The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1852-12-24
Hayti.

Union temperate and conclusive vindication
OF the policy pursued by the Administration on
the Hayti question. To that article, and the
remarks with which we prefaced it, the New
York Eoening Post takes exceptic . assal-
ing the Union more especially fof it's alleged
abandonment of the Monroe doctrine The
following reply, from the Union of yesterday,
meets this point mos: satisfactorily, and at the
same time justfies the Administration in a
manner which, from such a quarter, cannot
fail to arrest the ordinary current Of party
cavil:
INTERVENTION IN HAyTL- President Fillmore
has incurred the censure, not only of certain De.
mocratic papers. but of journals Of his own party
on account OF his CO operation with France and
Great Britain in behalf of the Dominicans. In
our view the policy of the President was az just
and legitimate as 1t was humane, and we did not
hesitate to express this opinion. The New York
Eoening Post, however, in condemnng the con-
duct OF the Administration, undertakes to convict
this journal Of an abandonment of the Monroe
declaration against foreign Intervention in the
affairs Of this continent. 1t argues that the media
ton Of Great Britain and France for the pacifica.
ton OF Hayh was just such act Of intervention
as we were pledged to resst by ction of the
Monroe doctrine. We view the matter in an
altogether different light; and we suspect the
Fosf would have been silent upon the sub.
ject Is, instead of opposing the sanguinary
schemes OF Soulouquc, President Fillmore had
abetted and aided them morbid sympathy
for the unseen and imaginary sufIerings and
wrongs OF the negro, no matter in W hat condition,
is the real provocation of the censuro which the
conduct OF the Administration has encountered
from the aboltionists; for surely the distinction
is 40 plain and palpab!e between the mediation of
France and Great Britain in behalf of Dominica
and the Intervention against which Mr.. Monroe
protected, that no unprrjudicCd mind can con-
found them. The Monroe declaration was Ievelled
against European colonization on this ointment
against hostile aggressive intervention, de-
signed to subserve the interests Of the usurpipg
power and involving some probable conflict with
the rights and welfare of this country. In co ope.
rating with this Government in the endeavor
to effect the pacifcation OF Hayti, Great Britain
and France acted from selfish policy. Be-
sought by the Dominicans to protect them from
slaughter and rapine, the mediating powers inter-
fered for this, and for no other purpose. feeble
community was threatened with the savage VEN
geance OF brutal and barbarian foe and to shield
it from destruction, Great Britain and France,
with the assent and cooperation of the United
s'a'es, uhdertooR 10 avert the impending blow.
And this was the intervention which the Evening
Post deems to be in conflict with the Monroe doc.
trine, aud against which II contends we should
protest Does the Post regard our treaty with
England, France, and Spain for the suppression Of
the slave trade "a n violation Of the Monroe doc
trne' Yet il ia by virtue Of this treaty that reat
Britain keeps sentinel on the coast of Brazil and
in the Mexican gulf, and, as occasion demands
resorts to a coercive intcrv enton in American af-
fairs.
"The Evening Post will hardly convict this jour
nal OF inconsistency or Of surrender of the Monroe
doctrine, by contendng that approval of Pre-
sidents Fillmore's policy in respect to Hayti is an
approval OF foreign intervention in the affairs of
this government; for there 10 no analogy between
the mediation Of France and Great Britain for the
protection Of the Dominicnns and the intervention
against which MIR. Monroe protested. The cases
are essentially different"