The Grand Haven news. [volume] (Grand Haven, Mich.) 1858-18??, 1866-01-24
THE MONROE DOCTRINE.

eu US du cSScuLWl phIb W luo plntiO'Hno'
Thus il would seem to be settled that
all the people take il as fixed doctrine
in American policy, and, in various allu-
sions to the Mexican question, We have
treated this as probable fact, regarding
it almost hopeless to divert the people
from it. And yet il may be that the
words have been mere sound in politi
cal resolutions, and their Specification not
deeply impressed on the popular mind.
II is certainly worth our while to reflect
little on This subject The old national
enmity to things European probably
leads many to adopt, in general way,
what they call tho Monroe Doctrine, and
to profess il because it seems to be a sort
of anti European war-cry. II is unques-
tionably true that thousands who adopt
il, or say they adopt it, do not under
stand anything about it, or know what ii
menns. AS generally held aud enunciat-
ed in our day, the whole principle may
be stated in few words, that the United
States wM not permit European pooers
TO interfere NTH tie political ofdirs of
any government on this continent. This
is mono Too broad for the commonly re-
ceiyed notion Of the doctrine. If n
more strict definition he asked, it will
be found that five men will give five
different statesments. For, while it
is much talked about, it is at best vague
idea in almost every mind. The real
question for consideration ought to be
whether we shall maintain any such
sweeping doctrine as this, and apply it TO
all cases arising on tho continent, or wheth-
er we shall do better TO avoid such gen,
civilizations and apply the proper doctrine
TO each case rs il arises. In other words,
we suggest the inquiry whether it would
not be wiser for the the United States TO
determine her course in reference to each
separate instance of foreign Intervention
on American soil, than to bind herself by
n broad band like this, requiring certain
course in every case.
IL the Monroe Doctrine is 10 be our
policy, fixed and invariable, then let us
give 10 it a definite shape, and reduce 1t
to form in which we mean TO abide 10y IT,.
Ii is unauestiouably the fixed determine
liou Of our people not to allow despot-
ism in Mexico, established by French in
tervenlion. All parties seem to agree in
that. But the Monroe Doctrine, social
ed covers vastly wider field than Mex
leo, and pretends to be applicable to the
whole continent. When we examine its
pretensions, however, we find that there
is more sound than meaning in them
England may interfere ms much rs she
pleases in Canada without any opposition
on our part. Unless we mistake, Eng
land is by far the largest owner Of land in
North America, and the Monroe Doc
trine will not undertake to interfere with
, that ownership. Nor would il be tbo'i
at all contrary to the doctrine if England
should furnish a prince to be the liegc
lord of Canadians, aud establish a mon
archy on the North of us. Russia has
l. large possessions in the cold regions o.
2 the Mort. west, but the Monroe Doctrine
I does not intend to forbid the Gar doing
what be pleases there. France, Spain
: England, Denmark, all have possessions
= in the islands Of the Gulf and adjacent
waters, aud the Monroe Doctrine does moi
: pretend to object. Thus we arrive at thai
small portion of the continent lying be
d tween ourselves and the lsthmus, and The
G Monroe Doctrine seems, after all, to mear
only that no foreign power shall interfere
10 Mexico or Central America. That i
the long and short of it, since it certanl!
e does not involve the southern half OF th'
& continent, where all Europe may anus
'r itself 10y setting up and knocking dow
le crowns without troubling us. Now,
Is would certainly be not at all strange
Vt European Governments should pay YER
'e little attention TO a sounding naliona
r dogma, which shrinks so essentially a
rs this, when reduced to its simple make
meaning. II good for anything, it ough
% TO be continental in its scope. But VIII
II if we come down TO first principles
ne why has not England, the owner of NOR
s. land than we, quite as good right
ID determine the policy which shall COVER
a North America as wei That is fa
r. question. Of course, the answer is to b
III found in the hearty American response
n +" We won't let her," But is it then
h, mere question Of lorcel
nd There is considerable debate about tn
he origin Of the doctrine. One ascribes
ho to Monroe, another to Jefferson, Others
a still different paternity. One thing
conceded, that it did not originate wit