ART. IX.-1. Speech of the HON. LEWIS CASS in the United States Senate, January 28, 1856, on Central American Affairs and the Monroe Doctrine.

2. Memoranda of a Residence at the Court of London, comprising Incidents Official and Personal, from 1819 to 1825. Including Negotiations on the Oregon Question, and other unsettled Questions between the United States and Great Britain. By RICHARD RUSH, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary from the United States, from 1817 to 1825. Philadelphia: Lea and Blanchard. 1845.

3. The Political Life of the Right Honorable GEORGE CANNING, from his Acceptance of the Seals of the Foreign Department, in September, 1822, to the Period of his Death, in August, 1827. By AUGUSTUS GRANVILLE STAPLETON, Esq. Three vols. London: Longman, Rees, & Co. 1831.

4. Register of Debates in Congress, comprising the Leading Debates and Incidents of the First Session of the Nineteenth Congress together with an Appendix, containing the most Important State Papers and Public Documents to which the Session has given Birth. Washington: Gales and Seaton. 1826.

Com

5. The Parliamentary Debates. New Series, Vol. X. prising the Period from the 3d day of February to the 29th day of March, 1824. Published under the Superintendence of T. C. HANSARD. London. 1824.

It is not wonderful that the political code of the Assyrian Empire should be involved in much obscurity, or that the municipal regulations of Nineveh should have received but little elucidation from the recent researches of a Layard and a Botta. That Thirlwall and Grote should find in the public polity of the Grecian states much that defies even their critical acumen, or that Niebuhr and Arnold should sometimes be puzzled (though the former never confesses it) by certain historical problems in Roman legislation, can surely afford no matter of just surprise, when we reflect upon the mists of antiquity which have gathered around the records of the ancients. But that in a modern country like these United States, not

yet a century old, in a country, too, where measures of state policy are subjects of popular appeal and revision, we should have our questions of political history as vexed and insolvable, to all appearance, as any in the ancient commonwealths, is not a little remarkable. Is it that, in the rapid succession of public events, they pass before the popular eye like a series of dissolving views before the gazers in some provincial theatre? Or is it that, in " the progress" of Young America, rejoicing like a strong man to run his race, he finds no time to look back upon each step in his career, and to note to-day the goal from which he started yesterday? Or is it that prejudice and party spirit distort our judgments and obscure our vision with regard to what is near, and thus engender among us the same misconceptions that are produced by the dubious twilight through which we view what is remote? However we may explain the fact, certain it is that not a few among the most important events recorded in our national annals are, at the present day, the subjects of grave and earnest controversy, waged not only in the arena of political debate, but on the field of historical review. One of these questiones vexate of American politics will occupy our attention in the present paper.

The "Monroe Doctrine," as it is called, has during the last few lustres of our political history loomed into a new prominence. Employed as a maxim to justify certain important measures of state policy, it has naturally become a theme for discussion among our statesmen, and for remark by the public press. And still more recently, in the negotiations between our government and that of England on Central American affairs, the "Doctrine" has been declared to be the policy of the present Executive of the United States. We therefore need no apology for bringing the whole subject to the attention of our readers.

The "Monroe Doctrine," as it is popularly designated, purports to be founded on certain declarations contained in the annual Message of President Monroe to the Congress which assembled in December, 1823. In that executive paper Mr. Monroe alludes to the progress of the negotiations then pending between our own government and that of Russia

respecting the boundary of our northwestern territory. After briefly stating the nature and extent of the conflicting claims advanced by the two countries, with regard to their respective possessions in that quarter, and while professing the hope that the controversy between them would find a satisfactory solution, the President takes occasion to add:

"In the discussions to which this interest has given rise, and in the arrangements in which they may terminate, the occasion has been judged proper for asserting, as a principle in which the rights and interests of the United States are involved, that the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European power."

In the latter part of the same Message is also found another declaration, addressed to the European powers, and prompted, it would seem, by the unsettled condition of the late Spanish American colonies, whose independence had been already recognized by our government, though they were still in a state of nominal war with the mother country. This portion of the Message is conceived in the following terms:

-

"In the wars of the European powers, in matters relating to themselves, we have never taken any part, nor does it comport with our policy so to do. It is only when our rights are invaded or seriously menaced that we resent injuries or make preparation for our defence. With the movements in this hemisphere we are of necessity more immediately connected, and by causes which must be obvious to all enlightened and impartial observers. The political system of the Allied Powers is essentially different in this respect from that of America. This difference proceeds from that which exists in their respective governments. And to the defence of our own, which has been achieved by the loss of so much blood and treasure, and matured by the wisdom of their most enlightened citizens, and under which we have enjoyed unexampled felicity, this whole nation is devoted. We owe it, therefore, to candor and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those 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. With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power 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 disposition toward the United States. In the war between those new governments and Spain, we declared our neutrality at the time of their recognition; and to this we have adhered, and shall continue to adhere, provided no change shall occur which, in the judgment of the competent authorities of this government, shall make a corresponding change on the part of the United States indispensable to their security.

"The late events in Spain and Portugal show that Europe is still unsettled. Of this important fact no stronger proof can be adduced than that the Allied Powers should have thought it proper, on a principle satisfactory to themselves, to have interposed by force in the internal concerns of Spain. To what extent such interposition may be carried, on the same principle, is a question in which all independent powers whose governments differ from theirs are interested, even those most remote; and surely none more so than the United States. Our policy in regard to Europe, which was adopted at an early stage of the wars which have so long agitated that quarter of the globe, nevertheless remains the same; which is, not to interfere in the internal concerns of any of its powers; to consider the government de facto as the legitimate government for us; to cultivate friendly relations with it, and to preserve those relations by a frank, firm, and manly policy; meeting, in all instances, the just claims of every power, submitting to injuries from none. But in regard to these continents circumstances are eminently and conspicuously different. It is impossible that the Allied Powers should extend their political system to any portion of either continent without endangering our peace and happiness; nor can any one believe that our Southern brethren, if left to themselves, would adopt it of their own accord. It is equally impossible, therefore, that we should behold such interposition, in any form, with indifference. If we look to the comparative strength and resources of Spain and those new governments, and their distance from each other, it must be obvious that she can never subdue them. It is still the true policy of the United States to leave the parties to themselves, in the hope that other powers will pursue the same course."

At the succeeding session, commencing December, 1824, President Monroe recurred to the subject in terms more brief, but not less emphatic. Speaking of the intestine divisions which had retarded the progress of the late Spanish American

colonies, after Spain had in fact ceased hostilities with them, he said: :

66

Separated as we are from Europe by the great Atlantic Ocean, we can have no concern in the wars of the European governments, nor in the causes which produce them. The balance of power between them, into whichever scale it may turn in its various vibrations, cannot affect us. It is the interest of the United States to preserve the most friendly relations with every power, and on conditions fair, equal, and applicable to all. But in regard to our neighbors our situation is different. It is impossible for the European governments to interfere in their concerns, especially in those alluded to, which are vital, without affecting us; indeed, the motive which might induce such interference in the present state of the war between the parties, if a war it may be called, would appear to be equally applicable to us. It is gratifying to know that some of the powers with whom we enjoy a very friendly intercourse, and to whom these views have been communicated, have appeared to acquiesce in them."

These two declarations, sufficiently distinct from each other, though germane in their origin, as will appear in the course of this paper, have been not infrequently confounded together by the modern opponents of the "Monroe Doctrine," who, in attempting to prove the temporary purpose of the doctrine itself, have sought to compass their object by a process of reasoning which applies only to the latter of its branches; while the advocates of the doctrine as now popularly known among us, in relying mainly upon the first-named declaration as containing the announcement of a permanent principle in American policy, have fallen into the still graver error of wholly misconceiving its original scope and significance as propounded by President Monroe. These assertions with regard to the intent and meaning of each head of the Monroe Doctrine, we shall endeavor to make good by a reference to historical facts and documentary papers contemporaneous with its promulgation, and avowedly explanatory of its real bearing and object. And since, for the purpose of giving a greater unity to the present discussion, as well as with a view to a more forcible exhibition of its salient features, we find it more convenient, in our consideration of the two branches which compose the subjects of this inquiry, to reverse the or