Washington sentinel. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1855, 1853-12-02
NON-INTERvENTION .---wAsHINGTON
AND MONROE.

i
Essays in grave, monthly review are sup.
| posed to be prepared with great care and de-
liberation. They differ therein from the hasty
and spontaneous suggestions of the daily press.
| They are usually regarded with more attention
and respect than the random suggestions of
the latter press. These reviews are read at
home-in families; they are conned over dill
gently. The facts they state and the views
they present, become fixed in the minds of their
careful readers. In this view it is important
that any inaccuracies in their statements of fact
and any error in the opinions expressed, par
ticularly on grave and great political questions
should be promptly corrected.
These considerations induce us to take notice
of an article in the last (December) number of
De Bows Review. 1t is said to be from the
pen Of distinguished citizen of South Carroll
ma. The heading of it is american Institu-
tons, The Monroe Doctrine, Intervention &c"
We propose to notice only that part of the es-
say which treats of Intervention and the Mon
roe doctrine.
The author says: ave confess ourselves,
however questionable it may seem to some,
staunch supporters of Washington,s doctrine of
nonintervention, and nothing yet has occurred
to our mind that weakens the force and wisdom
of his advice to avoid all entangling alliances
or interferences with foreign powers"
Again, he says: "But the Monroe doctrine.
What right had Mr.. Monroe to prescribe any
new doctrine to the democratic party? Is he
or any other man to be placed along side of
Washington, and to supersede his advice as to
our foreign policy? If new principles are to
be budded or grated on our old stock of demo
cratic principles, let the bud or graft be taken
from some sounder stock than the Monroe ad-
ministration."
The writer laboring under erroneous impress
sions-a great misunderstanding, or strong per-
sonal prejudice against Mr. Monroe, is guilty of
the injustice Of placing that pure man and pa
triotic and illustrious statesman, in antagonism
to the unapproachabe Father of his Country.
Wherein is the contradiction between Wash
ington's doctrine of non-intervention and Mon
roe's doctrine? We cannot discern any. The
writer cannot point out any. Washington
taught US to avoid interfering in the wars and
quarres of European nations. The lesson is
full of wisdom, and we devoutly hope that it
will always be borne in mind, and acted upon
by the American people.
Monroe taught us not to permit any inter
ference on the part of European powers with
the affairs of this continent. This is but
natural sequence and corollary from Washing
tons doctrine.
"There are but two circumstances in our
opinion says the writer, (which would Justify
the United States in saying to any European
power-you shall neither conquer nor colonize
any part of Mexico or Central America.
l. The right of property in the soil q
Or imminent peril threatened by such conquest
or colonization"
The author MEANS we suppose that either
the first or the second alone would Justify
the application by US Of the Monroe doctrine.
The author, we fear, is anti-deluvian in his
notions, and by consequence opposed to all
PioRicSS. botS IL HOt OCCUR 10 MIN JnaJ tnere
is always imminent" peril in bad neghbors,
in quarrelsome intermedling, and ill-assorted
neighbors. We do not wish to be damaged by
having the political systems of despotic Euro
pean countries planted right down in our midst.
But he asks, "What right had Mr.. Monroe
to prescribe any new doctrine to the democratic
party"
We are surprised at the question. Does not
the author know that Mr.. Monroe was our Pre-
sident? Does he not know that it was neces-
sary for him, as the head of the nation, to speak
out on the subject that then engaged the atten-
ton of the world. Does he not know that the
American people caught up his words as the
words of wisdom, and that the sentiment EN-.
bodied in them has become the national sen.
timent?
But time and space do not allow more ex-
tended notice of this essay. We dismiss it
with the remark that the author is obviously
in error, and that he is as obviously " sight
less distance behind the times.
-------->sO><-----