SPEECH 
 
 MR. CASS, OF MICHIGAN, 
 
 COLONIZATION IN NORTH AMERICA, 
 
 DELIVERED » 
 
 IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, JANUARY 25, 1853. 
 
 COLONIZATION IN NORTH AMERICA. 
 
 The Senate proceeded, as in Committee of the 
 Whole, to consider the joint resolution declaratory 
 of the views of the United States respecting colon¬ 
 ization on the North American continent by Euro¬ 
 pean Powers, and respecting the Island of Cuba; 
 which is as follows: 
 
 ' <£ Beit resolved, ^c., That the United States do hereby 
 declare that ‘ the American continents, by the free and in¬ 
 dependent condition which they have assumed and main¬ 
 tain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for 
 future colonization by any European Power.’ And while 
 ‘existing rights should be respected,’and will be by the 
 United States, they owe it to their own 1 safety and inter¬ 
 ests’ to announce, as they now do, that no future Euro¬ 
 pean colony or dominion shall, with their consent, be planted 
 or established on any part of the North American continent. ’ 
 Anri should the attempt be made, they thus deliberately de¬ 
 clare thatit will be viewed as an act originating in motives 
 regardless of their ‘ interests and their safety,’and which 
 will leave them free to adopt such measures as an independ¬ 
 ent nation may justly adopt in defense of its rights and its 
 honor. 
 
 “ Jlnd be it further resolved, That while the United 
 States disclaim any designs upon the Island of Cuba, incon¬ 
 sistent with the laws of nations and with their duties to 
 Spain, they consider it due to the vast importance of the 
 subject, to make known, in this solemn manner, that they 
 should view all efforts on the part of any other Power to 
 procure possession, whether peaceably or forcibly, of that 
 island, which, as a naval or military position, may, under 
 circumstances easy to be foreseen, become dangerous to 
 their southern coast, to the Gulf of Mexico, and to the 
 mouth of the Mississippi, as unfriendly acts, directed against 
 them, to be resisted by all the means in their power.” 
 
 The question pending was on the following 
 amendment offered by Mr. Hale: 
 
 “And be it further resolved, That while the United 
 States, in like manner, disclaim any designs upon Canada 
 inconsistent with the laws of nations, and with their duties 
 to Great Britain, they consider it due to the vast importance 
 of the subject to make known, in this solemn manner, that 
 they should view all efforts on the part of any other Power 
 to procure possession, either peaceably or forcibly, of that 
 Province, (which, as a naval or military position, must, 
 under circumstances easy to be foreseen, become dangerous 
 to their northern boundary, and to the lakes,) as unfriendly 
 acts directed against them, to be resisted by all the means 
 n their power.” 
 
 Mr. CASS rose and said: Mr. President, I 
 should be unwilling to address the Senate upon 
 the general subject at this tinte, when we ljave just 
 
 ! listened to the eloquent remarks of the honorable 
 Senator [Mr. Soule] who has but now resumed 
 his seat—remarks which I have not heard sur¬ 
 passed in this body, either in power or beauty. I 
 do not intend to commit the folly of provoking a 
 contrast, under such circumstances; butl have pre¬ 
 pared extracts from several documents, touching 
 the question, which has been raised of the extent 
 and duration of the Monroe doctrine, and I desire 
 to accorhpany them with some brief observations, 
 which I will now submit to the Senate, if I can be 
 favored with its attention for a few minutes. 
 
 For thirty years the world, at any rate the 
 American portion of it, and a good deal of the 
 European, has talked of the Monroe doctrine, 
 and every school-boy thought he understood it, 
 and that it was founded upon a great principle, that 
 
 1 the destiny of this hemisphere should he controlled by 
 the people inhabiting it, and that European influence 
 should be excluded from it, as far and as fast as ex¬ 
 isting rights icould permit. Mr. Monroe, in 1823, 
 presented, in a message to Congress, his general 
 views of the relations of the Powers of Europe to 
 this continent, as well with respect to their inter¬ 
 ference with its independent States, as to projects 
 of new colonization. To be sure, as has been re¬ 
 marked, these two topics are to be found in dif¬ 
 ferent parts of the same message, but merely 
 because each connected itself more directly with 
 different practical measures; but both together 
 formed his doctrine, which was founded on the 
 great principle advanced by Mr. Jefferson, that 
 “ America, North and South, has a set of interests 
 ‘ distinct from those of Europe, and peculiarly her 
 ‘ own. She should therefore have a system of her 
 ‘own, separate and apart from that of Europe.” 
 And by Mr. Polk, “ that the people of this conti¬ 
 nent have a right to decide their own destiny.” 
 
 Mr. Polk, in 1848, when the “ Holy Alliance ” 
 was a matter of almost remote history, in a mes¬ 
 sage to Congress on the subject of the application 
 of the Government of Yucatan for aid against the 
 Indians, reaffirmed the Monroe doctrine, and ob¬ 
 served: * 
 
 I “ According to our established policy, we could not con 
 
 
! 
 
 2 
 
 sent to a transfer of this dominion and sovereignty either to 
 Spain, Great Britain, or any other European Power. In 
 the language of President Monroe, in his message of De¬ 
 cember, 1823, ‘ 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.’ Our own security 
 requires, that the established policy thus announced should 
 guide our conduct, and this applies with great force to the 
 peninsula of Yucatan.” 
 
 It would be a mere waste of time to comment 
 upon these views of Mr. Polk. They speak for 
 themselves with equal force and clearness, and 
 they were avowed more than a quarter of a cen¬ 
 tury after Mr. Monroe had promulgated his doc¬ 
 trine, thus considered by Mr. Polk as the perma¬ 
 nent American policy. The principles it asserts are 
 perpetual in their obligation, and the policy itself 
 challenges our attention and enforcement, in all 
 time, present and to come. 
 
 It is now said that this-Monroe doctrine, so far 
 as respects the independent States of the conti¬ 
 nent, embalmed, as it was and is, in the hearts of 
 the American people, instead of being a greatsys- 
 tem of policy, as enduring as our political condi- ! 
 tion, was but a temporary measure, applicable 
 only to the anticipated design of the “ Holy Alli¬ 
 ance,” as it was unholily called, to restore the 
 recently-emancipated American States to the do¬ 
 minion of Spain. Instead of being a great princi¬ 
 ple of action, worthy of this Republic, it would 
 thus become a mere expedient, passing away with 
 the occasion, that called it into being. Whether ; 
 this be so or not is a qu^tion which does not 
 touch the subject before the Senate, for that must 
 be determined upon its own merits, and not upon 
 the authority of names, never, however, to be 
 slightly regarded; but it touches the fame of Mr. 
 Monroe as a practical and enlightened statesman, 
 for such he truly was; but upon this construction 
 of his views he did not comprehend the conse¬ 
 quence of his own positions, and could not see 
 that the grounds of his policy extended beyond 
 the single case then more immediately before him. 
 His principles were unquestionably called out by 
 the peculiar danger of the South American States, 
 and by the claims of Russia on our north-western 
 coast. These circumstances led him to this inves¬ 
 tigation into the principles of our position with 
 respect to this continent, and the result we have 
 in this farfamed message. 
 
 And generally, it happens in the policy of na¬ 
 tions, that particular exigencies call forth the dis¬ 
 cussion and assertion of great principles; but 
 while the former disappear in the march of events, 
 the latter remain to be reasserted and maintained, 
 under all circumstances to which they are applica- | 
 ble. As the foundation of his doctrine, he as¬ 
 sumed the then existing status or condition of the 
 continent, disclaiming all intention of interfering 
 with existing rights, but maintaining principles 
 which denied to the Powers of Europe the as¬ 
 sumption to interfere - with any independent State 
 at any time thereafter, or ever plant or establish 
 new colonies. Upon these general principles, j 
 European influence might decrease in this hemi¬ 
 sphere, but could not increase; for independence, 
 once obtained, then and thereafter, the States so 
 obtaining it passed from the danger of European 
 subjugation, and would be beyond the reach, not 
 of Spain merely, but of France, or England, or 
 any other transatlantic Power. And 1 may re¬ 
 mark here, as a proof that Mr. Monroe consid- ; 
 ered both of the topics in his message but parts ' 
 
 ; of one plan of policy, that in the anti-colonization 
 passage he makes no reservation of existing colo¬ 
 nial rights, but declares, that these would be re¬ 
 spected, in that part of the message where he 
 protests against the subjugation of the Spanish 
 States, thus showing the intimate relation of the 
 whole subject in his mind. This inquiry into the 
 origin of this doctrine belongs, in truth, to the do¬ 
 main of history, and not to that of our permanent 
 policy; for the name of the doctrine, whether 
 Monroe, or Polk, or Jefferson, or yet better, 
 American, matters little; the true question being 
 whether it shall be enforced, now and hereafter. 
 
 But Mr. Monroe, in his message of December, 
 1824, a year after the one containing the views re¬ 
 ferred to, renewed the subject,and in such language 
 as leaves no doubt, but that this doctrine, in his 
 view of it, was perpetual, and to be made part of 
 our national code of policy. He said: 
 
 “ Separated as vve are from Europe by the great Atlantic 
 ocean, we can have no concern in the wars of the Euro¬ 
 pean Governments, nor in the causes which produce them. 
 The balance of power between them, into whichever scale 
 it may turn, in its various vibrations, cannot atfect us. It 
 is the interest of the United States to preserve the most 
 friendly relations with every Power, and on conditions fair, 
 equal, and applicable to all. But in regard to our neigh¬ 
 bors our situation is different. It is impossible for the Euro¬ 
 pean Governments to interfere in their concerns, especially 
 in those alluded to, which are vital, without affecting us. 
 Indeed, the motive, which might induce such interference in 
 the present state of the war between the parties, if a war it 
 may be called, would appear equally applicable to us.” 
 
 Now, it will be seen, that these principles had no 
 peculiar relation to the “ Holy Alliance,” as it is 
 contended those of the first message had, but they 
 extend to all time, and to all the European Gov¬ 
 ernments. Indeed, we learn from Mr. Clay, in 
 some remarks made in the House of Representa¬ 
 tives in June, 1824, that the fear of the action of 
 that alliance upon these States had given way, and 
 “ that if such a purpose were ever seriously enter¬ 
 tained, it had been relinquished.” Mr. Monroe, 
 in fact, in the passage from which the above ex¬ 
 tract is taken, considers the condition of these 
 States much improved and strengthened, and his 
 observations evidently bear upon future difficul¬ 
 ties, not then foreseen, but which might happen, 
 and would then have to be met. We may yet 
 have to meet them. 
 
 Mr. Monroe, it is well known, was in the Ifabit 
 of consulting Mr. Jefferson in all grave conjunc¬ 
 tures, and fortunately he consulted him on the 
 subject of his doctrine, and we have the senti¬ 
 ments of that patriarch of the Democratic faith in 
 relation to it. These are to be found in a letter 
 from him to Mr. Monroe, dated October 24, 1823, 
 a few weeks before the message appeared, written 
 in answer to Mr. Monroe’s application for his 
 opinion. 
 
 Mr. Jefferson said: 
 
 “ The question presented by the letters you have sent me, 
 is the most momentous, which has ever been offered to my 
 contemplation, since that of independence. That made us 
 a nation ; this sals our compass , and points the course , which 
 we are to steer through the ocean of time. And never could 
 we embark on it under circumstances more auspicious. 
 Our first and fundamental maxim should be, never to en¬ 
 tangle ourselves in the broils of Europe. Our second, never 
 to suffer Europe to intermeddle with cisatlantic affairs. 
 America, North and South, has a set of interests distinct 
 1 from those of Europe, and peculiarly her own. She should, 
 therefore, have a system of her own, separate and apart from 
 that of Europe ; the last is laboring to become the domicil 
 of despotism—our endeavor should surely be to make our 
 hemisphere that of freedom.” 
 
3 
 
 >* , 
 
 / sS' V - 
 
 Can one man be found, who will contend, that 
 these noble sentiments, worthy of him who uttered 
 them, and now become a precious legacy for the 
 American people,—can one man, 1 say, be found, 
 who will venture to contend, that these words of 
 wisdom and patriotism are temporary in their force 
 and application, belonging only to the passing 
 hour, and confined to the efforts of a league, which, 
 
 1 believe, died before the writer, short even as was 
 his tenure of life ? Thus, to narrow down a great 
 national principle, is wholly to mistake the liberal¬ 
 ity and far-reaching policy of this, the greatest of 
 American statesmen, after the first and the dear¬ 
 est, Washington. “ His OCEAN OF TIME OPENING 
 upon us” was bounded by no such contracted 
 limits. It was a true ocean, and not a mere duck- 
 pond. 
 
 And this same letter of Mr. Jefferson exhibits, 
 in a still more signal manner, the vast importance 
 be attached to this principle of never suffering 
 “ Europe to intermeddle with cisatlantic affairs.” j 
 "Why, sir, he was actually ready, even then, to i 
 go to war for its practical maintenance. He , 
 was far ahead of all of us, and I must confess ; 
 that I have seldom been more gratified, than to 
 find myself thus not only supported, but antici¬ 
 pated by a name, which will live in the hearts of 
 the American people as long as they cherish a 
 reverence for real patriotism, true Democracy, and 
 the highest qualities of our nature, ennobled by a 
 life devoted to his country. I can now stand 
 proudly upon this position, pointing to Mr. Jeffer¬ 
 son’s declaration, that he was willing to fight even 
 along side of England in such a cause—“ not that I 
 would purchase,” he says, “ her amity at the price 
 
 * of war. But the war in which the present prop- 
 ‘ osition might engage us, should that be its con- 
 ‘ sequence, is not her war, but ours. Its object is 
 
 * to introduce and establish the American system 
 ‘ of keeping out of our land all foreign Powers, of 
 
 * never, (not to-day,) of never permitting those 
 ‘ of Europe to intermeddle with the affairs of our 
 ‘ nations. It is to‘maintain our own principle, not 
 ‘ to depart from it.” Any question of the justice 
 or expediency of the first of these resolutions, I 
 may hereafter consider a question between the ob¬ 
 jector and Mr. Jefferson, and not one between the 
 former and myself. 
 
 The opinion of Mr. Adams, who of course 
 could not but understand the views of Mr. Mon¬ 
 roe, as he was then Secretary of State, and of Mr. 
 Clay, who took a deep interest in this matter, and 
 introduced a joint resolution into the House of 
 Representatives on the 29th of January, 1824, af¬ 
 firming the non-interference doctrine of Mr. Mon¬ 
 roe, are distinctly shown in the instruction of Mr. 
 Clay to Mr. Poinsett, dated March 25, 1825, 
 wherein Mr. Monroe’s message and principles 
 are referred to, and their existing force asserted 
 and assumed. Mr. Clay, while reporting these 
 instructions to Mr. Adams, for transmission to 
 the Plouse of Representatives, observes, “ that 
 ‘ all apprehension of the danger to which Mr. 
 
 ‘ Monroe alludes, of an interference by the allied 
 ‘Powers, (otherwise the ‘Holy Alliance,’) to 
 
 * introduce their political systems into this hemi- 
 
 * sphere, have ceased.” But notwithstanding this, 
 in these instructions to Mr. Poinsett, he is told that 
 the great principle of non-interference “ was de- i 
 dared in the face of the world” (by Mr. Monroe) 
 
 “ at a moment when there was reason to appre- | 
 
 ‘hend, that the allied Powers were entertaining 
 ‘[designs inimical to the freedom, if not to the 
 ‘ independence, of the new Governments. There 
 ‘ is reason to believe, that the declaration of it had 
 ‘ considerable effect in preventing tl\e maturity, if 
 ‘ not in producing the abandonment, of all such 
 ‘ designs. Both principles [this and the anti-col- 
 ‘ onization one] were laid down after much and 
 ‘ anxious deliberation on the part of the late Ad- 
 ‘ ministration. The President, [Mr. Adams,] 
 
 ‘ who then formed a part of it, continues entirely 
 ‘ to coincide in both, and you will urge upon the 
 ‘ Government of Mexico the utility and expedi- 
 ‘ ency of asserting the same principles on all 
 ‘ proper occasions.” 
 
 What principles ? Not a single one, so narrow 
 and temporary, as to be confined to a mere pass¬ 
 ing occurrence, to a league which had as much 
 passed away from any operation on this continent 
 as the Grecian league for the destruction of Troy. 
 If Mr. Adams and Mr. Clay did not wholly mis¬ 
 understand Mr. Monroe’s doctrine, it was pre¬ 
 cisely the doctrine enunciated in the resolution 
 before the Senate. One fact stated by Mr. Clay 
 upon the authority of Mr Adams, shows, that 
 this declaration of Mr. Monroe was a Cabinet 
 measure, fully considered, and no doubt amply 
 discussed. Indeed, without this authority, judg¬ 
 ing from the cautious character of Mr. Monroe, it 
 'would have been safe to conclude, that so import¬ 
 ant a step would not have been taken by him 
 without consultation with his confidential advisers. 
 And especially, as it is known that his messages, 
 before being sent to Congress, were always read, 
 and, if occasion required, discussed, paragraph by 
 paragraph, at Cabinet meetings; and such indeed 
 was the practice of.his predecessors. 
 
 Mr. Clay states that the declaration of Mr. 
 Monroe had been useful. Still its efficiency was 
 limited by the considerations already adverted to, 
 that it was the act only of the Executive Depart¬ 
 ment, which could not pledge the nation to any 
 particular course of policy. Congress alone could 
 do that; and the propriety of its action was so ob¬ 
 vious, that both Mr. Clay and Mr. Poinsett intro¬ 
 duced resolutions into the House of Representa¬ 
 tives affirming the doctrine. It is probable, that 
 the reason given by Mr. Clay for not pushing the 
 one presented by him to a final vote, operated also 
 on others; and that was that the apprehended 
 danger from the “Holy Alliance” had disappeared, 
 ar)d I suppose, then, as now, the difficulty of car¬ 
 rying such a measure increased, as the cause of 
 apprehension decreased. We stopped short in 
 our true work, and waited for another expedient 
 before proclaiming a principle. Mr. Jefferson also, 
 with his sound practical wisdom, saw that Mr. 
 Monroe’s declaration, in order to attain its object, 
 needed the support and authority of Congress; 
 and lie therefore recommended to him, in the letter 
 already referred to, that “ as it may lead to war, 
 
 ‘ the declaration of which requires an act of Con- 
 ‘ gress, the case shall be laid before them for con- 
 ‘ sideration at their first meeting, and under the 
 ‘ reasonable aspect, in which it is seen by himself,” 
 (the President.) 
 
 With respect to Cuba, I am glad to be able to 
 fortify my position by the opinions of both Mr. 
 Jefferson and Mr. Clay. No man will now ac¬ 
 cuse either of those distinguished statesmen with 
 being influenced by any other motives, than a love 
 
F 
 
 of country, and a desire to promote her interest : 
 in a spirit of justice. 
 
 Mr. Jefferson, in the same letter, said: 
 
 “I candidly confess t have ever looked on Cuba as the I 
 most interesting*addition, which could ever be made to our i 
 system of States. The control, which, with Florida Point, j 
 this island would give us over the Gulf of Mexico, and the 
 countries and isthmus bordering on it, as well as those 
 whose waters tiow into it, would till up the measure of 
 our political well being. Yet, as I am sensible that this can 
 never be obtained, even with her [Spain’s] own consent 
 but by war, [he means a war with England from her oppo¬ 
 sition to the measure,] and its independence, [that of 
 Cuba,] which is our second interest, and especially its in¬ 
 dependence of England can be secured without it, I have 
 no hesitation in abandoning my first wish to future chances, 
 and accepting its independence, with peace and the friend¬ 
 ship of England, rather than its association [query: acces¬ 
 sion:] at the expense of war and her enmity.” 
 
 It is due to Mr. Jefferson to state, that at the 
 time he wrote, free institutions through the world 
 seemed to have much to apprehend from this Holy 
 Alliance, and believing that England was really 
 desirous of thwarting their views, he was therefore 
 the more willing to act in concert with her. 
 
 Thirty years have produced a wonderful change 
 in the world, since these remarks of Mr. Jeffer¬ 
 son. They have produced none in our interest 
 and our desire to procure Cuba, when we can do 
 it justly, nor in our willingness, that it should be¬ 
 come independent. But as to any fear that Eng¬ 
 land would oppose us in taking possession of , 
 Cuba, under a voluntary arrangement with Spain, 
 or underany other proper circumstances, it is afeel- 
 ing which will never, I trust, enter into our public 
 councils, certainly never into the hearts of the 
 American people. Events since that period have 
 augmented our power in a mighty ratio, and have 
 taught us to use it when our honor and interest 
 require the exertion. Mr. Jefferson, when he 
 wrote this letter, undoubtedly supposed that Cuba 
 would follow the example of the other Spanish 
 provinces, and become independent. 
 
 Mr. Clay appreciated the importance of Cuba, 
 as well as of Porto Rico; for we find, in a letter 
 which he wrote to Mr. Middleton, on the 26th of! 
 December, 1825, that Minister was directed to | 
 inform the Russian Government that “ we cannot i 
 ‘ allow the transfer of these islands to any Euro- | 
 ‘ pean Power;” and the same determination was 
 avowed, in still stronger terms, in a dispatch to 
 the American Minister to Paris, to be made known 
 to the French Government, “ that we would not 
 ‘ consent to the occupation of those islands by any 
 ‘ other European Power than Spain, under any 
 * circumstances whatsoever . ” 
 
 Now, sir, I shall pursue this topic no further, 
 satisfied that these resolutions are not only just in 
 themselves, but that they assei't a system of policy 
 sanctioned by the opinions of some of the highest 
 names in our political history. It will appear, in 
 looking back to the extracts I have made from the 
 letter of Mr. Jefferson, that I am supported by 
 the weight of his opinion in the following propo¬ 
 sitions, embodied in or connected with these reso¬ 
 lutions: 
 
 First. That European Powers should not be 
 i permitted “ to intermeddle with cisatlantic af¬ 
 fairs,” meaning thereby those affairs which relate 
 to the political condition of the people of this conti¬ 
 nent, and accepting the reservation of Mr. Monroe 
 that existing colonial rights should not be inter- 
 j fered with. 
 
 Second. That this doctrine should be adhered 
 to, even, if necessary, at the expense of war. 
 
 Third. That the United States have a deep in¬ 
 terest in the acquisition of Cuba, and that if we 
 cannot obtain possession of it without too great a 
 cost of blood or treasure, it must be secured (espe¬ 
 cially from the oontrol of England) by its inde¬ 
 pendence. And we may add, now, since circum¬ 
 stances have much changed, and the immediate 
 dangers, then impending over the island have 
 passed away, that it may with safety remain in 
 the possession of Spain, so long as she can hold it, 
 and takes no step to convert it to our injury. 
 
 Fourth. That it is proper, that declarations upon 
 these subjects should be submit ted to Congress, in 
 I order to procure their cooperation, as, without it, 
 
 ! such declarations might be fruitless. 
 
 ; Fifth. In addition to these propositions, there is 
 j another opinion advanced by Mr. Jefferson in this 
 letter, which I confess I have read with unmixed 
 satisfaction, for it confirms in full the propriety of 
 the proposition, which I submitted to the Senate at 
 our last session, to declare our protest against the 
 atrocious violation of the rights of nations by the 
 interference of one Power, the Emperor of Rus¬ 
 sia, in the internal affairs of another, the Hunga¬ 
 rian kingdom. Mr. Jefferson’s words deserve to 
 be held in perpetual remembrance. Plere they 
 are: 
 
 Ci Nor is the occasion to be slishfed, which this proposi¬ 
 tion offers, of declaring our protest against the atrocious 
 violation of the rights of nations, by the interference (if 
 any one in the internal affairs of another, so flagitiously be¬ 
 gun by Bonaparte, and now continued by the equally law- 
 ess ailiance, calling itself holy.” 
 
 Here we have the principle distinctly asserted 
 of the propriety of a national protest upon such 
 an occasion, and we have the authority of the very 
 author of the expression “ entangling alliances,” 
 so triumphantly appealed to last session^asa rea¬ 
 son for our inaction, for denying its applicability 
 to the case; which, indeed, ought to have been ob¬ 
 vious enough, without this exposition of his own 
 doctrine, unless it could be shown, that we could 
 form an ailiance without allies, and that allies are 
 created simply by a protest against an assumption 
 to prostrate a great principle of public law which 
 protected the freedom and independence of nations. 
 
 , But we could not keep on the line of political knowl¬ 
 edge , and shrank from the responsibility imposed 
 upon us by our position as the great Republic of 
 the world. We now know, that Mr. Jefferson 
 would have voted for the proposition had he then 
 been a member of this body. That is honor 
 enough for those of us, who found ourselves in the 
 minority.