fairly be said to have an intimate relation to each other, and successively to have been the outgrowth the one of the other.

After the Colonies had published to the world the declaration of their independence, maintained it by force of arms, and permanently established it by the adoption of the Constitution, the character of our political system and principles. and our geographic position pointed unmistakably to the policy of non-intervention in the affairs of Europe, so wisely set forth by Washington in his Farewell Address. I give only a brief extract therefrom: "Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people, under an efficient government, the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon, to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard giving us provocation.""

to our concerns.

We have here not only the announcement of a policy of non-intervention in European affairs, but a plain intimation that the time was not far distant when we would be able to warn European nations against intervention in American affairs. And as each succeeding

1 1 Richardson's Messages, 222.

year increased our prosperity and developed our strength as a nation, the sentiment grew and crystallized into the conviction with our public men that the American hemisphere must be reserved for its own inhabitants. When the Spanish colonies began to revolt against foreign domination, our hearty sympathy with their cause did not arise alone from their proclamation of republican principles, but from our earnest desire to see all European control and influence driven from America. Even before this revolt came, when the dissensions in the Peninsula indicated the coming dissolution of the widespread Spanish empire, and the danger of some of its colonies falling into the hands of other European powers, Mr. Jefferson, our most astute politician and one of our wisest statesmen, wrote in 1808, while president, to the governor of the Territory of Orleans, as follows: "We shall be satisfied to see Cuba and Mexico remain in their present dependence; but very unwilling to see them in that of either France or England, politically or commercially. We consider their interests and ours as the same, and the object of both must be to exclude all European influence from this hemisphere."

In 1820, when the independence of a number of the Spanish-American colonies had been substantially gained, Mr. Jefferson, then in private life, wrote of a Portuguese minister in Washington about going to Brazil: "From conversations with him, I hope he sees, and will promote in his new situation, the advantages of a cordial fraternization among all the American 19 Writings of Jefferson, 213.

nations, and the importance of their coalescing in an American system of policy totally independent of and unconnected with that of Europe."

In these expressions of opinion, Jefferson was only a little in advance of the then crystallizing public sentiment, and with his superior foresight he was earlier able to formulate a comprehensive policy. The successive presidents after Washington had adhered closely in practice to his announced principle of non-intervention in European affairs; and out of that practice, coupled with the growth of the nation and the independence of the other American colonies, was naturally germinated the doctrine which, when circumstances made its promulgation necessary, was embodied in the annual message of President Monroe of December 2, 1823. Mr. Jefferson pronounced it the most momentous event since the independence.

The circumstances which brought about its announcement grew out of the French Revolution and the wars and military rule of Napoleon. The fear of the recurrence of such convulsions led to the organization of the so-called Holy Alliance,2 effected by the emperors of Russia and Austria and the king of Prussia in 1815. The ostensible object of the alliance was the subordination of politics to the Christian religion, but its purpose was known to be hostile to the rights of the people and to the freedom of nations. France was soon afterwards

17 Jefferson's Works (1854), 168.

purpose was

"to

2 Mr. Clay said it was so named because its avowed maintain as a Christian doctrine the sovereign rights of legitimacy, that softer word for despotism."

admitted to the alliance. Various congresses or conferences were held up to 1822, in some of which Great Britain participated, but that government was at no time a party to the alliance.

One of its earliest acts was to restore Ferdinand VII. to his throne. In execution of the determination of the Holy Alliance a large French army entered Spain, and replaced the king upon his throne, contrary to the wishes of the great mass of the Spanish people. It was understood that the next step of the alliance would be to aid Ferdinand in reëstablishing his authority over the Spanish colonies in America, which had revolted and set up independent governments. With their successful revolt the old colonial system of exclusive trade with the mother county had been broken down, and England was thereby reaping great benefit to its commerce. It was therefore greatly to her interest to maintain the present status of affairs.

In order to deter the Holy Alliance from carrying out their scheme in America, the British Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. George Canning, approached the American minister in London, Mr. Rush, with the proposal that the two governments should unite in a declaration, in which were the following clauses: "Fourth. We aim not at the possession of any portion of these [the colonies of Spain] ourselves. Fifth. We could not see any portion of them transferred to any other power with indifference."

Mr. Rush agreed to unite in the declaration on condition that Great Britain would recognize the independence of the colonies. This, however, Mr. Canning

declined to do, fearing such an act would bring his government into conflict with the alliance, and the proposal for joint action was not further pressed. But Mr. Rush communicated the facts to the Secretary of State, John Quincy Adams, and by him they were laid before President Monroe, and the question became the subject of cabinet conference.

Mr. Rush's correspondence was also submitted by the President to Jefferson and Madison, and their views solicited. Mr. Jefferson expressed in hearty terms his approval of the proposed declaration in a letter of some length, from which I make the following extracts: "Our first and fundamental maxim should be never to entangle ourselves in the broils of Europe. Our second never to suffer Europe to intermeddle with cis-Atlantic affairs." He advised the President to declare, respecting the Spanish colonies, "That we will oppose with all our means the forcible interposition of any power, as auxiliary, stipendiary, or under any other form or pretext, and more especially their transfer to any power by conquest, cession, or acquisition in any other way." Mr. Madison's advice was also in favor of the declaration, but expressed in more reserved language.2

An independent declaration by the United States was determined upon, and it was accordingly inserted in the annual message to Congress of December 2, 1823. It was doubtless drafted by Mr. Adams, but there is reason to believe it was somewhat modified by his more temperate and conservative chief. It consists

1 10 Writings of Jefferson, 277.

2 12 Memoirs of J. Q. Adams, 218.

8

3 Writings of Madison, 339. 44 Calhoun's Works, 461.