W CHAPTER I THE MONROE DOCTRINE-ITS ORIGIN E have now examined in a general way the social and political conditions of Latin America and have studied the internal forces that are at work there. Its destiny does not rest solely in its own hands; it depends upon all the forces in process, upon external as well as internal influences. Among those external influences which are shaping Latin-American affairs the Colossus of the North, the Great Republic, doubtless preponderates. Whatever importance should be attached to European relations with Latin America, dominant as they are in many departments of commerce (particularly so in Europe's commerce with Chili, Argentina, and Brazil), still the mightiest power to be reckoned with in considering the trend and future development of the Latin-American republics is the United States. Hence a matter of the highest importance is the policy of the latter power toward the Latin-American republics; indeed, whether they are to succeed or fail, whether they are to push forward toward civilization or fall back into barbarism, whether or not they continue to exist as a group of independent entities, lies in great measure within the determination of the United States. The American policy should be studied broadly and philosophically, not alone because of its intrinsic moment as a factor in the system of a great government, but also because of its far-reaching character as the controlling element in the development and destiny of a hemisphere. This policy bears through all its variant and not always reconcilable aspects the generic title of the "Monroe Doctrine." Let us now investigate this doctrine in its several phases, historical, legal, and ethical; examine the authorities upon which it is based, and ascertain what sound reason, if any, there may be for its present existence or for its future application. I From the very birth of the Republic the American people has been firmly opposed to any further extension of the monarchies of Europe on the Western Hemisphere, and this antagonism is as strong to-day as it was a hundred years ago. It was founded upon most just and rational grounds. Our people knew well the interminable intrigues and turmoil of Europe, its incessant wars, wherein unscrupulous monarchs manipulated their subjects as mere pawns upon the chessboard of nations; its corrupt and corrupting systems of politics; its heavy yoke of standing armies; its medieval practices of oppression ; and the many other curses that follow in the train of absolutism. Knowing these things so thoroughly, having so lately thrown off their blighting control, the Americans, with unerring instinct, with sleepless determination, resolved to endure none of them in their own country, and to suffer as few of them as possible throughout the Western Hemisphere. This well-nigh universal sentiment again and again found both official and informal expression during the period from the Revolution to Monroe's accession to the presidency. The intrigues of France and Spain with reference to our commercial rights on the lower Mississippi which culminated in the Louisiana purchase; the complications in Florida and Cuba; indeed, almost every event connected with European control on this hemisphere, — had deepened and accentuated this feeling long before Monroe's message was thought of. II Concurrently with the vexatious problems springing from European interests in North America, so frequently thrust upon us for solution, affairs in South America were passing through an acute stage. Spanish rule, everywhere tyrannical, everywhere odious, was encountering in all parts of Spanish America the most malignant opposition. In Central America, New Granada, and throughout South America generally, rebellions, revolutions, uprisings, riots, bloodshed, murder, and rapine were as common, as cruel, and as merciless in 1806 as they were a hundred years later; and these desperate struggles went on almost without intermission for a quarter of a century. In the northern part of South America an able but erratic leader, Simon Bolívar, in conjunction with Francisco Miranda, Antonio José de Sucre, and many other brave and talented but impracticable enthusiasts, kept up a warfare against Spanish power which has no parallel in the annals of history, not only for the atrocities committed by both sides, but also for the treachery and cunning of the partisans on both sides toward their fellow-officers. Two generals swearing undying loyalty to each other to-day would, at the moment of their oath-taking, be studying the most certain and expeditious methods of cutting each other's throats to-morrow. While these throes were convulsing Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Bolivia, other parts of Latin America - Central America, Santo Domingo, Mexico, and Buenos Ayres-were likewise in revolution. Naturally our sympathies were with the cause of freedom. Our own struggle had resulted in our independence only a little more than a generation since, while our second war with England had but recently been fought, and its bitterness had not yet passed away. The Latin-American countries were in our own hemisphere, their political conditions were relatively much the same as ours, their struggles for independence were occurring under much the same circumstances as those of our own War of the Revolution and during a period in which we too were beset with grave difficulties, so that it is not surprising that there was a powerful sentiment of sympathy in the United States on behalf of Latin America. It was thought that the Star of Liberty was in the ascendant, that Bolívar was a second Washington, and that the Western Hemisphere was to become the home of freedom and popular democratic institutions, in contradistinction to the Eastern Hemisphere with its autocratic rulers and monarchical governments. In Congress Henry Clay, magnetic orator and leader of his party, applied all his powers of declamation toward the "emancipation of South America"; while President Monroe as early as 1817 sent thither a commission to ascertain whether any of the revolutionary governments deserved recognition. Monroe was a man of caution and prudence, but a sincere friend of the South Americans. The commission, though composed of men well known for their radical republicanism, was sharply divided as to the proper course to pursue with reference to these new-born nationalities, but the President himself moved steadily, if slowly, toward the recognition of their independence. In January, 1819, the President proposed to his cabinet the propriety of recognizing the independence of Buenos Ayres, but practically every member voted against this step. It was even then feared by many of our people, notwithstanding the earnestness and talent of the partisans of South American liberty, that these revolutions would overshoot the mark, would sweep aside the noble cause of freedom, and would engender such anarchical conditions as in some of the countries have since developed. III In May, 1819, Pierre de Poletica, the Russian Minister in Washington, exhibited to John Quincy Adams, then Secretary of State under Monroe, instructions from St. Petersburg to the minister to use his influence with the United States against recognition of the South American countries; and he intimated that Europe was a unit in this matter, and that the United States would be obliged, however unwillingly, to "follow the impulse of Europe combined." Our recognition of the independence of the South American Republics was not announced until May, 1822. Had there been no |