The Atlanta constitution. [volume] (Atlanta, Ga.) 1885-19??, 1903-10-26

truth. Criticisms OF that character
would eternally damn every book in his
library. Does any history of any man.
or of any nation. tell all that could be
told? Does any sane reader think that
a one-volume biography of Napoleon or
Jefferson or Washington could contain
all the truth that could be told about
either?
AS to the holy alliance, / did not mis-
lead the reader at all. My statement of
its design against South America was
not made in such d way as to make the
impression that 1t had no other pur-
pose. | simply said that the holy al
lance had determined TO drive the Span
ish-American colonies back to their al
legiance" and that this design of the
holy alliance caused the Monroe doctrine
to be proclaimed. How was it possible
for any intelligent reader to be deceived
by this statement?
Now, let me ask Mr.. Scruggs this plain
direct question: If his only objection
to my statement was that it was not Ssii
enough, why did he deny It's truth? Why
did he say that the holy alliance did
| not seek to drive the South American
colonies back TO their former allegi-
! ance?"
In other words, why did he deny what
he now admits to be true? Your readers
will have noticed thai in his second ar
! ticle Brother Scruggs is in a hurry TO
! drop the debate as TO the holy alliance
He had been lifted clear out of the
water on that, and he knew it. He
/ had charged me with n false statement
and had been convicted himself. Hence
! The haste with which he bade adicu to
! the holy alliance and rushed to the Mon
roe doctrine where the chances to houu-
der around and escape being caught In
/ another error were much greater But
he shall not escape. AS plainly as he has
been run to cover on the molly alliance,
as clearly as he has been compelled to
admit IN second article what he de-
MED in his first, he shah walk the plank
on the otl>er propostion--the Monroe
doctrine Wha& did he say in his first
article?
/. That jefferson had nothing what
ever to do with the Monroe doctrine
2 That what Jefferson wrote about the
Monroe doctrine had been already "em-
bodied in Washington farewell address"
! and that what jefferson said on the sub
iect was "a mere echo.
There is not a student of history III
She south who does not know both these
| statements 10 be totally Incorrect. In
proof Of my statement that jefferson had
made the tirsl Fun and explicit decar-
| alton" OF the Monroe doctrine, | invited
the raader to compare the Jefferson LET
ter Of 1928 with any other letter or
declaration upon the subject prior 70
that time But to carry the proof still
further back-beyoud Monroe and Jonn
( Quincy Adams-I cited the official letter
OF jefferson. written In 1870, when ne
! was secretary Of state. putting Great
Britain upon notice that the United States
would object to Engands seizure of the
! Spanish American possessions. This was
I Monroe doctrine at the very fountain
head. Ii was the first of all the official
utterances upon that subject. II was d
years prior 10 the farewell address. II
/ was Elirty years prior to the John
/ Quincy Adams declaration. called
Mt. Scruggs' attention 70 this letter Of
! 1890, yet Brother Scruggs with the Sc
renity of man who has SAID the
horse is Is feet high and must stick 10
( 1T calmly ignores the facts the &C
/ cumulated proofs, and the exposure Of his
own errors He had rec<lessly declared
/ that the Monroe doctrine was embodied
in Washington farewell address, he
was challenged 70 find the Monroe doc
trine iu the farewell address; he searched
the document and found nothing more
than the neutrality doctrine which l said
was there tie now declares that neu-
rrality is the hrst principle % the Mon
roe doctrine. neutrality is found in the
farewell address,; therefore the Monroe
Doctrine is "emtodled in that address. -
consequently what Jefferson said after
ward was a 'mere echo"
Logic like this makes me sad. For tie
moment, let us grant that neutrality as