The Atlanta constitution. [volume] (Atlanta, Ga.) 1885-19??, 1903-10-05
Thomas jefferson and the Monroe
Doctrine.

Editor Constitution: The brilliant and
versatile author if the Story of France
and of THE Life of Napoleon has just
finished his new book entitled Thomas
jefferson and His Times Like every
thing that MI Watson writes, it makes
very entertaining reading and is likely
to become very popular. But whether
1t is book that will live is another mat
ter. His many friends and admirers,
among whom l class myself as one, could
wish that he had been a little more care
fuI and painstal<ing in his statements;
and that when he fatty contradicts some
generally accepted fact of history, he mad
taken the time to cite authorities in sup
port of his position.
Take. for example, his statement of the
purposes of the so-called Holy Ali
ance' of 1915; and his statement in con-
nection Herewith that Mr.. Jefferson was
the first to give eYplicit utterance to
what we now know as the Monroe doc
trine." He says: "The holy alliance had
determined to drive back the South Amer
lean republics into the clutches of SPAIN
and that Jefferson's letter Of October "a.
1928 addressed to President Monroe, was
"the first full and explicit setting forth
of the Monroe doctrine lie cites no au-
thority for either of these statements,
perhaps for the very good and sufficient
reason that there is none.
Both statements are, Of course, histori
caly incorrect. The holy alliance did
not seek to restore the Spanish American
colonies to their former allegiance It's
professed object was "1ha regulation Of
the relations between Christian countries
by the principles OF Christian charity.
Its real object, as partially disclosed IN
1921 and as made manifest at the Verona
conference Of IS22. " me conservation
OF existing European Gynasties, the re-
conquest of the Spanish merlcan states,
the partition of those states among the
allied powers and. in general the extern
sion of European power ana lnluehce INTO
the western hemisphere. The United
States had recognized the independents of
those states as early as March. 1922.
Not one Of the European powers had as
yet done this Not one of them recog-
nized their independence till nearly eight
cen months afterwards. Hence inc De
signs of the holy alliance. as disclosed al
the congress of Verona We're directly ana
specifically hostile to the settled policy
Of the United States alone.
1t is true that England had Withdrawn
her moral support from the allied powers.
But this was for other than political rea-
sons. One of the immediate results of
the recognition of the new republics by
the United States was the breaking down
of the old Spanish trade restrictions and
the opening of those rich and beautiful
countries to the commerce of the world.
England. ever watchful to take advantage
of such opportunities had already built
UP a profitable trade there. Hence for
commercial reasons she opposed the de-
signs Of the holy alliance. while Tor p0-
Htical reasons she refused to acknowledge
the independence of the new republic
And for like reasons Mr. Canning. the
British premier placed himself on record
as opposed to the Monroe doctrine, in
50 far as that doctrine prohibited colo
nization of any portion of the American
continent. (Stapleton's Canning and His
TimcS)
This was the condition of affairs when
Jefferson wrote his letter of october a.
1928, to which MI Watson refers. But
his declarations therein were neither pre-
vious nor original. They We're little more
than paraphrases OF certain sentences in
Washington's farewell address of Septem-
Der 796 Moreover. as early as July 2,
t923-nearly four months prior to the date
OF Mr. Jefferson's letter-JOhn Quincy
Adams, as secretary of state. had, by di-
recHon of the president, embodied an eX-
pIicit statement of what afterwards be-
came known as the Monroe doctrine in
an official letter to Mr. Rush, our minis
ter at London In that letter of instruc-
tons, Mr. Adams. in referring to the
South American republics and to the
designs of the holy alliance upon them,
said:
Those independent nations possess all
the rights incident to that condition; and
their territories are, Of course, not sub
iect to any exclusive right of navigation
in their vicinity, OF access to them by any
foreign power. A natural consequence
of this is that the American continents
are henceforth no longer open to coloni-
cation Occupied by civilized nations,
thew are accessible to Europeans on that