the course which we steer through the ocean of time opening on us." And he laid down a maxim which he thought should be fundamental in our government, that we should never entangle ourselves in the broils of Europe, nor suffer Europe to intermeddle with affairs this side of the Atlantic. "America, North and South, have a set of interests distinct from those of Europe and peculiarly her own. She should, therefore, have a system of her own separate and apart from that of Europe." The governments of the old world were laboring to become the home of despotism, but our endeavor should be to make the Western Hemisphere the home of freedom. In pursuing our true policy only one nation, England, could disturb us, but by acceding to her proposition respecting the South American republics, we could detach her from an unfriendly European alliance and bring her mighty weight into the scale of free government. "Great Britain," he concluded, "is the nation which can do us the most harm of any or all on earth, and with her on our side we need not fear the whole world."

3

A few days later Madison replied in the same spirit,2 and the Cabinet mainly agreed with the opinions of the two ex-Presidents. The result was the famous message which Monroe sent to Congress on December 2, 1823, proclaiming a policy which has received his name. The time had come, he announced, when it was proper to assert as a principle in our government, that the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they had assumed to maintain were henceforth not to be considered as subjects for colonization by any European

1 October 24, 1823, Works, VII, 315.

2 October 30, Works, III, 338.

3 Adams's Memoirs, VI, 177, et seq., November 7-26, 1823.

CANNING AND THE MONROE DOCTRINE.

381

power.1 The British government did not conceal its satisfaction at this announcement.2 Canning declared that the policy would prevent that line of demarcation which England most dreaded, the arraignment of America against Europe. But it was not the republican character of the policy that pleased England, for, as Canning expressed it, monarchy in Mexico and Brazil "would cure the evils of universal democracy and thus prevent drawing the obnoxious line." England wished in some way to counterbalance the power and influence of the United States. The Monroe doctrine, if carried out, would aid Great Britain in executing her own plans which were far removed from any desire to extend popular government over the earth. Canning welcomed the doctrine, because of its obvious advantage to his government. Monroe primarily intended that the doctrine should express the principle which Jefferson had laid down, that the Western Hemisphere should forever be the home of free institutions.

The Monroe doctrine did not originate with President Monroe, but developed from the application of a principle which had been laid down while yet the Constitution was before the people for ratification. Hamilton, in 1788, in the Federalist, had urged neutrality and a strong national government, observing with his usual acuteness, that our geographical situation would ever give us the ascendency in American affairs, and that as we were bound together in an indissoluble Union we would be superior to European influences, and he added, be able to dictate terms between the old world and the new.3 The doctrine of neutrality was enunciated by Washington as our true

1 Richardson, II, 218; December 7, 1824, Id., 260.

2 Wharton's International Law, I, (First Edition) 276. 3 Federalist, No. XI.