From the first establishment of our government to the present day no policy, theory or principle of government advanced for the guidance of the nation has ever met with the universal support and acceptance accorded to the principle commonly known as the "Monroe Doctrine."
History gives no other example when a principle has been accepted so widely and universally by a nation, and has had such influence on its life and thought. The government, speaking for the people as a whole, has acted on it repeatedly in grave crises, the press maintains it universally, and it would be difficult to find an individual who had ever heard of the famous Doctrine who would not assert with energy and conviction that it was the great American principle.
Yet, with all this wonderful unanimity of sentiment, there are probably less real thought and reason given to this great principle at the present time than to almost any question of the day. It was a grand principle, enunciated by our fathers to meet a living condition, and we have so accepted it, and continued our worship of it, without reason or thought of its application as conditions have changed with the growth of the world.
Thought and reason would show that if we continue to declare and maintain this Doctrine in the face of the world, we have duties and responsibilities under it as well as rights; and to justify ourselves to the civilized nations of the earth for its maintenance under present conditions, we must do these duties and accept these responsibilities as well as claim the rights.
Let us examine for a moment the Doctrine itself, which appears in different places, and in different connections, in the annual message of President Monroe of December 2, 1823.
In this message, in discussing relations with Russia, there appears, "the occasion has been judged proper for asserting, as a principle in which the rights and interests of the United States are involved, that the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintained, are henceforth not to he considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers;" and in discussing the general continental European situation at that time, and the avowed intention of the Holy Alliance to restore the late Spanish colonies of this continent, whose independence had been recognized by us, to their position as colonies, appears, "to declare that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety . . . . we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them (the American republics) or controlling in any other manner their destiny, by an European power, in any other light than as a manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States."
The above quotations constituted the original of the Doctrine which has become the shibboleth of the nation, and for whose maintenance the nation has always been, and is, more completely and unanimously committed than for any policy or question that has arisen in the history of the country.
But is the Doctrine as enunciated above the Doctrine as it is understood to-day? Have not its meaning and intent been almost totally changed, both in our own minds, and by the changes which time has wrought in many of those countries which the Doctrine was designed to protect and advance? Do we as a nation in blindly maintaining the Doctrine, as it is vaguely understood today, realize that the maintenance of the Doctrine carries with it duties and obligations to the civilized nations of the world which we neither feel nor carry out, while preventing others from performing these duties and obligations? Has our maintenance of the Doctrine, as we have understood it, tended to the advancement and betterment of the world at large, and of the countries concerned more especially? Has it not rather, since the beneficent purpose for which the original declaration was made—and which so admirably fitted the times and circumstances—was fully accomplished, retarded the growth and development of the countries it was designed to aid?
All of these are serious questions, and must, with the exception of the last, by any fair-minded man who understands the beauty of the original Doctrine, the conception of it as it exists and is maintained to-day, and has had any large experience of the so-called republics to the south of Mexico, be answered in the negative.
The original promulgation of the Doctrine—for which the British Cabinet, headed by Lord Castelreagh and Mr. Canning, was largely responsible—was both magnificent and effective. In the reaction following the excesses of the French Revolution and the Napoleonic wars, after the Allies had reorganized Europe, liberty and freedom on the Continent, as we understand it, were totally suppressed, and absolutism reigned supreme, and all liberalism and free government of the then civilized world were confined to England and America. It was under these auspices that the Holy Alliance was formed, and, having restored absolutism in Europe, avowed their intentions of re-subjugating the recently formed republics to the south, who had thrown off the Spanish yoke, and conquered and maintained their independence, as we had done some years before. Naturally, our sympathy was great, but would have been totally ineffective of itself. Happily for the progress of the world, England remained free and liberal; and to her sentiment for liberalism was added self-interest. For her enormous and growing commerce with the newly formed republics, which would be much restricted by their re-subjugation, formed a sufficient and powerful motive of self-interest in maintaining conditions as they were. But she stood alone in Europe against the arrayed Continental powers; and, even with all her vast sea power, could hardly have prevailed against them single-handed; and so turned to her only available ally in sentiment, and possible ally in force—her own lately free colonies—and invited us to join her in a joint declaration maintaining the integrity and independence of the American republics. This was never done, but following a consultation of our Minister to England, Mr. Rush, with Mr. Canning and Lord Castelreagh in September, 1823, the famous message of Mr. Monroe of December 2, 1823, was given to the world, containing the passages quoted above, and defining the American attitude.
It was magnificent, it was grand, and with England's declared attitude behind it, the plans of the Allies came to naught, the declaration of the President, without any further action of the government beyond its appearance in his message, became the fundamental principle of the American people; and the various republics to the south of us, whose freedom it had maintained and guaranteed, began their several careers free from outside interference on account of it.
Let us now examine briefly, first, how we have translated and interpreted, as time has gone on, this probably most splendid, altruistic, timely, and effective declaration ever made by the head of any government, and whether we have done our duty under it; and second, how it has affected the countries it was designed to protect and set forward on the road to advancement and free government.
Taking up the first of these questions, the conditions and circumstances under which the original declaration was made must be borne in mind. There can be no doubt that neither Mr. Canning, the British Minister, who originally suggested some such action, nor Mr. John Quincy Adams, our Secretary of State, who undoubtedly assisted the President in the drawing up of the message, and was largely responsible for the wording of the declaration, nor Mr. Monroe, himself, who as responsible head of the government has and deserves the credit and fame of the Doctrine which bears his name, had the remotest idea of the far-reaching effects of the words. The message was drawn to meet an existing emergency, and, while that portion of it known as the Monroe Doctrine was altruistic in the highest degree, it was one of those rare cases where altruism and self-interest and preservation go hand in hand. That the self-interest and preservation were uppermost in the minds of both the framers of the message and of Congress and the people at the time is clearly shown by the quietness with which the message was received, and the total failure of Congress to take any action on it. It remained solely and simply a Presidential declaration, without endorsement by Congress or people.
It most magnificently, however, met the emergency for which it was designed; and, the danger being passed, the question of self-interest and preservation was gradually forgotten, leaving to the words only the grandeur of the altruistic sentiment, and it is in this sense they have taken hold of and held the imagination of the people, and it is a misapplication of this sense which has caused a perversion of the true meaning of the declaration on our part, and a hindrance rather than a help to the advancement of progress and civilization in many cases. Altruism and sentiment are in themselves beautiful things, but neither with existing nor prospective human nature can governments be run by them alone, and the common-place virtues of practicability and expediency—largely mixed with compromise—must enter into any successful governmental system. This is sufficiently true when having relations with peoples of our own race and kindred, who have been centuries upon centuries, through many bloody wars and failures, slowly but successfully working out a system of self-government. But to deal in principles of altruism and sentiment, neglecting the practice and teachings of common sense, with the peoples of other races whose lessons in the art of self-government have just begun is the purest folly, and leads to a retardation in the advance of civilization instead of its progress. Should a father give his five-year-old son the position and duties of a man, tell him God made him free, equal and independent, and then leave him to shift for himself, and yet diligently see that no one else assisted in directing and controlling the unhappy infant, he would be considered as exceedingly blameworthy, and held up to the scorn of all his neighbors and acquaintances. Should the unfortunate youth as he increased in age fail to develop, and become a burden and a plague to the community, the members of that community should hold the misguided father to account, and call on him to answer for the depredations of his neglected son.
We, in the community of nations, with our misinterpretation of the true spirit of the Monroe Doctrine, applying only the altruistic part, that flatters our vanity and pride, and neglecting the practical, and refusing to assume the responsibilities that go with all assumption of authority, are in very much the position of the fictitious father of the preceding paragraph. Some of our adopted children, on whom we have unwillingly forced our fatherhood, and then abandoned to their own devices, except in seeing that no one else corrected or spanked them when they were naughty—as Mexico, Chili, the Argentine, and even Brazil—are struggling into manhood and responsibility, on their own account; others are standing still; and yet others—and these last are those in which we have the only real, vital interest, as they border the Caribbean, which we must of necessity control on the completion of the Panama Canal—are retrograding. How long the other members of our community of nations will submit to our present system is only a matter of expediency and power; and so long as the system lasts it is an unnecessary menace of war.
The original Monroe Doctrine, as enunciated in the President's message in 1823, was a magnificent act of courage and statesmanship enunciated for a specific purpose, to meet a specific case; but its spirit, rightly interpreted, is as true to-day as it was then. It was a warning to the powers of the world that we would not brook the establishment of any dangerous neighbors on our continent, and stood ready to fight for that principle, as we stand today. It was not intended then, nor should we interpret it now, to be a dog-in-the-manger policy, under which a very large and splendidly productive portion of the earth's surface should be given over to semi-barbarism and unproductiveness. If we assume the tutelage of these countries, then let us, by all means, assume the responsibilities that go with such tutelage, that life and property may be safe in them, government enlightened and stable, civilization advanced, and their fair fields and rich mines and resources opened to the use of the world. If we are not ready to do this, then let us, in God's name, stand aside and let some other nation do it, that such conditions as exist to-day in Venezuela, Haiti, and parts of Central America may be blotted from the face of the earth.
Taking up now the second part of the question propounded above, as to how the Monroe Doctrine has affected the countries it was designed to help and protect, the answer is curious, but natural and in accordance with the traits of human nature. Of our various wards under the Monroe Doctrine, including Haiti, Santo Domingo, Mexico, and all the Central and South American states, the writer of this article has during the past thirty years visited them all—some of them many times—except Bolivia and Paraguay, so that his observation has at least been extensive. Of self-government and free elections, as understood by the Anglo-Saxon, the Spanish and Portuguese-American and mixed races inhabiting the various countries are generally at about the same stage the Anglo-Saxon was some thousand years ago, with some exceptions as have been mentioned previously. Haiti, with its negro population, forms a class by itself, and exhibits a type of natural reversion of race. Under such conditions, it is hardly to be expected that altruism, such as ours, would either be understood or appreciated. The Spanish and Portuguese are intellectual, brilliant and acute, proud and sensitive, quick to take offense and resent what they conceive to be interference or unsolicited advice. These race characteristics form an additional barrier to the proper conception of our altruism as expressed in our self-assumed tutelage. Further, it is a general characteristic of human nature of all races to chafe under unsolicited benefits; and while lasting gratitude is not unknown in individuals, the general rule of benefits conferred is to have them either resented or forgotten, and the law of sell-interest mostly governs in private life, and always in the life of nations. Therefore, it would seem that the very laws of nature rendered all purely altruistic dealings between nations futile; and something more of a practical quid pro quo must be added to make the result efficacious.
The original promulgation of the Monroe Doctrine in 1823, as has been previously remarked, was not all altruism, by any means, but a weapon of self-interest and preservation on our part as well; but there is no doubt that it created a warm feeling for us throughout the southern republics. There was no intention on our part, nor was it thought for an instant by our southern neighbors, that anything in the way of a protectorate or tutelage was to be assumed over the lesser states. All were menaced by a common danger, the Spanish republics first, and ourselves later, and we, as the stronger power, took our stand with the weaker ones to face the danger in its incipiency when it was easier met, rather than wait to meet it when its power should have been increased by their conquest. That there was a strong sentiment of sympathy and altruism mingled with our act does not alter these facts.
It was later, when the danger was past, and we had forgotten the part self-interest had played in our own act, and remembered only the altruism and sentiment, and gradually evolved our present interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine, with its accompanying ideas of protection and tutelage of the southern republics, that the feeling in these states began to change and one of suspicion and resentment take its place; and this feeling was remarkably heightened by the ill-advised action of our State Department in the early days of the Chili-Peruvian war. It can be safely said that, for a number of years, and notwithstanding the splendid reception accorded our present1 Secretary of State and the excellent impression he made in his recent trip around South America, and notwithstanding the brilliant reception given our fleet in its still more recent voyage around the continent, no nation is looked upon with more suspicion and no foreigners are more cordially disliked throughout the entire extent of Central and South America than ourselves. That this reacts on commerce and intercourse all trade statistics will bear out.
1This paper was written in September, 1908.
Viewed in another light, our Doctrine has a distinctly demoralizing and de-civilizing effect on some of the lesser advanced and more unscrupulous of our adopted children; and, as has been before remarked, they are the ones with which we are more directly concerned, and will eventually have to control, whether we wish to or not, for the protection of our own coasts and the approaches to the Panama Canal. The best present examples of this demoralizing and de-civilizing influence of our present policy is shown in the condition o f some of the Central American states, but above all in Venezuela and Haiti. Under the cover and protection of our altruistic interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine—which they scout in every other sense—these petty, semi-barbarous—and in Haiti almost totally barbarous—countries commit the gravest crimes against international laws and customs, and worse crimes still against their own municipal laws and constitutions, confiscate property both native and foreign, sometimes with form of law, sometimes without, kill and banish in the most reckless way, and are in an almost perpetual state of turmoil, till the life and property of neither resident foreigner nor native citizen are safe. All this is done under the secure protection of our Doctrine, to the retrogression of civilization and progress, and with full knowledge that none of the European nations can properly chastise them for their transgressions and bring order out of chaos without antagonizing the United States, and that we will not bring them to order ourselves. This is a phase of the working of the Monroe Doctrine, as we interpret it, that the country at large has probably never considered, and as it leads directly to anarchy and the loss of civilization in the countries immediately surrounding the Panama Canal, which must sooner or later compel some nation, in the vindication of its own honor and protection of its citizens, to take action, we would do well to take due heed of it.
Summing up the general situation, after a view over the whole ground, the following conclusions would seem to be sound:
1. The Monroe Doctrine as interpreted and maintained at the present day is not the Doctrine as promulgated in 1823.
2. If we assume the Doctrine as we now interpret it, it is our duty both to the other members of the family of nations and to civilization and progress, to assume the responsibilities and duties which must accompany any justly claimed right.
3. Irrespective of our duty under the Doctrine to other nations and to civilization, it is our duty to ourselves, and will be a matter not only of self-interest, but of self-preservation as well, to control the countries bordering the Caribbean and the approaches to the Panama Canal.
4. The Doctrine, as interpreted and maintained, has caused us to lose prestige on the American continent, has been inimical to the extension of commerce, and in many instances has been the cause of moral retrogression in the countries affected, and has set back or delayed the causes of civilization and progress.
5. The present condition of affairs cannot be maintained indefinitely. If we continue to fail in our duty to the world under our own assumption of a non-recognized right, some nation will be compelled sooner or later to act in vindication of its own rights and honor, and thus the Doctrine, as used, hangs over us a constant menace of war.
6. Considering all the above points, and taking a longer look into the future, where can be seen the next great world-question rising in the East and not in the South, and that the wealth and prosperity of the country lie rather in the conquest of the commerce of the Pacific and markets of the great Asiatic continent than of the South American, would it not be well to begin to fit our policies and doctrines to the conditions that are to arise, instead of continuing blindly to maintain one from which more of disaster than advantage has accrued during the past so years? The Monroe Doctrine has served its purposes, and its objects were accomplished many, many years ago, and most gloriously. No nation of Europe will ever more colonize the American continents further than the stream of immigrants that have been coming across the Atlantic for homes since the new nations began. And no European nation can or would, since 1Q865, attempt to set up any monarchical form of government in this continent. Let us then act in accordance with the dictates of common sense, and a reasonable foresight, withdraw our universally assumed protectorate from over the whole of both continents, leave Mexico and our larger southern sisters to look out for themselves, as they can and will do, and confine our application of the grand old Doctrine to the limits set for it by reason, nature and self-interest and the demands of civilization—that is, to the countries around the Caribbean; and in these limits let us make it effective; and then turn our attention and resources to the questions of the future—the Pacific and the East.