Congress and the Monroe Doctrine, 1850-1860

16 Pages·01.067 MB·English

by  Englebright, Mary Minors

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

CONGRESS AND THE MONROE DOCTRINE, 1850-1860
W
A DISSERTATION SUBMITTEED TO
THE FACULTY OF THE DIVISION OF THE SOCIAL SCIENCES
I
IN CANDIDACY FOR THVE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ARTS
E
DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY
R
P
BY
MARY MINORS ENGLE BRIGHT
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
SEPTEMBER, 1942
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ISTKOL0CTXOS

The decade of 1350-1860 is in terestin g from the forelprn
relation s standpoint as w ell as from its cen tral, all-absorbing
internal questions that bring the North and South into co n flict.
The change in parties from Whigs versus Democrats to Republicans
versus Democrabs had its effects upon foreign a ffa ir s. Other
W
domestic affairs frequently cut across the growing in tere st in
foreign policy.
E
In general, th is period showed a tendency o f the United
States to spread its wings and become Iinterested in questions be­
V
yond our territorial lim its. The Conroe Doctrine was mentioned
time and again and was called uEp for application in such varying
matters as Hungarian independence, Irish f’reodovn, Central American
R
domination by the B ritish, transfer of Cuba to another nation ,
foreign intrigue in liPexico, and the acquisition of Canada by the
United States.
The Congress showed a d isp osition to tak© it s own lin e In
respect to these affairs. Each called for long and Involved d is­
cussion. No established foreign p olicy was accepted In an unpre­
meditated manner. The Konra© Doctrine was more often invoked be­
tween 1845-1860 then eyer before, and as a resu lt o f the debate
o f th is period, it emerged as a more popular p rin cip le, though
s t i l l lacking the Congressional sanction for which Cass so often
&3ked.
ii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Face

IMTRODUCT10Ti . . ......................* . . . . . . . . . ...................... i i

Chapter
I. AMERICA LOOKS ABROAD DESPITE THE DOCTRINE. . . . 1
bympatay lor Hungary
Various Interpretations of Monroe’s Message
Sympathy for Irish Patriots
II. BACKGROUND OF THE CONTROVERST IE CENTRAW L
AMERICA. . . . . . . . . ................................. . . . . . 15
Early Aggressions
The United States Protests E
Clayton-Buiwer Treaty-
Anti - Aggresai on Ke so1uti ons
I
III. CENTRAL A?4EEICAN COLONIZAVTION OPPOSED........................... 23
Meaning of "Central America”
Was the Treaty ViolEated?
Uhat to Do If Violated?
Reaffirm the Doctrine
Don’t ReaffirRm—D irect Action--Bar
Abrogstion
Can the Drifted States Stand on the
DoctrinPe Alone?
A Changing Doctrine
Attempts at Solution
Solution
IV. CUBA INTERESTS THE UNITED STATES . . . . . . . . 53
The T rip a r tite Convention C alls Up the
No-Transfer Corollary
"Black "Aarrior" Raises ’Far Fever
Attempts at Purchase
V. THE MONROE DOCTRINE IS CALLED UP IN OUR RELATIONS
WITH MEXICO AND CANADA ................................ 64
Foreign Intrigue in Mexico
Expansionists Look toward Canada
BIBLIOGRAPHY......................................... 73
i l l
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER I

AraiCA LOOKS A3H0AD DESPITE THE DOCTRINE

When the so-called Monroe Doctrine was pronounced, the
author* stated e two-fold theory; fir st, Europe should not in ter­
fere in th is hemisphere, and secondly, the United States would
not in terfere in Europe. The second, however, was less emphasized
W
and was given more ss a promise, perhaps to somewhat relieve the
sting of the fir s t.
E
The Conroe Doctrine was nob called up for application on
the second point until the period ofI the 1850's when some senators
V
advocated support or sympathy for democracies risin g in Central
E
Europe. For the moment they seemed to forget previous desires
for separate spheres o f Influence,— for as li t t le contact with
R
Europe as possible.
P
Sympathy for Hunger?/
President Zachary Taylor had. sent an agent, or '‘observer",
Ambrose Dudley 55ann, attache to the legation at Paris, to Hungary
in 1840, to report on the revolution there, in case the ^nited
States should think fit to recognize the Hungarian State, then
Filmore became President, and W ebster/Secretary of State, Htilaemann,
the Austrian charge d 'affaires, in Washington sent an o ffic ia l
le tte r of protest concerning the mission of ihan, the agent.
Daniel 'Aebster answered vindicating the right of the TJnited States
to show in terest and warm sympathy with those great ideas o f re­
sponsible and popular government on which the American constitu-
1
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2
fcion was founded.'*'
It was Lewis Gass o f Michigan who opened the m atter in

Congress on January 24, 1850, 'ey subm itting to the Senate a reso­

lution callin g upon the committee on Foreign T fa lr s to inquire

into the expediency of suspending dip lom atic rela tio n s w ith Aus-
o
tria,"' (the country had previously been censured for repression
of the democratic movements in 1B4S).
It was shortly after th is (February tw entieth) that Alex­
ander Buel of Michigan offered an amendment to the committee ref­
erence of that part of the President’s message d ealing w ith for­
W
eign a ffa irs. Be criticized the President for non-recognition of
Hungary at that period whan that country had "in fact triumphed
E
over A ustria.” Our failure to act disappointed Tfthe friend s of
I
freedom", he said, and violence was done ftto the sym pathies and
V
-3
wishes of the American people.’’
E
Congress showed no unanimity o f feelin g on th is m atter,
however. On January 31, 18R50, Robert Hunter o f V irginia in s
stirrin g speech to the Senate condemed a ll such thoughts and
P
actions and celled them to account under the Tion roe Doctrine prin­
ciple of non-intervention. He recalled how the United States had
looked with anxiety to the maintenance of th at p rin cip le ah the
time of Monro©*s declaration and the importance attached to i t
then.
We prepared ourselves to mein tain the p rin cip le upon th is
continent, according to our own Invariable p ractice toward
the other nations of the earth, and were 'sillin g to stake a ll
upon the issue* And yet, here, in our own Senate, there is a
1
Robert Balmain "owat, Th© Diplomatic R elations of Great
R ritsin and the- United States (London": Edward Arno 1 d , 1925JZ pp.
2
Congressional Globe, 51st Cong., 1st S ess. , App. , p. 85.
3Ib id ., App., p. 143.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3
proposition in d irect opposition to that great principle.
v?e have contributed something toward procuring some of
the advantages of the principle of non-intervention to other
nations of the earth and in doing so, we have added to the
secu rities for the right o f self-governm ent in man. But se

are now invoked to reverse th is wise policy. . . . and what

is strange, we are invoked to do i t under the pretense of

showing sympathy for down-trodden humanity, and indignation

st the violation of popular- rights.
He contended that not only would i t endanger the peace
end set a precedent for interference by the United States in do­
m estic quarrels of others, but it would be an outrage to the
rights of people to govern, them selves, to assume d irection over
W
r-eopls who have never delegated to this country that authority.
Foreign aid, moreover, would hardly maintain lib erty unless the
E
internal resources of a country were great enough to uphold it .
Sympathy alone would not make a natiIon.^
V
From 1850-1852 the question o f interference in behalf of
democracy was argued back andE forth. E specially did the advocates
of Interference become energetic in th eir pleas when Louis Kos­
R
suth, the Hungarian e x ile , leader of the 1848 revolt Planned to
v is it the United StPates.
A motion passed by both houses o f the T h irty -first Con­
gress expressed sympathy for FTosaxith and h is associates, applauded
Turkey for generously receiving them, and invited them to come to
the United States i f they would. This was amended by John P.
Hale o f New Hampshire to assure sympathy of the Congress and people
p
o f the United States with the victim s o f oppression everywhere.
When Kossuth accepted and was on h is way, the uext ques­
tion that arose was how should the members o f Congress receive
him and treat him? A join t resolution on th is subject introduced
*Ib id . , pp. 85-87.
2
Cong. Globe, 32<3 Cong., 1st S eas., p. 63.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
4
December third by Henry Foote of M ississip p i, called for a Joint
committee of* the two houses to make suitable arrangements for the

rece ption o f "Louis Kossuth, Governor of Hungary, in his arrival

in the United States, and to tender to him assurances of the pro­

found respect entertained for him by the people of the United

S tates, and to tender to him, on the part of the Congress and in
the name of the people of the United States, the h o sp ita lities of
the M etropolis of the Union. Through Killians H. Seward’s reso­
lu tio n , the Congress, in behalf of the people of the United States
transm itted . to Louis Kossuth a cordial welcome tWo. the capital and
the country.^
Naturally these expressions causeEd debate. Vonroe’a
speech on Greek independence of 1824, was quoted by William C.
I
Dawson of Georgia; — the lack o f coVncern fe lt by the United States
for European wars and th eir causes was emphasized by him. Abraham
E
U. Venable of North Carolina, In the House, pointed out the ev ils
of interference. Our proRblem, he said, was to work out human lib ­
erty here; he would not commit this government to intervention in
P
the disputes which embarrass and often convulse the Old World.*
Cass discussed the precedenf.3 of extending h o sp ita lity and con­
cluded otherwise than the previous speakers. "It is fu tile to
4
talk about intervention. There is no intervention in a ll t h is .’’
In sp ite of the excitement in debate, the resolution passed over-
5
whelraingly, and Washington prepared for a m agnificent reception
in honor of the visitor, Kossuth.
On January 19, a long series of resolutions was in tro­
duced into the Senate by John H. Clarke of Rhode Island. In these
1 2 3
Ibid., p. 21. Ibid., p. 63 Ibid., p. 160
4 5
Ibid. , p. 67, Ibid. , pp. 90, 96.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
5
h© quoted fro® the E eelsration of Independence and Washington’s
Farewell Address, stated that we recognized de facto governments

and fe lt the liv e lie s t sympathy for a ll who were strivin g for

free dom, hut declared that we held the rig h ts o f self-governm ent

exempt from outside coercion for ourselves and conceded the same

to others. Our position, was that are adhered to these essen tia l
principles of non-intervention as the foundation of prosperity
l
and happiness."
Seward offered an amendment to these resolu tion s, strik in g
out the lo st part, and adding a protest against the conduct of
W
Russia — to which we would not hereoffeer be in d ifferen t. In place
of th is change Cass offered a complete su b stitu te for Clarke's
E
resolu tion, stating that w hile th is government sympathised, yet
I
it recognized the principle granting the rig h t of countries to
V
p
manage th eir internal affa irs in fchelr own w ay.~ ■
E
These resolutions and amendments provoked a debate that
occurred at intervals thrRoughout 1852. In the meantime Kossuth
came, was given a reception by the Senate and entertained in Wash­
P
ington at the expense o f the government. The b ill that was pre­
sented to Congress caused, consternation— f 5,588 for board and
room for him self and twenty-two persons in h is follow ing, and &1-
most tl,0 0 0 for extras. Some Senators viished to know the Items
in such a b ill; others objected to the propriety of such account­
ing but fe lt that the whole business had been a l i t t le foolhardy.
Eventually the appropriation was made.
Various Interpretations of Monroe’s Message
Just what "was the position o f the United States to be—
non-intervention, intervention in behalf o f struggling dem ocracies.
1lbid.. p. 298. gIbid., p. 510. SIMd., p. 1592,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
6
or a middle o f the road stand? Some saw an enlarged role for the
United States in world p o litic s; others thought of the negative

asp ect in enforcing non-interference. Monroe’s principles had

vari ous interpretations. Robert ?. Stockton, o f ?fev .Jersey, fe lt

that non-intervention was d irectly opposite to their in ten t. If

th is country fe lt bound under no circum stances to interfere with
the affaire o f Surops, monarchical governments in a few years
would be established in the whole Southern portion of th is conti­
nent. ^
Seward, who sponsored the amendment o f protest to Russia,
W
believed i t quite a ll right to express sympathy with republics
and protest against armed intervention anywhere. Conroe had done
E
the same, he said , and to prove this assertion he recounted the
I
circumstances leading to that mesVsage. In summary he added;
I w ill only say that eith er th is protest is not an in ter­
vention, or we have done Eli t t l e else than to intervene in
every con test for freedom and humanity throughout the world
since we became a nation. That If th is act b© wrong, we have
never done righ t..........R..................The question before us, then, ia
not whether we shall depart from our trad ition al policy, but
whether we shall adhere to i t . s
P
Pierr© Soule of Louisiana, too, held th is view, believing
that our influence should have wider scope than within the narrow
c ir c le , that ours should be a policy of action , not passivity.
Said he:
[Washington and Monroe both were] ready to interoo3©
wherever and whenever a great in terest or a great principle
was at stake, . . . . [they] did not h esita te to take a bold
and d ecisive stand, . . . . The policy o f irapasaiveness,
therefore, has no warrant In the past....................Let me define
d istin c tly the position which I mean to occupy.I am not for
entangling ourselves by permanent a llia n ces. . . . . X am
for tru stin g to temporary allian ces in extraordinary emergen­
cies; but I cannot be surrendering the high rank which we are
en titled to occupy at the council-board o f nations.
E© further said that the non-intervention attitude bad
1 2
Ibid. , p. 439. xbld. , App., p. 246.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
7
been a misconception, a subversion, Non-intervention should not
remain our policy if that i t had been, ’’It is not in the oower
of roan to impart immutability to any of it s works, Our policy

must change; i t w ill change.

Joshua Giddings, too, saw the past h istory o f the United

States as one of intervention. "No Government on earth, perhaps,''
he asserted, "has gone further in practical intervention than
ours. . . . . I hold it to be our imperative duty to exert our
influence for maintaining the rights of each and of every nation;
2
that we should do so immediately.
W
John B ell, of Tennessee, although he said he wanted no'
interference by us in the internal affairs of other countries,
E
saw "the germ of a lastin g h ostility" between Europe a rid the
I
United States. The old World was settlin g down to absolutism ,
V
believing that popular sovereignty to any extent was incompatible
E
with peace, order, and the secu rities and blessin gs of c iv il so­
ciety . Then the tidings Rof. such a con flictr eached our shore,
l i t t l e time would be spent in "weighing thec ounsels of the 11-
P
lustrioua and immortal sages of fift y years ago.’"''
J. vV. M iller, of New Jersey, saw the present as a turning
point for our foreign policy i f we took the position to "inter­
meddle in the p olitical affairs of Europe.” He esp ecially c r iti­
cised Stephen Douglas, of I llin o is, for a speech made at the cel­
ebration of the anniversary of the battle o f New Orleans, in which
he called for "a foreign policy in accordance with the s r ir it of
the age” rather than the neutrality of the past. f ille r fe lt
that there was a class of p olitician s who seemed
1 2
Ibid. , App., pp. 549-551. Ibid., App., p. 144.
■5Ibid. , p. 445.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.