Dodgeville chronicle. [volume] (Dodgeville, Wis.) 1862-current, 1865-07-27
English View Of the Monroe Doc
trine.

trine.
A late number Of the Manchester
(England) E.camincr, John Bright's or
gan in speaking Of the Mexican question,
says:
At the threshold Of this question lies
the Monroe doctrine, respecting which
the prevalent views are somewhat bazy
In the course CT years that doctrine has
become an article Of faith with the
American people. The New York papers
invoke it rather wildly in support Of all
sorts Of pretensions; but, as understood
by the government, and by all who pre-
tend to any political influence, it has not
changed from what it was declared to be
by the authority whose name it bears.
The Monroe doctrine is the doctrine
Of non-intervention as defined by Mr.. j.
S. Mill /; but, instead Of applying it to
all tie world, IS Mr. bill thinks we
ought to do, the Americans confne its
application to America. On the plat
form Of that doctrine the Americans de-
clare that if any European power shall
interfere in the concerns Of any people
on the American continent, 'for the pur-
pose Of expressing them or controlling
in any other manner their destiny"
such act OF interference will be regarded
as " unfIiendly" !" towards the United
States.
| There can be no question as to the
soundness Of this doctrine, and none at
al as to its falling within the proper
competence Of the United States gov
ernment, or, indeed, Of any government.
When one nation chooses to interfere by
force Of arms in tie concerns Of another
people, any third nation has the right
to step in and say, 1--WE won't permit
it," they have, not the duty, but the
right, to do this ii they please. And if
ever an occasion arose when this right
might be most rightfully exercised, it
was when the emperor Of the French
determined to put down the republican
form Of government in Mexico and set
up an empire in its stead; whom he de-
termined to drive Bcnito Juarez, the
freely-elected President Of Mexico, from
power to turn the presidential chair
into 9 throne, and to fll chat throao with
an imperial underling from Europe
Great Britain and Spain Joined the En-
peror in an armed demonstration against
Mexico, but il Yves for a specific and an
honest object
The government Of Mexico had seen
fiS to suspend all payments to the nation
al creditors, many Of them British and
French subjects, and we went to exact
payment rs soon as we discovered
that the Emperor Of the French meant
to conquer the country, and change the
form Ct government, We threw up our
shares in the enterprise. and left him to
himself Spain did the same The En-
paror's conduct amounted to shameful
breach Of faith towards this country, and
If we had thought fit to declare war
against him on bohalfof 1Iexico--in 9TH
er words, to intervene to put down inter-
Vention, however incxpedient such a
policy might have been--it would not
have been wrong Cur interest did not
require this, and, therefore, we simp ly
showed our disapproyal by washing our
hands Of the whole business The En-
perors conduct in Mexico was utterly
uDscrupulous and immoral. It was one
of those high handed deeds Of power
which sometimes recoil upon the actors.
The American war was raging. The
South bade fair to achieve its indepen-
dence. The Emperor probably thought
that We might be induced to join him in
recognizing It's independence. The Uni
ted States seemed utterly poweiless to
resent the insult or redress the wrong.
The Emperor was mistaken. His sa-
gacity was at fault. His ambition and
faithlessness were not to pass unpunsh-
ed, and he is now trembling with appre-
honsion. We know nothing Of the in
tentions Of the United States govern
ment. All we want to impress upon the
mind Of the public is that the Emperor
is alone responsible for the great crime
which has been done in Mexico, and that,
come what may, We should only be sane
tioning that crime if we took any steps
| to save him from it's consequences.