Page images
PDF
EPUB

any insurgent vessel then actually being within said port, harbor, or waters to gain the advantage of the same time for her departure from the same port, harbor, or waters."

Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Bruce, June 19, 1865; MSS. Notes, Gr. Brit. 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;" but beyond this position the United States Government will not go, nor will it consider itself hereby bound to take part in wars in which a South American Republic may enter with a European sovereign when the object of the latter is not the establishment in place of a subverted Republic of a Monarchy under a European prince.

Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Kilpatrick, June 2, 1866; MSS. Inst., Chili. "The avoidance of entangling alliances, the characteristic feature of the foreign policy of Washington, sprang from this condition of things. But the entangling alliances which then existed were engagements made with France as a part of the general contract under which aid was furnished to us for the achievement of our independence. France was willing to waive the letter of the obligation as to her West India possessions, but demanded, in its stead, privileges in our ports which the Administration was unwilling to concede. To make its refusal acceptable to a public which sympathized with France, the Cabinet of General Washington exaggerated the principle into a theory tending to national isolation.

"The public measures designed to maintain unimpaired the domestic sovereignty and the international neutrality of the United States were independent of this policy, though apparently incidental to it. The municipal laws enacted by Congress then and since have been but declarations of the law of nations. They are essential to the preservation of our national dignity and honor; they have for their object to repress and punish all enterprises of private war, one of the last relics of mediæval barbarism; and they have descended to us from the fathers of the Republic, supported and enforced by every succeeding President of the United States.

"The foreign policy of these early days was not a narrow one. During this period we secured the evacuation by Great Britain of the country wrongfully occupied by her on the lake; we acquired Louisiana; we measured forces on the sea with France, and on the land and sea with England; we set the example of resisting and chastising the piracies of the Barbary States; we initiated in negotiations with Prussia the long line of treaties for the liberalization of war and the promotion of international intercourse; and we steadily demanded, and at length obtained,

S. Mis. 162-VOL. I-19

289

indemnification from various Governments for the losses we had suffered by foreign spoliations in the wars of Europe.

"To this point in our foreign policy we had arrived when the revolutionary movements in Spanish and Portuguese America compelled a modification of our relations with Europe, in consequence of the rise of new and independent states in America.

"The revolution, which commenced in 1810 and extended through all the Spanish-American continental colonies, after vain efforts of repres sion on the part of Spain, protracted through twenty years, terminated in the establishment of the independent states of Mexico, Guatemala, San Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Chili, Bolivia, the Argentine Republic, Uruguay, and Paraguay, to which the Empire of Brazil came in time to be added. These events necessarily enlarged the sphere of action of the United States, and essentially modified our relations with Europe and our at titude to the rest of this continent.

They con

Their as

"The new states were, like ourselves, revolted colonies. tinued the precedent we had set, of separating from Europe. sumption of independence was stimulated by our example. fessedly imitated us, and copied our national Constitution, sometimes even to their inconvenience.

They pro

"The Spanish American colonies had not the same preparation for independence that we had. Each of the British colonies possessed complete local autonomy. Its formal transition from dependence to independence consisted chiefly in expelling the British governor of the colony and electing a governor of the State, from which to the organized Union was but a step. All these conditions of success were wanting in Spanish America, and hence many of the difficulties in their career as independent states; and further, while the revolution in British America was the exclusive result of the march of opinion in the British colonies, the simultaneous action of the separate Spanish colonies, though showing a desire for independence, was principally produced by the accident of the invasion of Spain by France.

The formation of these new sovereignties in America was important to us, not only because of the cessation of colonial monopolies to that extent, but because of the geographical relations to us held by so many new nations, all, like ourselves, created from European stock, and interested in excluding European polities, dynastie questions, and balances of power from farther inflacnce in the New World.

Thus the United States were forced into new lines of action. though apparently in some respects conflicting, were really in Larmeny with the line marked out by Washington. The arcilinecefelt political all ́arves and the mautelar ce of our own it dependent neutralny boca ve doubly importe t from the fict that they became a to the new H.

[ocr errors]

up in the time of the first Adams, on the occasion of the enlistment projects of Miranda. It appeared again under Jefferson (anterior to the revolt of the Spanish colonies) in the schemes of Aaron Burr. It was an ever-present question in the administrations of Madison, Monroe, and the younger Adams, in reference to the questions of foreign enlistment or equipment in the United States, and when these new Republics entered the family of nations, many of them very feeble, and all too much subject to internal revolution and civil war, a strict adherence to our previous policy and a strict enforcement of our laws became essential to the preservation of friendly relations with them; for, since that time, it has been one of the principal cares of those intrusted with the administration of the Government to prevent piratical expeditions. against these sister Republics from leaving our ports. And thus the changed condition of the New World made no change in the traditional and peaceful policy of the United States in this respect.

"In one respect, however, the advent of these new states in America, did compel an apparent chauge of foreign policy on our part. It devolved upon us the determination of the great international question, at what time and under what circumstances to recognize a new power as entitled to a place among the family of nations. There was but little of precedent to guide us, except our own case. Something, indeed, could be inferred from the historical origin of the Netherlands and Switzerland, but our own case, carefully and conscientiously considered, was sufficient to guide us to right conclusions. We maintained our position of international friendship and of treaty obligations toward Spain, but we did not consider that we were bound to wait for its recog nition of the new Republics before admitting them into treaty relations with us as sovereign states. We held that it was for us to judge whether or not they had attained to the condition of actual independence, and the consequent right of recognition by us. We considered this question of fact deliberately and coolly. We sent commissioners to Spanish America to ascertain and report for our information concerning their actual circumstances, and in the fullness of time we acknowledged their independence. We exchanged diplomatic ministers, and made treaties of amity with them, the earliest of which, negotiated by Mr. John Quincy Adams, served as the model for the subsequent treaties with the Spanish-American Republics. We also, simultaneously therewith, exerted our good offices with Spain to induce her to submit to the inevitable result, and herself to accept and acknowledge the independence of her late colonies. We endeavored to induce Russia to join us in these representations. In all this our action was positive in the direction of promoting the complete political separation of America from Europe.

"A vast field was thus opened to the statesmen of the United States for the peaceful introduction, the spread, and the permanent establishment of the American ideas of republican government, of modification

of the laws of war, of liberalization of commerce, of religious freedom and toleration, and of the emancipation of the New World from the dynastic and balance-of-power controversies of Europe.

"Mr. John Quincy Adams, beyond any other statesman of the time in this country, had the knowledge and experience, both European and American, the comprehension of thought and purpose, and the moral convictions which peculiarly fitted him to introduce our country into this new field, and to lay the foundation of an American policy. The declaration known as the Monroe doctrine, and the objects and purposes of the congress of Panama, both supposed to have been largely inspired by Mr. Adams, have influenced public events from that day to this as a principle of government for this continent and its adjacent islands.

"It was at the period of the congress of Aix-la Chapelle and of Lay. bach, when the 'Holy Alliance' was combined to arrest all political changes in Europe in the sense of liberty, when they were intervening in Southern Europe for the re establishment of absolutism, and when they were meditating interference to check the progress of free govern ment in America, that Mr. Monroe, in his annual message of December 1823, declared that the United States would consider any attempt to extend the European system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety. With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power,' he said, '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 on 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 light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly feeling towards the United States.'

"This declara tion resolved the solution of the immediate question of the independence of the Spanish-American colonies, and is supposed to have exercised some influence upon the course of the British cabinet in regard to the absolutist schemes in Europe as well as in America.

"It has also exercised a permanent influence on this continent. It was at once invoked in consequence of the supposed peril of Cuba on the side of Europe; it was applied to a similar danger threatening Yucatan; it was embodied in the treaty of the United States and Great Britain as to Central America; it produced the successful opposition of the United States to the attempt of Great Britain to exercise dominion in Nicaragua under the cover of the Mosquito Indians; and it operated in like manner to prevent the establishment of a European dynasty in Mexico.

The United States stand solemnly committed by repeated declarations and repeated acts to this doctrine, and its application to the affairs of this continent. In his message to the two houses of Congress at the

commencement of the present session, the President, following the teachings of all our history, said that the existing 'dependencies are no longer regarded as subject to transfer from one European power.to another. When the present relation of colonies ceases, they are to be. come independent powers, exercising the right of choice and of selfcontrol in the determination of their future condition and relations with other powers.'

"This policy is not a policy of aggression; but it opposes the crea tion of European dominion on American soil, or its transfer to other European powers, and it looks hopefully to the time, when, by the vol untary departure of European Governments from this continent and the adjacent islands, America shall be wholly American.

"It does not contemplate forcible intervention in any legitimate contest; but it protests against permitting such a contest to result in the increase of European power or influence; and it ever impels this Government, as in the late contest between the South American Republics and Spain, to interpose its good offices to secure an honorable peace.

"The congress of Panama was planned by Bolivar to secure the union of Spanish America against Spain. It had originally military as well as political purposes. In the military objects the United States could take no part; and indeed the necessity for such objects ceased when the full effects of Mr. Mouroe's declarations were felt. But the pacific objects of the congress, the establishment of close and cordial relations of amity, the creation of commercial intercourse, of interchange of political thought, and of habits of good understanding, between the new Republics and the United States and their respective citizens, might perhaps have been attained had the administration of that day received the united support of the country. Unhappily they were lost; the new states were removed from the sympathetic and protecting influence of our example, and their commerce, which we might then have secured, passed into other hands, unfriendly to the United States.

"In looking back upon the Panama congress from this length of time, it is easy to understand why the earnest and patriotic men who endeavored to crystallize an American system for this continent failed.

"Mr. Clay and Mr. Adams were far-sighted statesmen, but unfortunately they struck against the rock of African slavery. One of the questions proposed for discussion in the conference was the consideration of the means to be adopted for the entire abolition of the African slave trade,' to which proposition the committee of the United States Senate of that day replied, "The United States have not certainly the right, and ought never to feel the inclination, to dictate to others who may differ with them upon this subject, nor do the committee see the expediency of insulting other states, with whom we are maintaining relations of perfect amity, by ascending the moral chair, and proclaiming from thence mere abstract principles, of the rectitude of which each nation enjoys the perfect right of deciding for itself. The same com

« PreviousContinue »