little or a remote relation. Our distant and detached situation with reference to Europe remains the same. But we were then the only independent nation of this hemisphere, and we were surrounded by European colonies, with the greater part of which we had no more intercourse than with the inhabitants of another planet. Those colonies have now been transformed into eight independent nations. [We may therefore say that] America has a set of primary interests which have none or a remote relation to Europe; that the interference of Europe, therefore, in those concerns should be spontaneously withheld by her upon the same principles that we have never interfered with hers, and that if she should interfere, as she may, by measures which may have a great and dangerous recoil upon ourselves, we might be called in defense of our own altars and firesides to take an attitude which would cause our neutrality to be respected, and choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, should counsel." President J. Q. Adams, special message, March 15, 1826, Richardson's Mr. Macon, from the Committee of Foreign Relations of the Senate, Jan- The government of the United States scrupulously refrains from taking Van Buren. The President desires that you should not identify yourself with the feelings or objects of either of the contending parties. It is the ancient and well-settled policy of this government not to interfere with the internal concerns of any foreign country. However deeply the President might regret changes in the governments of the neighboring American States, which he might deem inconsistent with those free and liberal principles which lie at the foundation of our own, he would not, on that account, advise or countenance a departure from this policy." Mr. Van Buren, Sec. of State, to Mr. Moore, min. to Colombia, June 9, 1829, MS. Inst. Am. States, XIV. 12. "An invariable and strict neutrality between belligerents and an entire abstinence from all interference in the concerns of other nations, are cardinal traits of the foreign policy of this Government. The obligatory character of this policy is regarded by its constituents with a degree of reverence and submission but little, if anything, short of that which is entertained for the Constitution itself. To enable it to preserve the one, we have penal laws which subject to the severest punishment all attempts, within the scope of their authority, to aid or abet either party in a war prosecuted between foreign nations with which the United States are at peace; and it is made a standing instruction to our ministers abroad to observe the other with scrupulous fidelity." (Mr. Van Buren, Sec. of State, to Mr. Butler, min. to Mexico, Oct. 16, 1829, MS. Inst. Am. States, XIV. 165.) "One of the settled principles of this government is that of noninterference in the domestic concerns of nations; and as it would not tolerate it in others, so must every act of its own functionaries, which might be construed into a departure from this principle, incur the decided disapprobation of the President." (Mr. Van Buren, Sec. of State, to Mr. Hamm, chargé d'affaires to Chile, Oct. 15, 1830, MS. Inst. Am. States, XIV. 83.) See, also, President Van Buren, annual message, Dec. 3, 1838, Richardson's Messages, III. 483; and discussion in 2 Benton's Thirty Years' View, 276. “If, indeed, an attempt should be made to disturb them [the Spanish West Indies] by putting arms in the hands of one portion of their population to destroy another, and which, in its influence, would endanger the peace of a portion of the United States, the case might be different. Against such an attempt the United States (being informed that it was in contemplation) have already protested, and warmly remonstrated in their communications, last summer, with the government of Mexico. But the information lately communicated to us, in this regard, was accompanied by a solemn assurance that no such measures will, in any event, be resorted to; and that the contest, if forced upon them, will be carried on, on their part, with strict reference to the established rules of civilized warfare." Mr. Van Buren, Sec. of State, to Mr. Van Ness, min. to Spain, Oct. 13, 1830, MS. Inst. U. States Ministers, XIII. 184. In the adoption (in 1834-35) by the new South American states of their commercial policy, "the United States, Forsyth. consistent throughout in the disinterestedness of their conduct towards them [the South American states] desire no preference. But they know too well what is due to themselves to be satisfied if a preference be granted to others." Mr. Forsyth, Sec. of State, to Mr. Butler, min. to Mexico, Nov. 11, 1834, "The great communities of the world are regarded as wholly independent, each entitled to maintain its own system of Webster. law and government, while all in their mutual intercourse are understood to submit to the established rules and principles governing such intercourse. And the perfecting of this system of communication among nations, requires the strictest application of the doctrine of nonintervention of any with the domestic concerns of others." Mr. Webster, Sec. of State, to Mr. Everett, Jan. 29, 1842, MS. Inst. Great For message of President Tyler of Jan. 9, 1843, in reference to quintuple "In proclaiming and adhering to the doctrine of neutrality and nonintervention, the United States have not followed the lead of other civilized nations; they have taken the lead themselves and have been followed by others. 666 Friendly relations with all, but entangling alliances with none,' has long been a maxim with us. Our true mission is not to propagate our opinions or impose upon other countries our form of government by artifice or force, but to teach by example and show by our success, moderation, and justice, the blessings of self-government and the advantages of free institutions. Let every people choose for itself, and make and alter its political institutions to suit its own condition and convenience. But while we avow and maintain this neutral policy ourselves, we are anxious to see the same forbearance on the part of other nations, whose forms of government are different from our own. The deep interest which we feel in the spread of liberal principles and the establishment of free governments, and the sympathy with which we witness every struggle against oppression, forbid that we should be indifferent to a case in which the strong arm of a foreign power is invoked to stifle public sentiment and repress the spirit of freedom in any country." President Fillmore, annual message, Dec. 2, 1851 (Mr. Webster, Sec. of See Mr. Webster, Sec. of State, to Mr. Rives, min. to France, Jan. 12, 1852, Everett. "Your dispatch No. 174 of the 25th of November was received yesterday. It announces the result of the appeal to the people of France, on the subject of the restoration of the Empire, as far as the returns of the votes had come in. That event has already no doubt been consummated and the Empire formally proclaimed. This change will of course in no degree affect the friendly relations between the United States and France. A deep interest was felt by the government and people of this country in those events of February, 1848, which for a while promised to assimilate the institutions of France with our own. But it is the fundamental law of the American Republic, that the will of the people constitutionally expressed is the ultimate principle of government, and it seems quite evident that the people of France have, with a near approach to unanimity, desired the restoration of the Empire." Mr. Everett, Sec. of State, to Mr. Rives, Dec. 17, 1852, MS. Inst. France, See Mr. Everett, Sec. of State, to Count Sartiges, French min., Dec. 1, Cass. 66 No matter how strongly the sympathies of the United States may be with the liberal constitutional party in Mexico, our government can not properly intervene in its behalf without violating a cardinal feature of our foreign policy." Mr. Cass, Sec. of State, to Mr. McLane, min. to Mexico, March 7, 1859, MS. Inst. Mex. XVII. 209. See supra, § 51. "Your despatches to No. 20, inclusive, have been received. "Having taken into consideration the subject referred to in your No. 19, together with the request of the minister of foreign affairs of Venezuela, that this government would communicate to that of France thro' our minister in that country, the explanations of the Venezuelan government in regard to the recent peremptory dismissal of the French representative in that republic for an alleged interference in the domestic affairs of the country, I have to inform you that the Department does not feel warranted in complying with that wish. The difficulty between the Venezuelan government and the French chargé d'affaires is one in which this government is in no way involved. And while our interest in the peace and prosperity of Venezuela is as earnest and sincere as it ever has been, the interposition which it is proposed we should exercise would be a departure from our general policy in regard to the intervention in the concerns of other nations. I trust, therefore, that, after your explanations in conformity with the foregoing view of the case, the secretary of foreign relations will perceive the reasonableness of our nonintervention and will be convinced that the direct expression of the motives. of his government in the course pursued towards Monsieur Levrand would probably be more acceptable to the government of His Majesty the Emperor of the French. "And yet I can not close this despatch without desiring you to signify to the secretary of relations how highly this government appreciates the confidence which that of Venezuela has manifested in its justice and impartiality as indicated in its choice of the United States as the channel thro' which it preferred to offer explanations to the government of France." Mr. Cass, Sec. of State, to Mr. Turpin, min. to Venezuela, No. 21, Nov. 5, 1859, MS. Inst. Venezuela, I. 211. H. Doc. 551-vol 6-2 “Your able and very interesting despatch of June 10th, No. 36, has been submitted to the President. Seward. “I think that in the main you have rightly apprehended the sentiments of the government and people of this country in regard to the Spanish-American states, as well as the instructions of their history, their present political condition, their resources, their wants, the benefits they offer and the claims they have upon other nations. "But it would be disingenuous on the part of the United States and injurious to the Spanish-American republics to encourage an expectation on their part that at the present conjuncture treaties guaranteeing their sovereignty can be contracted with this Government. Even if the traditional policy of this country derived from the teachings and practice of Washington could be proved to be erroneous its hold upon the mind of the American people would nevertheless prove to be too strong to be broken at this moment when the distractions of civil war are encouraging foreign intrigues and even inviting foreign aggression. "The country, however, has tried and proved that policy and has hitherto found its ways to be ways of wisdom and all its paths to be the paths of peace. "It may well be said that Washington did not enjoin it upon us as a perpetual policy. On the contrary, he inculcated it as the policy to be pursued until the union of the States, which is only another form of expressing the idea of the integrity of the nation, should be established, its resources should be developed and its strength, adequate to the chances of national life, should be matured and perfected. Whatever pleasant dreams upon that subject we have heretofore indulged are now broken by a conclusive shock, and we are trying through a civil war of unexampled severity the great question whether the Union of the States is indeed impregnable, and whether we are to remain, as we hitherto have been, one strong and enduring nation. It is not at such a time that the policy of the fathers which forbids entangling alliances is likely to be reviewed or discussed. one. "Nor indeed ought it to be. Assuming the condition of the Spanish-American states to be one urgently demanding our national protection, the question whether we shall accord it is at least a practical We can not enter into covenants to render physical aid which we are not able and do not intend to keep. The people of the United States have a sensibility concerning engagements as just as it is peculiar. They never have contracted an obligation which they did not mean to fulfill and did not with all diligence fulfill in its letter and spirit. While we are engaged in a fearful and exhausting civil war at home, it could be only surplus treasure and surplus force that we could send abroad to protect and defend other states. Thus far |