Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1864-01-07
THE MONROE DOCTRINE.

The MONROE DOCTRINE.
In commenting on some observations which we
recently offered under the head of "the Monroe
Doctrine" our able Democratic contemporary, the
Philadelphia Age, prefaces its remarks by stating
that it " is generally understood that the National
Intelligencer reflects the views of Mr. Seward in
reference to foreign policy, and it is therefore
not without certain significance that that paper
takes occasion to reply at considerable length to
an article on the Monroe doctrine contributed to
the New Highlander Magazine by JOSHUA LEAvrrT,
Esq, and since republished in pamphlet form"
Whatever may be the understanding" of the
Age" or however genera" may be the " un-
dersanding" to which it refers, justice no less to
the distinguished Secretary of State than to the
truth of current history requires that he should
be relieved from all supposed completely with the
opinions of this Journal whether on " the Monroe
doctrine" or any other topic. The conductors of
the National Intelgencer do not conceal that they
have great respect for any opinion announced
on question of public concern by the Premier of
the present Administration, but they are in the
habit of rejecting" their own views, and not
those of any body else, however superior to them
in position or in intelligence. What the opinion
of Mr.. Seward may be on the historical aspects of
"the Monroe doctrine the only phase in which
we have ever regarded tive do not know, for we
have never inquired But we do know that our
Democratic contemporary is in error when it pro-
ceeds to say:
The most important feature in ts argument the fact
that John Quincy Adams then Secretary of State.
the FIRST to formulate the principle in despatch written
by him in July 1923, while it not till the following
December that Mr. Monroes famous message appeared.
The lntegencer proceeds to show that when in 1926,
the Spanish American States invited the United States
TO participate in the proceedings Of Congress to be held
at Panama for the purpose among others OF taking into
II the President of the United States respecting any ute
Ss design q foreign Power e =. n,.a
ference from abroad with the domestic of the
American Government, he transmitted special message
to the Senate in which he said
An agreement between all the parties represented at
the meeting that each wM guard by means against
the establishment of future European colony within its
borders, be found advisable This lcas than
principle resulting from the emancipation of both the
can Continents Ii be developed to the Southern
nations that they will all feel il essential appendage to
their independence
SO interpreted the only effect of the Monroe doctrine
would be to exclude the old theory that the American
Continents still contained waste and unoccuped territory,
to settlement right OF discovery
theory apprehend, which had long before lost its APP
phcabiity to this country"
So little is it true that the inapplicabilty of this
old theory to the American continents was gen.
orally recognised before 1923, that when the
Message Of Mr.. Monroe was received in England,
in December of that year. it precisely this fea
ture of the message which encountered the strong
opposition Of Mr. Canning, the British Secretary
of State for Foreign Affairs
Our contemporary is equally mistaken when it
proceeds to add as follows
We may add also that the construction thus given to
the Monroe doctrine il certainly not that contemplated
by Mr.. Canning Mr. Rush nor was il held by Mr. Cal
houn 1t may indeed be sanctioned to certain extent by
the expressions Of Mr. Adams but the principle meant
nothing more-f it did not that the United States
would not permit any European Power to establish de-
spotc Government this contnentit was, to gay the
least OF IT. OF much less importance than has been popu
larry supposed and why the Administration should have
bothered itself at all about the conquest Of Mexico by
France is than say. If the Integencer be
right It is for the people of that country, by their
means to drive back Macmillan, while none Of our
business whether they succeed or fail"
We have already said that Mr. Canning denied
the whole doctrine of our Government on the sub
jcct of the colonization of the American continents
Mr.. Rush was member Of the Administration Of
Mr. Adams when the latter explained the bearing and
extent of this branch Of the declarations made by
Mr.. Monroe in the year 1928. Perhaps the Age
can point US to some evidence that he dissented
from the views Of Mr.. Adams under this head
We are not aware of any such dissent on the part
Of Mr.. Rush, while we know that during the AID
ministration of Mr.. Polk, when it was proposed by
certain politicians that the Government of the
United States should assume the protectorate of
Yucataa under color of sustaining the Monroe
doctrine" Mr. Calhoun, then member of the
United States Senate, exploded the whole " doc
trine" as popularity ascribed to the paternity of Mr.
Monroe, and explained its origin and purport ac-
cordlng to the facts Of history as we have repeat
eddy recitcd them in this journal Mr. Calhoun,
It will be recollected, was a member of the Admin.
istration Of Mr.. Monroe, and could therefore speak
OF bis own knowledge in explaining this much.
| perverted passage in our civil history.
from ALBANY that Iudoa ~.