emrcalomnic subject, and he discussed it fully and with great ability. His conclusions were that the Monroe Doctrine had been enunciated to meet a single and definite conjuncture, namely, the threatened interference of the Holy Alliance in American affairs; and that it had served its purpose; and that to attempt to extend the doctrine, as proposed, would involve the absurdity of asserting that the attempt of any European state to extend its system of government to this continent, the smallest as well as the greatest, would endanger the peace and safety of our country."

Mr. Calhoun further said, speaking of the doctrine:

"They were but declarations, nothing more, declarations announcing in a friendly manner to the powers of the world that we should regard certain acts of interposition of the allied powers as dangerous to our peace and safety; interpositions of European powers to oppress the republics which had just arisen upon this continent, having become free and independent, as manifesting an unfriendly disposition; and that this continent, having become free and independent, was no longer the subject of colonization - not one word in any of them in reference to resistance.'

"

Even so recently as the Civil War there had yet been no important development of the doctrine under discussion. The legislative department had declined to indorse it even by implication, or to dignify it by any serious discussion. Only two or three attempts had been made by the Executive to revive and drag forth the tradition, and these were only attempts to use it as padding, for lack of sound argument with which to sustain the positions the Executive was desirous of enforcing. [Polk's reference to it in connection with the Oregon boundary dispute had served to discredit rather than strengthen the doctrine. Indeed, it may be asserted that for the first forty years after Monroe's message, the Monroe Doctrine exerted practically no influence, either on our national life or on the world, beyond the influence specifically contemplated at the time of its announcement.

I

CHAPTER III

APPLICATIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS OF THE
MONROE DOCTRINE-SECOND PERIOD

T has been seen that in the first forty years after its promulgation the Monroe Doctrine was barren of any practical results, save what had followed directly from the announcement. All or most of the references to it were from the academic standpoint, or for lack of other ammunition. The Panama Congress had been a fiasco; Polk's appeal to the sacred tradition, on behalf of the Oregon territory, had merely served to make himself ridiculous. The unwise ClaytonBulwer treaty had been negotiated under Taylor.

While the United States was struggling in the throes of the Civil War, events of international importance were happening in Mexico. Racked with anarchy, Mexico in the last forty years had endured seventy-two "Presidents" and as many revolutions. The whole country had been ravaged and bands of guerrillas everywhere murdered or laid tribute upon the helpless people. From 1850 to 1861 President Miramon and Benito Juarez were engaged in a bitterly truculent struggle. Juarez came out victorious and grasped the reins of government. Now followed the most appalling bloodshed, and atrocities of every description were perpetrated upon the vanquished.

Foreigners had been among the chief sufferers financially, and France, England, and Spain decided to intervene. The British legation had been robbed by Miramon's officers, and English consulates had been sacked. France claimed that large sums were due to her citizens as holders of Mexican bonds. Spain too had against Mexico grievances yet unassuaged. In October, 1861, the three powers signed in London an agreement containing the following declaration:

"The high contracting parties engage not to seek for themselves, in the employment of the coercive measures contemplated by the present convention, any acquisition of territory nor any special advantage, and not to exercise in the internal affairs of Mexico any influence of a nature to prejudice the right of the Mexican nation to choose and to constitute freely the nature of its government."

The fleets of the allies, with a French army, appeared before Vera Cruz on January 7, 1862, and immediately demanded of Juarez the payment of their claims. Juarez answered that the government treasury was empty, and ordered them to withdraw. At Soledad the

opposing forces held à conference, in which the allies, speaking generally, declared their peaceful intentions and their friendly feelings for Mexico; still the French seemed anxious to proceed to hostilities. When the English and Spanish perceived that this was the French position, they retired from the imbroglio, leaving the French to work out their plans alone.

Further negotiations between the French commander and Juarez resulted unsatisfactorily to the former, who promptly declared war, and started with his army for the City of Mexico. At Pueblo the French were defeated by the intrepid Juarez, and were compelled to fall back on Orizaba and await reinforcements, which arrived from France under command of Marshal Forey.

Forey met and defeated the Mexicans in many desperate conflicts; and on June 10, 1863, he entered the City of Mexico and set up a provisional government. "His Imperial and Royal Highness, the Prince Ferdinand Maximilian, of Austria," was then chosen as Mexico's ruler; and Napoleon was notified that a monarchical and hereditary government, with a Catholic prince at its head, had been adopted.

Maximilian was a pleasant, well-meaning gentleman, of limited experience, completely under the influence of Napoleon III. Before sailing for Mexico to put on the proffered crown, he desired to know if it were the wish of the people of Mexico that he should do so; and assurances were given him that the vote in his favor was so large as to be not far from unanimous. He was crowned Emperor of Mexico at Miramon, in June, 1864. Doubtless sincerely desiring the welfare of the Mexican people, he was received with marvellous demonstrations of enthusiasm, and it seemed that a good and stable government was about to be established. But the volcano of anarchy was not extinct; it was merely dormant. When it should become active, it could be held down by nothing short of an intellectual and military giant, and Maximilian was no such prodigy as that. Juarez, the great and powerful Indian, soldier by birth, fearless patriot, cruel tyrant, ferocious, resourceful, was soon again to rise up in another revolution fiercer and more dreadful than before.

The United States had viewed with grave solicitude the establishment of a monarchy in Mexico, and by French arms. When Maximilian was crowned, the House approached the verge of war with France in passing the following resolution:

"The Congress of the United States are unwilling by silence to have the nations of the world under the impression that they are indifferent spectators of a deplorable event now transpiring in the republic of Mexico, and they think it fit to declare that it does not accord with the policies of the United States to acknowledge any monarchical government, erected on the ruins of any republican government in America under the auspices of any European power." (April 4, 1864.)

Mexico was at that time an anarchy and not a republic, but the spirit of the resolution was correct. However, the time of its announcement was inopportune, and Lincoln, with happy tact, informed France that the resolution was a measure originating in the House, without consultation with the Executive, and was therefore not to be construed as an act of the government.

Lincoln was facing greater and more difficult problems than any man had ever before been called upon to grapple, and could not risk war with France while the fields of his country were running with the blood of his people in civil strife. With that unerring instinct which helped to make him the most marvellous diplomat and statesman the world has ever produced, he "saved all our objections," and yet avoided controversy with France in the initial stages of the French ascendency in Mexico.

But at last the Civil War was ended; and in April, 1866, Secretary Seward emphatically notified Napoleon to withdraw the French troops from Mexico, and that further intervention from France would not be tolerated. Napoleon promptly assented to this notification; and when Austria attempted to send troops to relieve Maximilian, Seward announced that, unless this intention were abandoned, the American minister would be recalled at once from Vienna. In the mean time a large force of United States troops under General Sheridan was sent to Texas; and it was generally understood that if the diplomatic negotiations should fail, this force would descend quickly upon Mexico, and co-operate with Juarez to conquer or expel the French and Austrians.

In January, 1867, the French troops commenced evacuating Mexico, and within a month practically all of them had gone. There were left with Maximilian but a few native Mexican troops and a small auxiliary body of Austrians to meet the onslaught of Juarez, who, encouraged by the course and attitude of the United States, had succeeded in raising a powerful force.

On May 15, 1867, Juarez, at the head of the liberal forces, entered Querétaro, where for several weeks Maximilian had been sustaining a siege. Juarez intrigued with Colonel Miguel Lopez, who was one of the Emperor's favorites and an officer of his staff; and unto Juarez, for $48,000, were Maximilian and his generals, by Lopez, betrayed.

So far the course of the United States had been unexceptionable; but there was a disgraceful sequel. Learning that Maximilian was besieged in Querétaro, the Emperor of Austria, his brother, requested the United States to interfere on his behalf; and our minister to Mexico was directed by Secretary Seward to advise Juarez of the desire of the United States that in case of capture "the Prince and his supporters may receive the humane treatment awarded by civilized nations to prisoners of war."

The representatives of other civilized nations made similar representations, but, notwithstanding all sorts of guaranties and petitions, Maximilian and his aids, Miramon and Mejia, after a so-called trial by court martial, were executed, by order of Juarez, on June 19, 1867.

Of course, this execution was cold-blooded murder, nothing more nor less, and the part played by our government in the affair was despicable and pusillanimous in the extreme. It might be feared that an Indian of the savage proclivities of Juarez would seek to wreak vengeance upon his captives, for of such barbarous texture as this is the known code of savage warfare. But the United States had interposed in, and assumed jurisdiction over, this conflict, causing Maximilian to be deprived of the support upon which he had relied; it was therefore in good faith and equity the solemn obligation of the United States to see that Maximilian and his generals should receive after their surrender the treatment accorded prisoners under the rules of civilized warfare. Juarez could never have captured Maximilian had not the United States intervened; therefore it devolved upon the United States to have a care that this capture were not followed by murder.

The assumption of authority without a complemental shouldering of responsibility is a most immoral procedure; it is most unfair dealing. At the hands of the Indian, the barbarous Juarez, even murder hardly causes surprise; but at the hands of the United States we expect, and have a right to expect, justice, mercy, and a conscientious regard for civilized practices. If the United States becomes the ally of a barbarian, the United States must not degrade itself to the lower level; rather must the barbarian be lifted to the higher.

Secretary Seward should have peremptorily commanded Juarez not to put to death Maximilian or any of his followers, either before or after a "court martial" or any other so-called "trial." If that command were disobeyed, then Juarez and his aiders should have been dealt with as common outlaws; the United States army should have been directed to capture them at all hazards, and bring them before the bar of justice, there, if found guilty, to suffer the penalty of the law for having violated the precepts of civilization by putting to death prisoners of war.

It is not necessary to discuss the extensive correspondence between our government and France and Austria with reference to this matter. Suffice it to say that not once in all the voluminous discussion was the Monroe Doctrine mentioned.

It is plain that the peace and safety of the United States would have been seriously endangered had France succeeded in establishing and maintaining a monarchy in Mexico, With Canada to our north and Mexico to our south, both countries controlled by European nations and used as pawns on the international chess-board, ready to