The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1859-01-07

The essential difference between the MONROE
doctrine of Mr. MONROE, and the MONROE doctrine
of our recent PRESIDENTS, appears to be this =
that whereas. at the time when the Holy Alliance
having interposed to crush out every smouldering
spark of liberty in the Old World seemed very
likely to intervene, for the same purpose, in the
New, the UNITED STATES expressed, what Mr. b.
CHANAY would call ''grave'' objection, to an ex-
tension Of their policy to this side of the Atlantic
we now have ceased to feel interest in
the fate of any portion of America, which do
not think likely to fall to our own lot Mr.. Mon
ROE, in behalf of the principles of our own Revo-
luton-of the abstract and indefeasible right of
all oppressed peoples to reject institutions I'M
suited to their condition, and to frame new ones
for themselves-signified his sympathy with the
Spanish American Republics then engaged in their
struggle with Old Spain, and intimated that we
should regard any Intervention against them, as
evidence of unfriendly feeling towards ourselves
The MONROE declaration also took ground with
reference to future colonization of any part of the
American continent, by European powers, but &c
there is now no portion of America which is not
included within some jurisdiction-ths part of
the original doctrine has lost its sgnf-
canoe.
1t is our boast that we are as expansive in
our views as we are progressive in our operations;
and it therefore might not have been matter
of surprise if when we had attained
our present growth and power, we had ceased to
conine our interest in behalf of the prn-
cples of our own liberty to our own hemisphere
1t is true that WASHINGTON had warned
us against 'entangling alliances and had given
to understand that we had better mind our own
business,-as sure road to national as to indvi-
dual prosperity But this ''small potato policy,
however suited TO people or man, just starting
in life, is supposed by no means to comport with
the dignity and position of assured success and
power, in either case.
We all remember how this point was urged
upon us by the extraordinary eloquence and in
genuty of KossUTH, and how many of us were
almost persuaded by him that we were in duty
bound to pitch into Austria or any other nation
which had the presumption to sustain its existing
institutions in its own way. On that occasion,
Young America had to be held, and if the
excitement had not been appeased by the diplo-
matte thrashing administered by Mr. WEBSTER
to the Chevalier HULsEMANN, and the insult to the
Austrian flag in the harbor of Smyrna, by Com
mander lNGRAHAM, the consequences might
have been too awful to think of. All this sort of
thing, however, seems to have died away and
while we have not abated any of the pretensions
of our manifest destiny, we have sadly
fallen away from the lofty spirit of the
MONROE doctrine. We have ceased to trou-
bic ourselves about the spread of republican
institutions except in one way and in one direc-
tion-and We apply the MONROE doctrine only to
those parts of the North American Continent
which we think likely to become integral portions
of the territory of the UNITED STATES
We too, have sundry "sick men, and neighbors
on our hands, and we expect upon their dissolution,
if not to fall heir to their estates at least 10 have
favorable opportunity to buy them in, when they
shall be exposed to sale to pay the debts of the de-
ceased. We have therefore shrewdly concluded
to let Liberty in general take care of herself and
mean hereafter merely to keep watchful eye on
those tempting fields which we need, in order to
have ''ring fence of water around our domain,
and become what Senator DOUGLAS calls zone ocean
'bound Republic - 1t is, therefore, to be under
stood that our last MONROE doctrine means but this
that lnasmuch as it suits us to have all the land
down to the Isthmus of Darien, we don't intend to
let any body else take it at any price. Beyond
this, we do not propose at present to 60.
This simpllfcation, and so to speak, utilizing
of the famous, but somewhat indefinite and ro-
mantle doctrine of Mr.. MONROE, probably meets
the views of that prominent and distinguished
statesman, whose speech was reported in our
columns yesterday. Mr.. DOUGLAS told us here,
what he has said everywhere, that he resisted the
CLAYToN-BULwER treaty. because it bound us never
to do what our destiny might compel US to do. OF
course Destiny is obliged to Mr. DOUGLAS for
looking after her interest ~ was asked" says the
Judge, "what ! wanted with Central America =?
Then | replied that we did not want it then. but
THAT the time might come when we would want
lit" He therefore resisted the ''entangling alli-
lance negotiated between Sir II. BuLwER and
Mr. CLAYTON, for which, it seems, he was de-
posed from the Craftsmanship Of the Committee of
Foreign Affairs, as he has since been deposed
from the Craftsmanship of another Committee. for
resisting something else.
II Mr.. DOUGLAS were now prepared to say
what we might not aoam, in the course of time
all future difficulty aoout the MONROE Doctrine
would cease We should only have to point ont
what portions of the American Continents
are involved in the problem of our mani
fest destiny-warn every body off the premises,
and let the rest of the New World, which we
suppose might include Patagonia and the Arctic
circle-"side"