Page:The New International Encyclopædia 1st ed. v. 13.djvu/822

* MONROE DOCTRINE. 738 MONROE DOCTRINE. whether temporary or pernianeiit. The concep- tion of the policy is one of gradual growth, and as far as it has authority in international law it rests upon the principle of the riglit of a sovereign i^^tate to protect its own interests from dangerous aggression. With the wide and com- plex development of modern American interests, appeal to tliis argument is strengthened, yet the assertion of the doctrine in its extreme form is always attended with the danger of grave inter- national complications. Tlie 'doctrine' is hased upon two passages in Monroe's message, and haj; a twofold relation — a non-colonization and a non-intervention fea- ture. The first (jassage referred to the boundary dispute in the Northwest, then in issue between Russia, Great Britain, and the United States, Russia having assumed to exclude foreigners from disputed territory extending to the tift}-- first parallel of latitude. President Monroe said: "The occasion has been judged proper for assert- ing as a principle in which the rights and inter- ests of the United States are involved, that the American continents, by the free and independent conditions which they have assumed and main- tained, are henceforth not to be considered as sub- jects for future colonization by any Euroiican powers.'' Both the conditicms which inspired the passage and its language prove that it related to an acquisition of territory by original occupation or settlement; that it did not include acquisition by gift, purchase, or like voluntary transfer, or by conquest. Further, while it did not strictly commit the United States to the application of the principle to territory other than that imme- diately in dispute in the Northwest, in pros])ec- tive consideration it involved the vast traits of unclaimed land on the continent still unexplored and un(K-cipied, upon which the estalilisiiment of a European cohmy with the exclusive trade policies then professed by all Continental govern- ments could not fail to prejudice the trade rela- tions of the United States. The controversy in question was settled by the treaty of lS2.i with Russia, but the doctrine formulated was again asserted in lS:J(i by President J. Q. Adams in the proposed instructions of the United States delegates to the Panama Congress (q.v. ), its application, however, being limited to its adop- tion by each separate State as a protection of the territory claimed by that State, and not connnitting the ]iowers concerned as a body to "a joint resistance against any future attempt to plant a colony." The questi<m. how- ever, was not considered by the Panama Con- gress, owing to the non-arrival of the I'niteil States delegates, and this ])hase of the doctrine remained in abeyance for twenty years. The .second part of the Mimroe message related to the proposed action of the Holy .lliance as announced by the resoluticats of the Congress of Verona (Novendier. 1S2'21, directed against the system of representative government in Europe, and aiming at the reimposition of the Spanish yoke upon the .South .merican colonies, then in a state of revolt, the independence of which the United States had already recognized. This ac- tion of the Powers threatciieil English commercial interests already established with these States, and England promptly proposed to the United States a joint rleelaration by the two govern- ments against their action; but withotit awaiting a reply from this tJovernnient. on October 9, 1S2.3, she gave notice to the French Ambassador of her unfriendly altitude. This, followed by President Monroe's declaration. sununarily checked the Powers. "We owe it, therefore," said Monroe, ""to candor and the amicable relation* existing between the United States and these Powers to declare that we shouhl consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any i)ortion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety. ilh the existing colonies and dependencies of any European Power we have not interfered nor shall we interfere. But with the governments who have declared their indepen- dence and manifested it, and whose imlependence we have on great consideration and just prin- ciples acknowledged, we could not iew any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or in any other manner ccjntrolling their destiny, than a.s a manifestation of an unfriendly dispo- sition toward the United States." While Mon- roe's declaration was intended to meet the exi- gencies of the time, the j)riiiciple was no novel one, but rather the embodiment of an idea that had developed with the growth of nationality, and had Ix'cn expressed in various forms in pre- vious papers and correspondence of Monroe. Adams, and .Jell'ersun. Two nionths befcu'e the publication of the message Jefferson had written: "Our first and fundamental maxim should be never to entangle ourselves in the broils of Eu- rope. Our second, never to suffer Europe to intermeddle with Cis-Atlantic affairs." The declaration, having accomplished its purpose, practically disappeared in its application with respect to the Holy Alliance, and the development of the policy for the next generation was the out- growth of the colonization feature. In 1845 President Polk took the first step toward extension of the juinciple. The north- vest Ixnindary was again in issue, this time with Great Britain, and tlie Administration was com- mitted to the annexation of Texas. "It should lx> distinctly announced to the world." said Polk, "as our settled ])<ilicy. that no future Eiiro- pean colony or dominion shall willi our consent lie planted or establisiicd in any |)art of the Nortli American continent." The doctrine was thus made to include acquisition by voluntary transfer or conquest of occupied territory, and a virtual protectorate over other American .States in its application was announced, though limited to North America. Again in 184.1. when the question of the occupation of Yucatan arose, P(dk issued a second manifesto iigainst the accpiisition of such terriloiy l)y vohmlarv trans- fer or cession. In 18.5.'!. when the Cuban annexa- tion discussion was at its height, a resolution was introduced into the St-nate combining the doctrines of Monnie and Polk; but it failed of ]>assage, and the doctrine has never received ex- press legislative sanction either by resolution or statute. It is therefore not a part of the law of the land, though with the predomi- nance of the interests of the I'njted States the policy in relation to both North and South America has been generally accepted by both political parties and the people, and its priii- ciples have been given repeated recognition dur- ing the past half century in our foreign policy. The interference of the United States in Mexico, resulting in the withdrawal of the French in ISliCi. and President Clevelantl's declaration to CIreat Britain in connection with the Venezuelan