Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 15.djvu/197

 UNITED

167

UNITED

Foundations of Foreign Policy. — The Neutrality Proclamation of President Washington has been mentioned. A second important step in the develop- ment of America's foreign policy was taken in 1S23, when President Monroe sent to Congress his annual message. Between 1S16 and 1822 a revolutionary government had been established in each of the Spanish colonies from the Rio Grande to Cape Horn. Upon due consideration, the United States had acknowledged their independence. After the over- throw of Napoleon the Holy Alliance had restored absolutism on the continent of Europe. The project was then considered of restoring to Spain her lost dependencies in South America. England, however, was opposed to such intervention. Her attitude was chiefly determined by the profitable commercial interests which had sprung up since the o^•erthrow of Spanish dominion in that region. It was in these circumstances that Canning, the British Minister of Foreign Affairs, propn.sed to Dr. Rush, the United States Minister in England, that the two powers issue a joint declaration against the proposed inter- vention of the Holy Alliance. Another element in the situation was the attitude of Russia, which had been establishing trading po.sts in the North-West. It was feared that she would endeavour to extend her dominion farther down the coast. John Quincy Adams, Secretary of State, protested against this action, and informed the Russian Minister that the United States would assume the position that the American continents were no longer open to future colonization by European nations.

President Monroe sought the advice of ex-Presi- dents Jefferson and Madison, and was encouraged by both in the stand which he was about to take. In his message to Congress, Dec., 1823, the president, in speaking of America's foreign policy, said that hitherto the United States had not interfered in the internal affairs of the Allied Powers; that "We owe it, therefore, to candor and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers, to declare that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety. With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we have not interfered, and shall not interfere. But with the governments who have declared their independence and maintained it, and whose independence we have, on great consideration and just principles, acknowledged, we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them or controlling in any other manner their destiny, by any European power in any other hght than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition towards the United States". And, "It was impossible that the Allied Powers should extend their political sys- tem to any portion of either continent without endan- gering our peace and happiness; nor could any one believe that 'our Southern brethren', if left to them- selves, would adopt it of their own accord. It was equally impossible, therefore, that we should behold Buch interposition in any form with indifference". The part of the mes.sage referring to Russia declared that "occasion has been judged proper for asserting, as a principle in which the rights and interests of the United Slates are involved, that the American Con- tinents, by the free and independent condition which they have a.ssumed and maintained, are henceforth not to be considered a.s subjects for future coloniza- tion by any European power". These announce- ments of the president have since been collectively known a.s the " Monroe Doctrine". When these bold declarations were made, the United States felt con- fident of the support of Great Britain. Their joint navies would have made it impossible for the Allie(l Powers to conduct any military operationa in the western hemisphere.

Sectional Conflict. — In the Constitutional Conven- tion (1787) it was clear that the North and the South had interests which were somewhat different. Not- withstanding this fact, they agreed upon a funda- mental law by adopting a number of compromises. In the endeavour to administer the government other compromises were adopted between 1789 and 1S60 when the Southern States were convinced that fur- ther compromises would be useless. It has already been stated that one form of opposition to the estab- lishment of the First United States Bank was sec- tional. It was regarded as a Northern measure; was supported chiefly by Northern members of Congress, and received few votes from the South. In 1820 the difference between the sections assumed a very differ- ent form. At that time it was bound up with the institution of slavery. In 1818 the Territory of Missouri applied for admission into the Union as a state. That application had not been acted upon in 1819 when Representative Tallmadge, of New York, proposed an amendment to the effect "that the fur- ther introduction of slavery or involuntary servitude be prohibited, and that all children of slaves born within the said state after the admission thereof into the Union shall be free at the age of twenty-fi%'e". This raised an important constitutional question, namely, whether under the Constitution, Congress had the power to impose conditions upon the admis- sion of new states which were not imposed by the Constitution on the original states. The amendment of Tallmadge passed the Hou.se, but failed in the Senate. The discussions on the anti-slavery amend- ment created the greatest excitement throughout the country. The matter was finally .settled by the first of the great compromises between the sections. Missouri was admitted without any restrictions upon slavery, but in all other territory north of its southern boundary (36° 30' N. lat.) slavery was prohibited for- ever. Bound up with this controversy was the ap- phcation of the District of Maine, which since 1691 had been a part of Massachusetts. Maine was ad- mitted as a free state, thus preserving in the Ignited States Senate the balance between the two sections. The Missouri con.stitution contained a provision ex- cluding free negroes. This was a palpable violation of the Federal Constitution, which guarantees to the citizens of each state the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several .states. This part of the controversy was set at rest by the influence of Henry Clay. It was provided that this discrimination of the Mis.souri constitution would not be enforced. This ended the first controversy over the question of slavery. In the division of the Louisiana Territorj' thus effected, the North gained much more territory than the South.

Grave as was the constitutional question that arose on the apphcation of Missouri for admi.ssion to the Union, that which grew up about 18.30 was much more alarming. After the war of 1S12 the successive Con- gresses enacted tariff laws. So great was the opposi- tion to that which was passed in 1828 that it was called the "Tariff of Abominations". The feeling between the .sections showed itself when Senator Foote, of Connecticut, introduced a resolution pro- posing an inquiry as to whether or not it was desirable temporarily to suspend the sale of public lands, ex- cepting such as were already surveyed. It also pro- posed to abolish the office of surveyor-general. Sen- ator Hayne, of South Carolina, chose to regard this as a manifestation of the Eastern jealousy of the West. He m.ade Foole's resolution the occasion of a general and energetic attack upon New England and a pre- tence for expounding the doctrine of nullification. By "nullification", in .\merican history, is meant the claim by a state of the right to .suspend within her own territory the operation of any act of Congress which the state deems injurious to her own interests.