tinctly approved by every one of the President's advisers at that time." He adds, that "it met with the entire concurrence and the hearty approbation of the country. The tone which it uttered found a corresponding response in the heart of the free people of the United States." And he thus eloquently describes its general reception and effect:

66

The people saw, and they rejoiced to see, that on a fit occasion, our weight had been thrown into the right scale, and that, without departing from our duty, we had done something useful, something effectual, for the cause of civil liberty. One general glow of exultation, one universal feeling of the gratified love of liberty, one conscious and proud perception of the consideration which the country possessed, and of the respect and honor which belonged to it, pervaded all bosoms. Possibly, the public enthusiasm went too far; it certainly did go far. But, Sir, the sentiment which this declaration inspired was not confined to ourselves. Its force was felt everywhere, by all those who could understand its object and foresee its effect. In that very House of Commons, of which the gentleman from South Carolina has spoken with such commendation, how was it received? Not only, Sir, with approbation, but, I may say, with no little enthusiasm. While the leading minister [Mr. Canning] expressed his entire concurrence in the sentiments and opinions of the American President, his distinguished competitor [Mr. Brougham] in that popular body, less restrained by official decorum, and more at liberty to give utterance to all the feelings of the occasion, declared that no occasion had ever created greater joy, exultation, and gratitude among all the free men in Europe; that he felt pride in being connected by blood and language with the people of the United States; that the feeling disclosed by the message became a great, a free, and an independent nation; and that he hoped his own country would be prevented by no mean pride, or paltry jealousy, from following so noble and glorious an example."

Such a declaration, so uttered, and received with such distinguished consideration, and followed by so momentous results, ought not to be regarded as of trifling significance or of transient authority. By it the United States took the position which of right belonged to them, as the first of American republics, the proper representative of American principles, the faithful defender of American interests. It was as Mr. Edward Livingston termed it, “a pledge to the world," and involved national obligations and responsibilities which will never die out, so long as we remain a free republic. For the obligations assumed by nations do not die with those who incurred them, or cease to bind because not duly valued by a succeeding generation. It became and is to us, in our relations with both Europe and America, the point of honor, in losing which, we become a base nation, for honor is

the chastity of nations, as patriotism is the faith of their citizens. It is to be regretted that so many of our own politicians, from one motive and another, have either greviously misapprehended the import of the declaration, or have been insensible of its importance as well as of its permanent force. The learned and judicious compilers of Appleton's Cyclopedia have correctly pronounced it "a platform of principle on this important subject, which has been approved by the prominent statesmen of the country, from the time of its proclamation to the present."

It was perhaps unfortunate that the Monroe Doctrine, shortly after its promulgation, but under a change of political party tactics, became mixed up with the discussions concerning the Congress of Panama. Narrow-minded partisans, on the one side and the other, thought it necessary to attack or defend the administration by expanding or narrowing the scope of this doctrine, until it finally seemed to many that the Panama Congress was the culmination of the Monroe Doctrine, which perished when that failed. Whereas the Panama Congress was, at the most, but a measure designed to apply and carry out the Monroe Doctrine, if found advisable in a certain connection.

Mr. Benton, in his "Abridgment of the Debates," makes a note to this part of President Monroe's Message, quoting a passage from President Adams's Panama Message, where he states it as one of the objects of consultation at the proposed Congress, whether it was advisable to form "an agreement between all the parties represented at this meeting, that each will guard, by its own means, against the establishment of any future European colony within its borders;" and says this is "an authoritative exposition of the scope and extent of the Monroe Doctrine." Whereas, the exclusion of European colonization was but one of three distinct points of the Monroe Doctrine, and the measure suggested by Mr. Adams, so far from defining the "extent and scope," was merely an application of the doctrine to a transient occasion. The Administration saw indications of a tendency among the new republics to fling themselves upon the protection of our government, without proposing to make use of their own resources for their own defense. And they were anxious to have the conference so managed as to lead these infant nations to a

manly assumption of the dignity of independence, teaching them to feel its responsibilities, by practising its duties of self-assertion and self protection, as well as to enjoy its benefits. And to effect this result, they projected the agreement referred to. But that was not itself the Monroe Doctrine, nor did it determine either the " scope and extent" of the doctrine, or the course to which it might lead our government at other times or under other circumstances.

Mr. Benton further describes the occasion of the declaration; that the "Holy Alliance for the maintenance of the order of things which they had established in Europe, took it under advisement to extend their care to the young American republics of Spanish origin, and to convert them into monarchies, to be governed by sovereigns of European stocks-such as the Holy Allies might put upon them. It was against the extension of this European system to the two Americas that Mr. Monroe protested." And the North American Review for 1856, in an article displaying no inconsiderable acquaintance with historical facts pertaining to the question, says of the declaration:

"Originated for the purpose of meeting a particular conjuncture of events, it finds in them alone its real purport and justification. Wise and seasouable with reference to the circumstances of the time at which it was promulgated, it ceased to be of any force even as a Presidential recommendation, as soon as the crisis which called it forth had passed." Vol. 82, p. 489.

It is true that the occasion of the Monroe Declaration was as is described. But the cause was the antagonism of the two political systems of Europe and America, and the object was not merely to prevent the present danger of invasion, but to warn off the incompatible system from ever attempting to force itself upon this continent. The danger was transient, but the cause of the danger was permanent, and the principle enunciated was of general application, as long as the cause remains, in the existence of an incompatible system, which its supporters desired to make universal. The utterances of great principles which are most effective, are commonly made upon occasions. So it is with the scriptures of truth, The law of nations has been wrought out and formed into a tolerably logical system of general principles, solely through the methods by which governments have

met occasions. And to argue that great principles put forth, like those of the Monroe Doctrine, to meet an occasion, therefore 66 cease to be of 66 force" any as soon as the crisis which called it forth had passed," is to bury out of sight all the lessons of history and all the wisdom derived from human experience. The Monroe Doctrine was not so understood by those who advanced it. The meditated intervention or invasion, and even the international conference which was to arrange for it, were stifled in their inception by this bold declaration of the determination of a great people. The danger which called forth the utterance passed away at the instant that word was proclaimed. But the administration, which sent forth so potent a declaration, intended that it should serve for the future as well as the present. This is proved by the earnestness with which Mr. Monroe reiterated the Doctrine, with its reasons, after the existing danger had passed away. Speaking of the Spanish American States, whose independence was not yet acknowledged by Europe, the Message to Congress of December 7th, 1824, says:

"The deep interest which we take in their independence, which we have acknowledged, and in their enjoyment of all the rights incident thereto, especially in the very important one of instituting their own governments, has been declared, and is known to the world. 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,"-[of instituting their own governments]—“ 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 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."

This settles the question as to the scope and extent of the Monroe Doctrine, and the permanent force which it was intended to possess. Mr. Monroe here used the technical phrase, "Balance of Power," to designate the "political system" which he would spurn. It was not merely the defeat of the threatened invasion that he aimed at, nor even a counterblast to the Holy

Alliance that he wished to put forth. But he would separate us forever from the complications of the Balance of Power in Europe, and vindicate forever the right of American nations to construct their own governments according to their own views of their own welfare, without the liability of interference by other governments intent upon serving their own interest. The great deliberation and forethought with which our government formed its conclusions, as well as the independence of European suggestion or influence with which it acted, is shown by the correspondence which the President held with Mr. Jefferson, at a date before it was possible for him to have learned anything definite concerning Mr. Canning's intentions as to recognition. An extract of a letter from the Sage of Monticello to Mr. Monroe, dated the 24th of October, 1823, shows also the views entertained by both of these learned and experienced statesmen, as to the breadth of scope and permanence of application of the principles under consideration:

"The question presented by the letters you have sent me is the most momentous which has ever been offered to my contemplation, since that of independence. That made us a nation; this sets our compass, and points the course which we are to steer through the ocean of time. And never could we embark on it under circumstances more auspicious. Our first and fundamental maxim should be, never to entangle ourselves in the broils of Europe. Our second, never to suffer Europe to intermeddle with cis-Atlantic affairs. America has a set of interests, (North and South,) distinct from those of Europe, and peculiarly her She should, therefore, have a system of her own, separate and apart from that of Europe; the last is laboring to become the domicil of despotism; our endeavors should surely be to make our hemisphere that of freedom."

own.

The National Intelligencer, a paper in which we used to look only for the elevated utterances of an enlightened patriotism, had an editorial Article in its issue of March 11th, 1863, designed to show that the Monroe Doctrine was nothing more than “ a caveat addressed to the Holy Alliance, and so of merely temporary import." And it concludes that,

"The contingency which it was instituted to meet never occurred, and hence there was no necessity for its enforcement. We have no disposition to call it a brutum fulmen, or to disparage the patriotic impulse to which it owed its origin; but it no longer exists save as a Presidential precedent which Congress declined to endorse. The creature of circumstances, it perished so soon as the circumstances disappeared which gave it life and activity. In a similar juncture, it would remain for the wisdom of the country to decide, upon a similar course, if that should be considered the most expedient and proper."