Chapter 13:
- The successful foreign policy of the administration with Spain, great Britain, China, and Paraguay -- condition of the Mexican Republic; and the recommendations to Congress thereupon not regarded, and the effect -- the origin, history, and nature of the ‘Monroe doctrine’ -- the treaty with Mexico not ratified by the Senate, and the consequences.
The administration of Mr. Buchanan, in conducting our foreign affairs, met with great and uncommon success.
Spain.
Our relations with Spain were in a very unsatisfactory condition on his accession to power. Our flag had been insulted, and numerous injuries had been inflicted on the persons and property of American citizens by Spanish officials acting under the direct control of the Captain General of Cuba. These gave rise to many but unavailing reclamations for redress and indemnity against the Spanish Government. Our successive ministers at Madrid had for years ably presented and enforced these claims, but all without effect. Their efforts were continually baffled on different pretexts. There was a class of these claims called the ‘Cuban claims,’ of a nature so plainly just that they could not be gainsayed. In these more than one hundred of our citizens were directly interested. In 1844 duties had been illegally exacted from their vessels at different custom houses in Cuba, and they appealed to their Government to have these duties refunded. Their amount could be easily ascertained by the Cuban officials themselves, who were in possession of all the necessary documents. The validity of these claims was [259] eventually recognized by Spain, but not until after a delay of ten years. The amount due was fixed, according to her own statement, with which the claimants were satisfied, at the sum of $128,635.54. Just at the moment when the claimants were expecting to receive this amount without further delay, the Spanish Government proposed to pay, not the whole, but only one-third of it, and this provided we should accept it in full satisfaction of the entire claim. They added that this offer was made, not in strict justice, but as a special favor.Under these circumstances, the time had arrived when the President deemed it his duty to employ strong and vigorous remonstrances to bring all our claims against Spain to a satisfactory conclusion. In this he succeeded in a manner gratifying to himself, and it is believed to all the claimants, but unfortunately not to the Senate of the United States. A convention was concluded at Madrid on the 5th March, 1860, establishing a joint commission for the final adjudication and payment of all the claims of the respective parties. By this the validity and amount of the Cuban claims were expressly admitted, and their speedy payment was placed beyond question. The convention was transmitted to the Senate for their constitutional action on the 3d May, 1860, but on the 27th June they determined, greatly. to the surprise of the President, and the disappointment of the claimants, that they would ‘not advise and consent’ to its ratification.
The reason for this decision, because made in executive session, cannot be positively known. This, as stated and believed at the time, was because the convention had authorized the Spanish Government to present its Amistad claim, like any other claim, before the Board of Commissioners for decision. This claim, it will be recollected, was for the payment to the Spanish owners of the value of certain slaves, for which the Spanish Government held the United States to be responsible under the treaty with Spain of the 27th October, 1795. Such was the evidence in its favor, that three Presidents of the United States had recommended to Congress to make an appropriation for its payment, and a bill for this purpose had passed the Senate. The validity of the claim, it is proper to observe, was not recognized [260] by the convention. In this respect it was placed on the same footing with all the other claims of the parties, with the exception of the Cuban claims. All the Spanish Government obtained for it was simply a hearing before the Board, and this could not be denied with any show of impartiality. Besides, it is quite certain that no convention could have been concluded without such a provision.
It was most probably the extreme views of the Senate at the time against slavery, and their reluctance to recognize it even so far as to permit a foreign claimant, although under the sanction of a treaty, to raise a question before the Board which might involve its existence, that caused the rejection of the convention. Under the impulse of such sentiments, the claims of our fellow-citizens have been postponed if not finally defeated. Indeed, the Cuban claimants, learning that the objections in the Senate arose from the Amistad claim, made a formal offer to remove the difficulty by deducting its amount from the sum due to them, but this of course could not be accepted.
Great Britain.
With Great Britain our relations were in a most unsatisfactory condition at the commencement of Mr. Buchanan's administration. Two irritating and dangerous questions were pending between them, either of which might at any moment have involved them in war. The first arose out of her claim to a protectorate over the Mosquito Coast, and her establishment of a colonial government over the Bay Islands, which territories belonged respectively to the feeble Central American Republics of Nicaragua and Honduras. These acts of usurpation on the part of the British Government were in direct violation of the Monroe doctrine, which, has been so wisely and strenuously maintained by out Government ever since it was announced. It was believed that the Clayton and Bulwer treaty, concluded in April, 1850, under the administration of General. Taylor, had settled these questions in favor of the United States, and that Great Britain would withdraw from the territories of Nicaragua and Honduras. But not so. She still persisted in [261] holding them. She even contended that the treaty only prohibited her from making future acquisitions in Central America, and by inference admitted the right to hold all her then existing possessions. The true construction of this treaty was the subject of a prolonged correspondence between Mr. Buchanan while Minister in London and the British Government. This produced no effect at the time. After he became President, however, the question was amicably and honorably settled, under his advice and approbation, by treaties between Great Britain and the two Central American States, in accordance with our construction of the Clayton and Bulwer treaty.Great Britain, both before and after the war of 1812, had persistently claimed the right of search. Her exercise of this right in the spring of 1858 had nearly involved the two countries in war. The American people have ever been peculiarly sensitive against any attempt, from whatever power, to invade the freedom of the seas. This their whole history attests from the days of the Revolution. The question was now brought to direct issue by the British Government, from which there could be no escape. At this period she despatched a number of small armed vessels, which had been employed in the Crimean war, to the coast of Cuba and the Gulf of Mexico, with instructions to search American merchantmen whom they might suspect as slave-traders. These waters are traversed by a large portion of our navigation, and their free and uninterrupted use is essential to the security of our coastwise trade between the different States. This was all placed at the mercy of the junior officers in command of these small vessels. They proceeded at once to execute their orders. They forcibly boarded and searched numerous American vessels, and this often, as might have been expected, in a rude and offensive manner. Day after day reports of these violent proceedings succeeded each other, and produced general indignation throughout the country. The call of the people was loud for immediate redress. The President remonstrated to the British Government against these deliberate violations of our national sovereignty, but judging from the experience of the past, this would have proved unavailing. It had become necessary to resist force by force. [262] Without awaiting the action of Congress, he assumed this responsibility, which he thought the exigency demanded and would justify. He accordingly ordered every ship of war within reach to the Gulf, with instructions from the Secretary of the Navy ‘to protect all vessels of the United States on the high seas from search or detention by the vessels of war of any other nation.’ This decisive measure received the unqualified and enthusiastic approbation of the American people, and the Senate, though somewhat tardily, approved it by an unanimous vote.1 Had an attempt — been afterwards made to search any of our vessels, this would have been resisted by force; a collision between the armed vessels of the two powers, acting under the authority of each, would have occurred, and this would have been the commencement of hostilities.
But fortunately no collision took place. The British Government became sensible they were in the wrong, and at once recalled the orders under which their commanders had acted. They did far more. They abandoned their claim to the right of search, for which they had so long contended, and recognized the validity of the principle of international law in favor of the freedom of the seas, always maintained by our own Government. Thus have vessels of the United States been forever secured from visitation and search by British cruisers, in time of peace, under any circumstances whatever.
In this satisfactory manner was the long controversy between the two Governments finally settled. We deem it proper here to insert an extract from the annual report of the Secretary of the Navy (Mr. Toucey), to the President, of the 6th December, 1858,2 in which he states the action of his Department in carrying into effect the instructions of the President. The Secretary says: ‘The force sent into the neighborhood of Cuba to resist the exercise of the right of search by British cruisers, consisted of the steam frigates Wabash and Colorado; the sloops of war Macedonian, Constellation, Jamestown, Saratoga, and Plymouth; the steamers Water Witch, Arctic, Fulton, and Despatch, and the brig Dolphin comprising the Mediterranean squadron under Flag Officer Lavallette, the home squadron [263] under Flag Officer McIntosh, and such other vessels as were sent out specially for the purpose. They were all deemed effective for the object for which they were sent, because in the execution of their mission no one of them would have hesitated to resist a ship of the largest class. They were instructed to protect all vessels of the United States against the exercise of the right of search on the high seas, in time of peace, by the armed vessels of any other power. These instructions have been often repeated, and are now regarded as standing instructions to the navy of the United States wherever employed. They put the deck of an American vessel on the same footing with American soil, the invasion of which under foreign authority is to be as strenuously resisted in the one case as in the other. They regard such invasion as in the highest degree offensive to the United States, incompatible with their sovereignty and with the freedom of the seas, and to be met and resisted by the whole power of the country. It was your policy promptly and decisively to embrace the opportunity to bring this question of right, upon which we had gone through one war and half a century of negotiation, to final issue, by placing all other nations in a posture where they must either fight for it or abandon it. The result has proved the wisdom of the measure.’
China.
The same success attended our negotiations with China.3 The treaty of July, 1844, with that empire, had provided for its own revision and amendment at the expiration of twelve years from its date, should experience render this necessary Changes in its provisions had now become indispensable for the security and extension of our commerce. Besides, our merchants had just claims against the Chinese Government, for injuries sustained in violation of the treaty. To effect these changes, and to obtain indemnity for these injuries, the Hon. William B. Reed was sent as Minister to China. His position proved to be one of great delicacy. England and France were engaged in war against China, and urged the United States to become a [264] party to it. They alleged that it had been undertaken to accomplish objects in which we had a common interest with themselves. This was the fact; but the President did not believe that our grievances, although serious, would justify a resort to hostilities. Whilst Mr. Reed was, therefore, directed to preserve a strict neutrality between the belligerents, he was instructed to cooperate cordially with the Ministers of England and France in all peaceful measures to secure by treaty those just concessions to commerce which the civilized nations of the world had a right to expect from China The Russian Government, also, pursued the same line of policy.The difficulty, then, was to obtain for our country, whilst remaining at peace, the same commercial advantages which England and France might acquire by war. This task our Minister performed with tact, ability, and success, by the conclusion of the treaty of Tientsin of the 18th June, 1858, and the two supplemental conventions of Shanghae of the 8th November following.4 These have placed our commercial relations with China on the same satisfactory footing with those of England and France, and have resulted in the actual payment of the full amount of all the just claims of our citizens, leaving a surplus to the credit of the Treasury. This object has been accomplished, whilst our friendly relations with the Chinese Government were never for a moment interrupted, but on the contrary have been greatly strengthened.
Paraguay.
The hostile attitude of the Government of Paraguay toward the United States early commanded the attention of the President. That Government had, upon frivolous and even insulting pretexts, refused to ratify the treaty of friendship,. commerce, and navigation, concluded with it on the 4th March, 1853, as amended by the Senate, though this only in mere matters of form.5 It had seized and appropriated the property of American citizens residing in Paraguay, in a violent and arbitrary [265] manner; and finally, by order of President Lopez, it had fired upon the United States steamer Water Witch (1st February, 1855), under Commander Thomas J. Page of the navy, and killed the sailor at the helm, whilst she was peacefully employed in surveying the Parana river, to ascertain its fitness for steam navigation. The honor, as well as the interest of the country, demanded satisfaction.The President brought the subject to the notice of Congress in his first annual message (8th December, 1857). In this he informed them that he would make a demand for redress on the Government of Paraguay, in a firm but conciliatory manner, but at the same time observed, that ‘this will the more probably be granted, if the Executive shall have authority to use other means in the event of a refusal. This is accordingly recommended.’ Congress responded favorably to this recommendation. On the 2d June, 1858,6 they passed a joint resolution authorizing the President ‘to adopt such measures, and use such force as, in his judgment, may be necessary and advisable, in the event of a refusal of just satisfaction by the Government of Paraguay,’ ‘in connection with the attack on the United States steamer Water Witch, and with other matters referred to in the annual message.’7 They also made an appropriation to defray the expenses of a commissioner to Paraguay, should he deem it proper to appoint one, ‘for the adjustment of difficulties’ with that Republic.
Paraguay is situated far in the interior of South America, and its capital, the city of Asuncion, on the left bank of the river Paraguay, is more than a thousand miles from the mouth of the La Plata.
The stern policy of Dr. Francia, formerly the Dictator of Paraguay, had been to exclude all the rest of the world from his dominions, and in this he had succeeded by the most severe and arbitrary measures. His successor, President Lopez, found it necessary, in some degree, to relax this jealous policy; but, animated by the same spirit, he imposed harsh restrictions in his intercourse with foreigners. Protected by his remote and secluded position, he but little apprehended that a navy from our [266] far distant country could ascend the La Plata, the Parana, and the Paraguay, and reach his capital. This was doubtless the reason why he had ventured to place us at defiance. Under these circumstances the President deemed it advisable to send with our commissioner to Paraguay, Hon. James B. Bowlin, a naval force sufficient to exact justice should negotiation fail.8 This consisted of nineteen armed vessels, great and small, carrying two hundred guns and twenty-five hundred sailors and marines, all under the command of the veteran and gallant Shubrick. Soon after the arrival of the expedition at Montevideo, Commissioner Bowlin and Commodore Shubrick proceeded (30th December, 1858) to ascend the rivers to Asuncion in the steamer Fulton, accompanied by the Water Witch. Meanwhile the remaining vessels rendezvoused in the Parana, near Rosario, a position from which they could act promptly, in case of need.
The commissioner arrived at Asuncion on the 25th January, 1859, and left it on the 10th February. Within this brief period he had ably and successfully accomplished all the objects of his mission. In addition to ample apologies, he obtained from President Lopez the payment of $10,000 for the family of the seaman (Chaney) who had been killed in the attack on the Water Witch, and also concluded satisfactory treaties of indemnity and of navigation and commerce with the Paraguayan Government.9 Thus the President was enabled to announce to Congress, in his annual message (December, 1859), that ‘all our difficulties with Paraguay had been satisfactorily adjusted.’
Even in this brief summary it would be unjust to withhold from Secretary Toucey a commendation for the economy and efficiency he displayed in fitting out this expedition.10 It is a remarkable fact in our history, that its entire expenses were defrayed out of the ordinary appropriations for the naval service. Not a dollar was appropriated by Congress for this purpose, unless we may except the sum of $289,000 for the purchase of seven small steamers of light draft, worth more than their cost, [267] and which were afterwards usefully employed in the ordinary naval service.11
It may be remarked that the President, in his message already referred to, justly observes, ‘that the appearance of so large a force, fitted out in such a prompt manner, in the far distant waters of the La Plata, and the admirable conduct of the officers and men employed in it, have had a happy effect in favor of our country throughout all that remote portion of the world.’
The Mexican Republic and the Monroe doctrine.
The relations of the United States with Mexico on the accession of Mr. Buchanan to the Presidency in March, 1857, were of an unfriendly and almost hostile character. That Republic had been in a state of constant revolution ever since it achieved its independence from Spain. The various constitutions adopted from time to time had been set at naught almost as soon as proclaimed; and one military leader after another, in rapid succession, had usurped the government. This fine country, blessed with a benign climate, a fertile soil, and vast mineral resources, was reduced by civil war and brigandage to a condition of almost hopeless anarchy. Meanwhile, our treaties with the Republic were incessantly violated. Our citizens were imprisoned, expelled from the country, and in some instances murdered. Their vessels, merchandise, and other property were seized and confiscated. While the central Government at the capital were acting in this manner, such was the general lawlessness prevailing, that different parties claiming and exercising local authority in several districts were committing similar outrages on our citizens. Our treaties had become a dead letter, and our commerce with the Republic was almost entirely destroyed. The claims of American citizens filed in the State Department, for which they asked the interposition of their own Government with that of Mexico to obtain redress and indemnity, exceeded $10,000,000. Although this amount may have [268] been exaggerated by the claimants, still their actual losses must have been very large.12In all these cases as they occurred our successive ministers demanded redress; but their demands were only followed by new injuries. Their testimony was uniform and emphatic in reference to the only remedy which in their judgments would prove effectual. ‘Nothing but a manifestation of the power of the Government of the United States,’ wrote Mr. John Forsyth, our Minister in 1856, ‘and of its purpose to punish these wrongs, will avail. I assure you that the universal belief here is, that there is nothing to be apprehended from the Government of the United States, and that local Mexican officials can commit these outrages upon American citizens with absolute impunity.’
In the year 1857 a favorable change occurred in the affairs of the Republic, inspiring better hopes for the future. A constituent Congress, elected by the people of the different States for this purpose, had framed and adopted a republican Constitution. It adjourned on the 17th February, 1857, having provided for a popular election to be held in July for a President and members of Congress. At this election General Comonfort was chosen President almost without opposition. His term of office was to commence on the 1st of December, 1857, and to continue for four years. In case his office should become vacant, the Constitution had provided that the Chief Justice of Mexico, then General Juarez, should become President, until the end of the term. On the 1st December, 1857, General Comonfort appeared before the Congress then in session, took the oath to support the Constitution, and was duly inaugurated.
But the hopes thus inspired for the establishment of a regular constitutional Government soon proved delusive. President Comonfort, within one brief month, was driven from the capital and the Republic by a military rebellion headed by General Zuloaga; and General Juarez consequently became the constitutional President of Mexico until the 1st day of December, 1861. General Zuloaga instantly assumed the name of [269] President with indefinite powers; and the entire diplomatic corps, including the minister from the United States, made haste to recognize the authority of the usurper without awaiting instructions from their respective Governments. But Zuloaga was speedily expelled from power. Having encountered the resistance of the people in many parts of the Republic, and a large portion of the army in the capital having ‘pronounced’ against him, he was in turn compelled to relinquish the Presidency. The field was now cleared for the elevation of General Miramon. He had from the beginning been the favorite of the so-called ‘Church party,’ and was ready to become their willing instrument in maintaining the vast estates and prerogatives of the Church, and in suppressing the Liberal Constitution. An assembly of his partisans, called together without even the semblance of authority, elected him President; but he warily refused to accept the office at their hands. He then resorted to another but scarcely more plausible expedient to place himself in power. This was to identify himself with General Zuloaga, who had just been deposed, and to bring him again upon the stage as President. Zuloaga accordingly reappeared in this character; but his only act was to appoint Miramon ‘President Substitute,’ when he again retired. It is under this title that Miramon has since exercised military authority in the city of Mexico, expecting by this stratagem to appropriate to himself the recognition of the foreign ministers which had been granted to Zuloaga. He succeeded. The ministers continued their relations with him as ‘President Substitute’ in the same manner as if Zuloaga had still remained in power. It was by this farce, for it deserves no better name, that Miramon succeeded in grasping the Presidency. The idea that the chief of a nation at his own discretion may transfer to whomsoever he may please the trust of governing delegated to him for the benefit of the people, is too absurd to receive a moment's countenance. But when we reflect that Zuloaga, from whom Miramon derived his title, was himself a military usurper, having expelled the constitutional President (Comonfort) from office, it would have been a lasting disgrace to the Mexican people had they tamely submitted to the yoke. To such an imputation a large majority [270] proved themselves not to be justly exposed. Although, on former occasions, a seizure of the capital and the usurpation of power by a military chieftain had been generally followed, at least for a brief season, by an acquiescence of the Mexican people, yet they now rose boldly and independently to defend their rights.
President Juarez, after having been driven from the city of Mexico by Zuloaga, proceeded to form a constitutional Government at Guanajuato. From thence he removed to Vera Cruz, where he put his administration in successful operation. The people in many portions of the Republic rallied in its support and flew to arms. A civil war thus began between the friends of the Constitution and the partisans of Miramon. In this conflict it was not possible for the American people to remain indifferent spectators. They naturally favored the cause of President Juarez, and expressed ardent wishes for his success. Meanwhile Mr. Forsyth, the American Minister, still continued at the city of Mexico in the discharge of-his official duties until June, 1858, when he suspended his diplomatic relations with the Miramon Government, until he should ascertain the decision of the President. Its outrages toward American citizens and its personal indignities toward himself, without hope of amendment or redress, rendered his condition no longer tolerable. Our relations, bad as they had been under former governments, had now become still worse under that of Miramon. President Buchanan approved the step which Mr. Forsyth had taken. He was consequently directed to demand his passports, to deposit the archives of the legation with Mr. Black, our consul at the city of Mexico, and to proceed to Vera Cruz, where an armed steamer would be in readiness to convey himself and family to the United States.13
Thus was all diplomatic intercourse finally terminated with the Government of Miramon; whilst none had been organized with that of Juarez. The President. entertained some hope that this rupture of diplomatic relations might cause Miramon to reflect seriously on the danger of war with the [271] United States, and might at least arrest future outrages on our citizens. Instead of this, however, he persisted in his course of violence against the few American citizens who had the courage to remain under his power. The President in his message of December, 1859,14 informs Congress that ‘murders of a still more atrocious character have been committed in the very heart of Mexico, under the authority of Miramon's Government, during the present year. Some of these were worthy only of a barbarous age, and if they had not been clearly proven, would have seemed impossible in a country which claims to be civilized.’ And in that of December, 1860, he says: ‘To cap the climax, after the battle of Tacubaya, in April, 1859, General Marquez ordered three citizens of the United States, two of them physicians, to be seized in the hospital at that place, taken out and shot, without crime, and without trial This was done, notwithstanding our unfortunate countrymen were at the moment engaged in the holy cause of affording relief to the soldiers of both parties who had been wounded in the battle, without making any distinction between them.’
‘Little less shocking was the recent fate of Ormond Chase, who was shot in Tepic on the 7th August by order of the same Mexican general, not only without a trial, but without any conjecture by his friends of the cause of his arrest.’ He was represented to have been a young man of good character and intelligence, who had made numerous friends in Tepic, and his unexpected execution shocked the whole community. ‘Other outrages,’ the President states, ‘might be enumerated; but these are sufficient to illustrate the wretched state of the country and the unprotected condition of the persons and property of our citizens in Mexico.’
‘The wrongs which we have suffered from Mexico are before the world, and must deeply impress every American citizen. A Government which is either unable or unwilling to redress such wrongs, is derelict to its highest duties.’
Meanwhile the civil war between the parties was conducted with various success; but the scale preponderated in favor of the Constitutional cause. Ere long the Government of [272] Juarez extended its authority and was acknowledged in all the important ports and throughout the sea-coasts and external territory of the Republic; whilst the power of Miramon was confined to the city of Mexico and the surrounding States.
The final triumph of Juarez became so probable, that President Buchanan deemed it his duty to inquire and ascertain whether, according to our constant usage in such cases, he might not recognize the Constitutional Government. For the purpose of obtaining reliable information on this point, he sent a confidential agent to Mexico to examine and report the actual condition and prospects of the belligerents. In consequence of his report, as well as of intelligence from other sources, he felt justified in appointing a new minister to the Mexican Republic. For this office Mr. Robert M. McLane, a distinguished citizen of Maryland, was selected. He proceeded on his mission on the 8th March, 1859, invested ‘with discretionary authority to recognize the Government of President Juarez, if on his arrival in Mexico he should find it entitled to such recognition, according to the established practice of the United States.’ In consequence, on the 7th of April Mr. McLane recognized the Constitutional Government by presenting his credentials to President Juarez, having no hesitation, as he said, ‘in pronouncing the Government of Juarez to be the only existing Government of the Republic.’ He was cordially received by the authorities at Vera Cruz, who have ever since manifested the most friendly disposition toward the United States.
Unhapily, however, the Constitutional Government, though supported by a large majority both of the people and of the several Mexican States, had not been able to expel Miramon from the capital. In the opinion of the President, it had now become the imperative duty of Congress to act without further delay, and to enforce redress from the Government of Miramon for the wrongs it had committed in violation of the faith of treaties against citizens of the United States.
Toward no other Government would we have manifested so long and so patient a forbearance. This arose from our warm sympathies for a neighboring Republic. The territory under [273] the sway of Miramon around the capital was not accessible to our forces without passing through the States under the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Government. But this from the beginning had always manifested the warmest desire to cultivate the most friendly relations with our country. No doubt was therefore entertained that it would cheerfully grant us the right of passage. Moreover, it well knew that the expulsion of Miramon would result in the triumph of the Constitutional Government and its establishment over the whole territory of Mexico. What was, also, deemed of great importance by the President, this would remove from us the danger of a foreign war in support of the Monroe doctrine against any European nation which might be tempted, by the distracted condition of tile Republic, to interfere forcibly in its internal affairs under the pretext of restoring peace and order.
Such is the outline of the President's policy. Had it been sanctioned by Congress, it is beyond question that we should not at this day witness the transformation of the Republic into a monarchy.
Accordingly, in his message to Congress of the 19th of December, 1859, he says:
We may in vain apply to the Constitutional Government at Vera Cruz, although it is well disposed to do us justice, for adequate redress. Whilst its authority is acknowledged in all the important ports and throughout the sea-coasts of the Republic, its power does not extend to the city of Mexico and the States in its vicinity, where nearly all the recent outrages have been committed on American citizens. We must penetrate into the interior before we can reach the offenders, and this can only be done by passing through the territory in the occupation of the Constitutional Government. The most acceptable and least difficult mode of accomplishing the object will be to act in concert with that Government. Their consent and their aid might, I believe, be obtained; but if not, our obligation to protect our own citizens in their just rights secured by treaty would not be the less imperative. For these reasons I recommend to Congress to pass a law authorizing the President, under such conditions as they may deem expedient, to employ a sufficient [274] military force to enter Mexico for the purpose of obtaining indemnity for the past and security for the future. I purposely refrain from any suggestion as to whether this force shall consist of regular troops or volunteers, or both. This question may be most appropriately left to the decision of Congress. I would merely observe that, should volunteers be selected, such a force could be easily raised in this country among those who sympathize with the sufferings of our unfortunate fellow citizens in Mexico, and with the unhappy condition of that Republic. Such an accession to the forces of the Constitutional Government would enable it soon to reach the city of Mexico, and extend its power over the whole Republic. In that event, there is no reason to doubt that the just claims of our citizens would be satisfied, and adequate redress obtained for the injuries inflicted upon them. The Constitutional Government have ever evinced a strong desire to do justice, and this might be secured in advance by a preliminary treaty.
It may be said that these measures will, at least indirectly, be inconsistent with our wise and settled policy not to interfere in the domestic concerns of foreign nations. But does not the present case fairly constitute an exception? An adjoining republic is in a state of anarchy and confusion from which she has proved wholly unable to extricate herself. She is entirely destitute of the power to maintain peace upon her borders, or to prevent the incursions of banditti into our territory. In her fate and in her fortune—in her power to establish and maintain a settled government—we have a far deeper interest, socially, commercially, and politically, than any other nation. She is now a wreck upon the ocean, drifting about as she is impelled by different factions. As a good neighbor, shall we not extend to her a helping hand to save her? If we do not, it would not be surprising should some other nation undertake the task, and thus force us to interfere at last, under circumstances of increased difficulty, for the maintenance of our established policy.
These recommendations of the President were wholly disregarded by Congress during the session of 1859-1860. Indeed, they were not even noticed in any of its proceedings. The [275] members of both parties were too exclusively occupied in discussing the slavery question, and in giving their attention to the approaching Presidential election, to devote any portion of their time to the important Mexican question.
The President again brought the subject before Congress in his next annual message of December, 1860; but with no better effect. In recurring to his recommendations at the previous session for the employment of a military force, and the consequences which had already resulted and would afterwards follow from the neglect with which it had been treated, he observes;
No other alternative was left, except the entire abandonment of our fellow-citizens who had gone to Mexico under the faith of treaties, to the systematic injustice, cruelty, and oppression of Miramon's Government. Besides, it is almost certain that the simple authority to employ this force would of itself have accomplished all our objects, without striking a single blow. The Constitutional Government would, then, ere this have been established at the city of Mexico, and would have been ready and willing, to the extent of its ability, to do us justice.
In addition, and I deem this a most important consideration, European Governments would have been deprived of all pretext to interfere in the territorial and domestic concerns of Mexico. We should thus have been relieved from the obligation of resisting , even by force , should this become necessary, any attempt by these Governments to deprive our neighboring Republic of portions of her territory, a duty from which we could not shrink without abandoning the traditional and established policy of the American people.
He adds: ‘I am happy to observe that, firmly relying upon the justice and good faith of these Governments, there is no present danger that such a contingency will happen.’
This was inserted in the message, because Mr. McLane at the time had received informal though only verbal assurances to this effect in his intercourse with European diplomatists in Mexico. And indeed there was no danger of foreign interference so long as the question of a military expedition to Mexico had not been decided by Congress. [276]
The President did not apprehend interference in Mexico from any European sovereign except the Emperor of the French. It was his known policy to seek new colonies for France; and his minister exercised great influence over Miramon. Besides, he had previously directed his attention in a special manner to Central America. The President, therefore, watched his proceedings with constant vigilance, under the conviction that should he attempt to colonize the whole or any portion of Mexico, this would almost necessarily involve the United States in a war with France in vindication of the Monroe doctrine.
The origin, history, and nature of ‘the Monroe doctrine’
The allied powers of Europe had triumphed over Napoleon, and had restored the elder branch of the Bourbons, in the person of Louis XVIII., to the throne of France. Emboldened by this success, Russia, Austria, and Prussia, in 1815, formed the Holy Alliance. To this France, and nearly all the other continental powers, soon afterwards acceded. Great Britain, however, stood aloof and refused to become a party to it. The object of the allies was to abolish liberal Governments on the continent of Europe, and to maintain the divine right of sovereigns to rule according to their own discretion—in short, to roll back the tide of progress toward free institutions, and to restore the old despotisms as they had existed before the French Revolution. Accordingly France was deputed to destroy, by force of arms, the liberal Government of the Cortes in Spain, and to restore the implacable and bigoted Ferdinand VII. to absolute power. In 1823 a French army, commanded by the Duke d'angouleme, invaded Spain, and in a single campaign accomplished these objects.In the year before the date of this expedition, the Government of the United States had formally acknowledged the independence of the different southern Republics, formerly Spanish colonies; and an appropriation of one hundred thousand dollars had been made (May 4, 1822）15 by Congress to defray [277] the expense of missions to these ‘independent nations on the American continent.’
Whilst the French invasion was in successful progress, the British Government became satisfied that the allies, after crushing the Spanish liberals, intended to employ their arms in assisting Ferdinand VII. to resubjugate what they termed his rebellious colonies on this side of the Atlantic. To such an enterprise Great Britain was strenuously opposed, and she resolved to resist it. If successful, this would prove to be a severe blow to her trade in that quarter of the world—an interest to which she has ever been sensitively alive.
To avert the impending danger Mr. Canning, then the British Minister for Foreign Affairs, in August, 1823, proposed to Mr. Rush, the American Minister in London, that the two Governments should immediately unite in publishing ‘a joint declaration before Europe,’ manifesting their opposition to the policy and purposes of the alliance in regard to this continent. This expressed the opinion that the recovery of the colonies by Spain was hopeless; that their recognition as independent States was one of time and circumstances; that the two powers were not disposed, however, to interpose obstacles in the way to any arrangements by amicable negotiations between the colonies and Spain; but that whilst they aimed at the acquisition of no portion of these colonies for themselves, they would not see the transfer of any of them to a third power with indifference. Mr. Canning also observed that in his opinion such a joint declaration by Great Britain and the United States would alone prove sufficient to prevent the allies from any forcible interference against the former Spanish colonies. For these reasons he earnestly urged Mr. Rush to become a party to it on behalf of his Government. Although Mr. Rush had no direct instructions to warrant him in such an act, and this he had communicated to Mr. Canning, yet he wisely agreed to assume the responsibility, but upon one express condition. This was, that the British Government should first acknowledge the independence of the new American Republics, as the United States had already done. Mr. Canning, though resolved on defeating the projects of the alliance against these Republics, was not prepared [278] at the time to take this decisive step, and therefore the joint declaration was never made.
Mr. Rush, in his despatch of September 19, 1823, to Mr. John Quincy Adams, then Secretary of State,16 communicated to him a lucid statement of these negotiations, with explanatory documents. After these had been considered by President Monroe, he sent them, with his own views on the subject, to Mr. Jefferson, and asked his advice as to the course which ought to be pursued by the Government to ward off the threatened danger.
Mr. Jefferson's answer is dated at Monticello, on the 24th October, 1823. It is earnest, enthusiastic, and eloquent, displaying in old age the statesmanlike sagacity and ardent patriotism of the author of the Declaration of Independence. It foreshadows and recommends the ‘Monroe Doctrine’ to the fullest extent. From its importance we quote it entire from Randall's Life of Jefferson, vol. III., p. 491. Mr. Jefferson says:
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 opening on us; 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, North and South, has a set of interests distinct from those of Europe, and peculiarly her own. She should, therefore, have a system of her own, separate and apart from that of Europe. While the last is laboring to become the domicile of despotism, our endeavor should surely be to make our hemisphere that of freedom. One nation, most of all, could disturb us in this pursuit; she now offers to lead, aid, and accompany us in it. By acceding to her proposition, we detach her from the band of despots, bring her mighty weight into the scale of free government, and emancipate a continent at one stroke, which might otherwise linger long in doubt and difficulty, Great Britain is the nation which can do us the most harm of any one, or all on [279] earth; and with her on our side, we need not fear the whole world. With her, then, we should most sedulously cherish a cordial friendship; and nothing would tend more to knit our affections than to be fighting once more, side by side, in the same cause. Not that I would purchase even her amity at the price of taking part in her wars. But the war in which the present proposition might engage us, should that be its consequence, is not her war, but ours. Its object is to introduce and establish the American system of keeping out of our land all foreign powers, of never permitting those of Europe to intermeddle with the affairs of our nations. It is to maintain our own principle, not to depart from it; and if, to facilitate this, we can effect a division in the body of the European powers, and draw over to our side its most powerful member, surely we should do it. But I am clearly of Mr. Canning's opinion, that it will prevent instead of provoking war. With Great Britain withdrawn from their scale and shifted into that of our two continents, all Europe combined would not undertake such a war. For how would they propose to get at either enemy without superior fleets? Nor is the occasion to be slighted which this proposition offers, of declaring our protest against the atrocious violations of the rights of nations, by the interference of any one in the internal affairs of another, so flagitiously begun by Bonaparte, and now continued by the equally lawless alliance calling itself holy.
But we have first to ask ourselves a question: Do we wish to acquire to our own confederacy any one or more of the Spanish provinces? I candidly confess that I have ever looked on Cuba as the most interesting addition which could ever be made to our system of States. The control which, with Florida point, this island would give us over the Gulf of Mexico, and the countries and isthmus bordering on it, as well as all those whose waters flow into it, would fill up the measure of our political well-being. Yet as I am sensible that this can never be obtained, even with her own consent, but by war; and its independence, which is our second interest (and especially its independence of England), can be secured without it, I have no hesitation in abandoning my first wish to future chances, and [280] accepting its independence, with peace and the friendship of England, rather than its association at the expense of war and her enmity.
I could honestly, therefore, join in the declaration proposed, that we aim not at the acquisition of any of those possessions, that we will not stand in the way of any amicable arrangement between them and the mother country; but that we will oppose, with all our means, the forcible interposition of any other power, as auxiliary, stipendiary, or under any other form or pretext, and most especially their transfer to any power by conquest, cession, or acquisition in any other way. I should think it, therefore, advisable that the Executive should encourage the British Government to a continuance in the dispositions expressed in these letters, by an assurance of his concurrence with them as far as his authority goes; and that, as it may lead to war, the declaration of which requires an act of Congress, the case shall be laid before them for consideration, at their first meeting, and under the reasonable aspect in which it is seen by himself.
I have been so long weaned from political subjects, and have so long ceased to take any interest in them, that I am sensible I am not qualified to offer opinions on them worthy of any attention. But the question now proposed involves consequences so lasting, and effects so decisive of our future destinies, as to rekindle all the interest I have heretofore felt on such occasions, and to induce me to the hazard of opinions which will prove only my wish to contribute still my mite toward any thing which may be useful to our country. And praying you to accept it at only what it is worth, I add the assurance of my constant and affectionate friendship and respect.
President Monroe, thus fortified by the support of Mr. Jefferson, proceeded to announce, in his seventh annual message to Congress, of December 2, 1823, the now celebrated ‘Monroe Doctrine.’ This is summed up in his assertion, ‘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 they have assumed and maintained, are [281] henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers.’
The word ‘henceforth’ is employed because Great Britain and France, at the date of the message, not to speak of the Portuguese Empire of Brazil, possessed colonies on this continent, and these are exempted from its terms. It applies to the future and not to the past. This is more specifically stated afterwards in the declaration, that ‘with the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we have not interfered and shall not interfere.’
The reader has perceived that the recommendations of Mr. Jefferson went beyond the ‘joint declaration’ which had been proposed by Mr. Canning. This was confined to the Spanish American colonies, but the Monroe doctrine extends the protection of the United States to every other portion of the continent.
In a subsequent portion of the message Mr. Monroe proceeds to discuss and condemn, in a clear and able manner, the projects of the alliance against the southern Republics, and to warn them of the consequences. In this, however, he never loses sight of the more comprehensive doctrine he had first announced against European colonization in any portion of America, employing such language as the following: ‘We owe it therefore to candor, and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those [European] powers, to declare that we should consider any attempt on their part to. extend their system to any portion of the hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety.’ And again, after stating that our established policy was not to interfere in the internal concerns of any European power, to consider the Government de facto as the legitimate Government, and to cultivate friendly relations with it, he says: ‘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 [282] equally impossible, therefore, that we should behold such interposition, in any form, with indifference.’
Such is the Monroe doctrine. It is in opposition to future European colonization on any part of the American continent; it is in opposition to the introduction of European despotic or monarchical institutions in any part of the American continent; and is in opposition to any attempt of European sovereigns to subjugate the North American Republic of Mexico, or any of the South American Republics. In regard to those Republics, he emphatically says: ‘But with the Governments who have declared their independence and maintained it, and whose independence we have, on great consideration and on just principles, acknowleged 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.’ It was eminently wise that the United States, the most ancient and by far the most powerful Republic on this continent, should have interposed such a shield to defend their weaker sisters against the assaults of European despotism.
‘When President Monroe's message arrived in London [we are informed by Mr. Rush],17 the whole document excited great attention. It was upon all tongues; the press was full of it; the Spanish American deputies were overjoyed; Spanish American securities rose in the stock market, and the safety of the new States from all European coercion was considered as no longer doubtful.’ The allies soon after abandoned their hostile purposes against the new Republics, and their independence was secured.
That portion of the message for the protection of the new Republics, being in accordance with the avowed policy of Great Britain, was received with favor by the British Government; but not so the portion of it against future European colonization. This encountered their decided opposition.18 ‘The Monroe doctrine,’ nevertheless, soon became a canon of political faith for the American people, and they placed it side by side [283] with their hostility to the impressment of American seamen, and to the search of American vessels on the high seas.
The authors and friends of the Monroe doctrine entertained no doubt of its wisdom and policy. With the established independence of the Republic of Mexico and the Republics south of it, there arose two distinct and opposing forms of government on the opposite sides of the Atlantic; the one republican, the other monarchical; the one devoted to free institutions, the other to despotic rule. The nations of Europe having determined to resist any change in their monarchical forms, it was but just and reasonable that those of America in selfprotec-tion should equally resist all attempts from the other side of the Atlantic to change their free institutions. To repeat the language of Mr. Jefferson, ‘America, North and South, has a set of interests distinct from those of Europe, and peculiarly her own; she should, therefore, have a system of her own, separate and apart from that of Europe. While the last is laboring to become the domicile of despotism, our endeavor should surely be to make our hemisphere that of freedom.’ Governments so radically opposed in principle could not be intermingled in adjoining territories without dangerous disputes and collisions. The contrast between them would be a perennial source of jealousy. Each would necessarily endeavor to propagate its own principles among the neighboring people of the other. In the interests of peace and friendship between the European monarchies and the American Republics, a wise foresight would forbid the former from establishing colonies within the territories or in the vicinity of the latter. Should the United States interpose forcibly to establish republican institutions on any part of the European continent, it is certain that all its sovereigns would combine to resist such an interference as dangerous to their monarchical system. Shall we, then, abandoning the Monroe doctrine, patiently suffer any of these sovereigns to extend their dominion, equally dangerous to our free forms of government, on this side of the Atlantic No human sagacity could, twenty years ago, have foreseen the day when a foreign potentate, not even confining himself to the planting of colonies on American soil, should by invasion and [284] force of arms convert the whole Republic of Mexico into a European monarchy. The idea, if suggested at that time, would have been treated as absurd, more especially when we reflect that this is the richest and most populous of the Republics which more than fifty years ago had been saved from European domination by our Government, and that its territories extend for a thousand miles along our own frontiers.
During the administration of President Polk, it became necessary that he should reaffirm the Monroe doctrine, in view of the designs of Great Britain to establish a protectorate over the Mosquito coast in the Republics of Nicaragua and Honduras. This he did, in decided terms, in his first annual message to Congress (2d December, 1845.)19
Great Britain, as we have already seen, through the interposition of the Government of the United States, eventually withdrew from the Mosquito protectorate, as well as from the colony of the Bay Islands, which she had afterwards established on the coast of Honduras. At the close of Mr. Buchanan's administration no European colony existed on the American continent, except such as had been established before the Monroe doctrine was announced, or had been formed out of territory then belonging to a European power.
The President, having failed in obtaining authority from Congress to employ a military force in Mexico, as a last resort adopted the policy of concluding a treaty with the Constitutional Government. By this means he thought something might be accomplished, both to satisfy the long deferred claims of American citizens, and to prevent foreign interference with the internal government of Mexico. Accordingly Mr. McLane, on the 14th day of December, 1859, signed a ‘Treaty of Transits and Commerce’ with the Mexican Republic, and also a ‘Convention to enforce treaty stipulations, and to maintain order and security in the Territory of the Republics of Mexico and the United States.’ These treaties secured peculiar and highly valuable advantages to our trade and commerce, especially in articles the production of our agriculture and manufactures. [285] They also guaranteed to us the secure possession and enjoyment of the Tehuantepec route, and of several other transit routes for our commerce, free from duty, across the territories of the Republic, on its way to California, and our other possessions on the Northwest coast, as well as to the independent Republics on the Pacific and to Eastern Asia.
In consideration of these advantages, ‘and in compensation for the revenue surrendered by Mexico on the goods and merchandise transported free of duty through the territory of that Republic, the Government of the United States agreed to pay to the Government of Mexico the sum of four millions of dollars.’ Of this sum two millions were to be-paid immediately to Mexico, and the remaining two millions were to be retained by our Government ‘for the payment of the claims of citizens of the United States against the Government of the Republic of Mexico for injuries already inflicted, and which may be proven to be just according to the law and usage of nations and the principles of equity.’ It was believed that these stipulations, whilst providing two millions toward the payment of the claims of our citizens, would enable President Juarez with the remaining two millions to expel the usurping Government of Miramon from the capital, and place the Constitutional Government in possession of the whole territory of the Republic. This, we need not say, would have greatly promoted the interests of the United States. Besides, what was vastly important, these treaties, by vesting in the United States territorial and commercial rights which we would be bound to defend, might for this reason have prevented any European Government from attempting to acquire dominion over the territories of Mexico, and thus the Monroe doctrine would probably have remained inviolate. With this view Mr. McLane was seriously impressed. In his despatch of December 14th, 1859, to the Secretary of State, communicating the treaties, he expresses the apprehension that should they not be ratified, further anarchy would prevail in Mexico until it should be terminated by direct interference from some other quarter.
On the 4th January, 1860, the President submitted to the Senate the treaty and the convention with a view to their ratification, [286] together with the despatch of Mr. McLane. These, on the same day, were referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. Whether any or what other proceedings were had in relation to them we are unable to state, the injunction of secresy having never been removed by the Senate. Mr. McLane, who was then in Washington, had a conference with the committee, and received the impression that comparative unanimity existed in favor of the principal provisions of the treaty; but in regard to the convention the contingency of its possible abuse was referred to as constituting an objection to its ratification. Certain it is that neither the one nor the other was ever approved by the Senate, and consequently both became a dead letter. The Republic of Mexico was thus left to its fate, and has since become an empire under the dominion of a scion of the House of Hapsburg, protected by the Emperor of the French. The righteous claims of American citizens have therefore been indefinitely postponed.
