CHAPTER VII

THE MONROE DOCTRINE-WHAT DOES IT MEAN?

WHA

HAT does the Monroe Doctrine mean? Is there any man living who can answer this question? There are, doubtless, very many who think they can answer it, and the more crass their ignorance as to the history of its numerous phases, the more positive they are that it is a sort of keystone in our national structure. But brush the cobwebs out of the imaginations of these gentlemen and let them get down to solid earth and then state in definite English just what they think the Monroe Doctrine means, and a pretty jargon will be the outcome.

I. THE DOCTRINE ENUNCIATED BY MONROE

As enunciated by Monroe, the Doctrine has been thus summarized by Henderson in his "American Diplomatic Questions":

1st. "The American continents are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European power."

2d. "The political system of the allied powers is essentially and radically different from that of America, and, being devoted to the defence of our own system, we owe it in candor to these 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.""

3d. "Having acknowledged the independence of certain governments (in America), we could not view interposition on the part of any European power, for the purpose of oppressing or otherwise controlling them, in any other light than as a manifestation of unfriendly disposition toward the United States."

4th. "The foreign policy of the United States would remain the same, that is, not to interfere in the internal affairs of any European power."

5th. "Circumstances being radically different on these continents, it is impossible that the allied powers should extend their political systems into either of them without endangering our peace and happiness; therefore it is impossible that we should behold such interposition with indifference."

The above appears to be a fair statement of the meaning of Monroe's message, and it should be studied in view of the situation, or at least the supposed conditions, confronting us at that time.

II. WEBSTER'S EXTENSION OF THE DOCTRINE

The Monroe Doctrine in its original form was allowed to endure but a short time, since succeeding administrations enlarged it, changed it, or modified it as they saw fit. One of the first extensions given to the doctrine was with reference to Cuba. In 1843 Daniel Webster, then Secretary of State, laid down our policy as follows:

"The Spanish government has long been in possession of the policy and wishes of this government in regard to Cuba, which have never changed, and has repeatedly been told that the United States would never permit the occupation of that island by British agents or forces upon any pretext whatever; and that in the event of any attempt to wrest it from her, she might securely rely upon the whole naval and military resources of this country to aid her in preserving or recovering it."

Three years before this, Mr. Vail, the American Minister to Spain, was instructed "to assure the Spanish government, that in case of any attempt, from whatever quarter, to wrest from her this portion of her territory, she may securely depend upon the military and naval resources of the United States in preserving or recovering it."

These declarations were called forth because certain disagreements between Great Britain and Spain had led to widespread rumors that England proposed to wrest Cuba from Spain. The astounding modification of the Monroe Doctrine made by these declarations seems to have excited no special dissent among our own people. In these latter days of "Constitution Clubs" and "Anti-Imperialism" societies, it would be asked by what authority the Secretary of State, without the consent of Congress, could commit our government to a fast and loose alliance with Spain, for the preservation to her of territory held by her in the most barbarous subjection, and by unparalleled tyranny and bloodshed. It might have been pointed out to the brilliant orator and statesman, Mr. Webster, that the war-making power resides in Congress, and that his declaration was a dangerous usurpation of authority which he did not possess.

The results following from this particular dictum do not seem to have been more fortunate than the consequences reaped from an acceptance of the other dogmas of the Monroe creed; for Cuba was immersed for nearly a century in anarchy and oppression, finally to be liberated at the expense of a war between the United States and Spain, in sad mockery of Mr. Webster's vows made sixty years before.

As enlarged by this declaration, then, the Monroe Doctrine means that the United States is the automatic ally of any power, however disreputable it may be, to aid it in maintaining by force of arms its sovereignty over any territory on this continent, however shamelessly that sovereignty may be exercised, as against any other power which might wish to acquire such territory, peaceably or by force of arms,

however decent and civilized the latter power might be, even though it might rule the said territory a thousand times better, and more to our own interest.

III. THE POLK DOCTRINE

The message of President Polk to Congress on December 2, 1845, gives another and radically different meaning to the Monroe Doctrine.

This message, literally interpreted, would imply that, so far as the Continent of North America is concerned, no European power could acquire territory by any method whatsoever. This might even be extended to prevent a foreign power from perfecting titles to territory which it already claimed, but which were in dispute.

When Mr. Polk stated that "the United States... cannot in silence permit any European interference on the North American Continent, and should any such interference be attempted, will be ready to resist it at any and all hazards," it would seem that his language is that of a madman rather than of the President of an enlightened people.

To prohibit European dominion and European colonization, when in fact about half of the continent is held by European powers and the colonization of that territory at least is legitimate and desirable; to talk of our "resisting, at any and all hazards,” “interference" which might under certain circumstances be highly laudable and meet our warmest approbation, merely serves to show the desperate lengths to which this ignis fatuus, the Monroe Doctrine, has led its advocates.

IV. SEWARD'S INTERPRETATION OF THE DOCTRINE

The next patch put on the Monroe Doctrine crazy-quilt was the work of Mr. W. H. Seward, a Secretary of State who did so many great things that we must forgive him his follies. On June 2, 1866, Secretary Seward wrote to Mr. Kirkpatrick, the American Envoy to Chili, touching the war then in progress between Spain and the Alliance of Peru and Chili, that the government of the United States will "maintain and insist, with all the decision and energy which are compatible with our existing neutrality, that the republican system which is accepted by any one of those (South American) States shall not be wantonly assailed, and that it shall not be subverted as an end of a lawful war by European powers." Republican System! Think of it!

The United States had just finished the greatest civil war the world had ever known; her sons lay slain by the hundreds of thousands, her treasuries were empty, her cities in blackened ruins, her fields fallow and uncultivated, her homes the abode of sorrow; the beautiful South lay bleeding in agony, while the horrors of reconstruction were upon us, and pandemonium reigned. And yet Mr.

Seward's great heart was able to bear not alone the burden of our own woes, but also to suffer from the haunting fear that the "republican systems" of South America were in some manner endangered by the wicked monarchies of Europe, and that our duty required us, Ajax-like, to defy something!

The Monroe Doctrine, therefore, now means that if the precious "republican systems" of Latin America are interfered with, the sparks will fly!

V. GRANT'S VIEWS OF THE MONROE DOCTRINE

The next twist to the Monroe Doctrine was given in the second annual message of President Grant, on December 5, 1870, in which he proposed the annexation of Santo Domingo. He stated that if we did not take the island, "a free port will be negotiated for by European nations in the Bay of Samoa." General Grant thought that "the acquisition of Santo Domingo is an adherence to the Monroe Doctrine; it is a measure of self-protection; it is asserting our just claim to a controlling influence over the great commercial traffic soon to flow from West to East by way of the Isthmus of Darien." Thus was another view of the Monroe Doctrine promulgated,—the idea that it gives us the authority to take an island occasionally, when we want one.

I must express the opinion that the meaning imported into the Monroe Doctrine by General Grant is the only meaning in the history of the Doctrine, subsequent to its promulgation, which seems to have any sense or reason in it. But I think General Grant erred in citing the Monroe Doctrine as authority for anything. We should have taken Santo Domingo long ago, and most of the other LatinAmerican countries, but not on the authority of the Monroe Doctrine. We should take them on the broader and deeper principle that this continent should be an abode for civilized men.

VI. OLNEY'S DICTUM

"Another development of the rule," says Secretary Olney, "though apparently not necessarily acquired by either its letter or spirit, is found in the objection to arbitration of South American controversies by an European power. American questions, it is said, are for American decision, and on that ground the United States went so far as to refuse to mediate in the war between Chili and Peru jointly with Great Britain and France." (Letter to Mr. Bayard, No. 804, July 20, 1895.)

From this it would appear that the Monroe Doctrine means that an European power may not act as mediator or arbitrator, to prevent the desolation of war in South America. The more this Doctrine is studied in its practical effects, the more hateful does it appear.

VII. BAYARD'S IDEAS ABOUT THE DOCTRINE

Naturally, Mr. Secretary Bayard would have opinions on the Monroe Doctrine. And he had. The peculiar texture of the ethical cloak worn by him is displayed by his argument in strenuously opposing the payment of certain claims against Haiti. The claims themselves were of doubtful validity; it is his argument that deserves criticism. He said:

"The United States has proclaimed herself the protector of the western world. . . . She can point with proud satisfaction to the fact that over and over again she has declared effectively that serious indeed would be the consequences if European hostile foot should, without just cause, tread those States of the New World which have emancipated themselves from European control. . . . I feel bound to say that if we should sanction by reprisals in Haiti the ruthless invasion of her territory and insult to her sovereignty which the facts now before us disclose, if we approve by solemn executive action and congressional assent that invasion, it will be difficult for us hereafter to assert that in the New World, of whose rights we are the peculiar guardians, those rights have never been invaded by ourselves.'

I can readily understand that it might be construed as an "insult to her sovereignty" to compel one of those dictatorships to pay its debts, or atone for outrages inflicted on law-abiding foreigners; but the Monroe Doctrine has surely fallen to a low estate in hands like these.

VIII. PRESIDENT CLEVELAND'S MESSAGE

The Venezuelan-Guiana boundary question brought forth some radically new and extraordinary views as to the interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine.

Lord Salisbury interpreted Mr. Olney's despatches as follows: "If any independent American State advances a demand for territory of which its neighbor claims to be the owner, and that neighbor is a colony of an European State, the United States have a right to insist that the European State shall submit the demand and its own impugned rights to arbitration."

Mr. Cleveland says ("Presidential Problems," p. 263): "This definition of our contention fails to take into account some of its most important and controlling features."

Mr. Cleveland is verbally correct on this point. One of the points not taken into account by Lord Salisbury occurred subsequently, being the message of the President, wherein was recommended the appointment of a commission "to investigate and report upon the true divisional line between the Republic of Venezuela and British Guiana," and in which it was further stated that, "when such report is made