PARKER CONSTITUTION CLUB OF NEW YORK CITY.
REPORT No. 4.
On the Charge that President Roosevelt is Attempting
to Subvert the Monroe Doctrine.

President Roosevelt on May 20th last wrote a public letter to
Mr. Root, which was read at the Cuban Anniversary dinner.
Referring to the countries of South America, he said :
" If a nation shows that it knows how to act with decency
in industrial and political matters, if it keeps order and pays
its obligations, then it need fear no interference from the
United States. Brutal wrongdoing or an impotence which
results in a general loosening of the ties of civilized society,
may finally require intervention by some civilized nations,
and in the Western Hemisphere the United States cannot
ignore this duty ; but it remains true that our interests and
those of our Southern neighbors are in reality identical. All
that we ask is that they shall govern themselves well and be
prosperous and orderly. Where this is the case, they will
find only helpfulness from us."
The letter must necessarily be considered in one of two ways :
Either the President meant what he said, or he merely wrote
words without intending any significance or responsibility to
attach to them. Was this letter in the class with the " Perdicaris
alive or Raisuli dead" telegram, despatched in the hurry of the
Republican Convention? Or does it represent the President's
view of a proper policy toward our South American neighbors ?
Irresponsibility in such a deliberate public utterance ought not to
be imputed to a President of this country ; and we should take it
that if there were such an imputation, President Roosevelt would

Ko

.*, / 1

resent it. We must, therefore, consider what he said as a decla
ration of policy.
Viewed in this light we find that President Roosevelt desires
the United States to take a parental attitude toward the South
American Republics. There should be reward for well-doing,
punishment for ill-doing, in either commercial or political matters,
and at all times the responsibility upon the United States to the
world in general of inspecting and supervising the conduct of our
South American neighbors.
The importance of considering the propriety of such an atti
tude is threefold :
First. Because it is in substance a reiteration of what Presi
dent Roosevelt has said before. It represents the point to which
he has arrived up to date in his construction of the Monroe
Doctrine. No one need expect that he will hesitate to apply and
practice what he has so continuously and consistently preached
in writing and by word of mouth.
Second. In considering the matters with which our President
in the next four years is likely to deal, none more prominently
present themselves than the relations of this country with South
America. We may be sure that whatever the attitude of the
next President may be, that attitude is likely to be given prac
tical effect.
Third. Whatever criticisms the American nation may pass
upon its President in advance, whenever the moment arrives that
a President of this country strikes a warlike note it is sure to meet
at the moment a strong emotional response from almost every
citizen of the land. That is our nature. Therefore, the only
practical time for us to restrain ourselves is on election day ; for,
while as a people we may well hesitate to elect to the office of
President a man whose nature is unrestrainable, we are sure to
back him up in the exercise of his nature at the moment it con
cerns an actual controversy between a foreigner and ' ' The
American Flag."

For these three reasons, it is vital now to consider the ques
tions brought up by this so-called "Cuban Letter." These
questions are in brief : What was the Monroe Doctrine ; what is
the Monroe Doctrine to-day, according to the sober sense of the
community ; what resemblance does the Monroe Doctrine bear to
the President's doctrine; and if the two differ, what, if any,
dangers flow from the President's views ?
The phase in the world's history which gave rise to this
doctrine was briefly as follows : In 1816 Venezuela, Chili, Colombia
and the I> Plata provinces had rebelled against Spain and sought
from the President of the United States recognition of their inde
pendence. In order to ascertain the true facts of the case a com
mission was sent to inquire into the condition of these States and
to report upon the propriety of acknowledging the belligerent
rights of the revolutionary parties. Nothing was done until in
1820 when a second commission was sent for the purpose of
keeping our government informed as to the condition of affairs
and the progress of events. So favorable were the reports received
that on the 8th of March, 1822, President Monroe sent a message
to Congress reciting the histories of the struggles of the South
American States and recommending that Congress should recog
nize their independence. On the 4th day of May, 1822, Congress
passed a resolution to the effect that the American Provinces of
Spain which have declared their independence and are in the
enjoyment of it should be recognized by the United States as inde
pendent nations. It was six years from the inception of the
struggle before the United States felt called upon to recognize the
independence of these South American States.
While these events were pending there had been formed in
Europe what is known as the Holy Alliance, consisting of Russia,
Austria, Prussia and France, the declared object of which was to
check the progress of liberty and freedom (the seeds of which had
been sown by the French revolution) and to revert to the absolute
forms of government which prevailed prior to 1789. In 1822 at

the Congress of Verona the Holy Alliance discussed and favored
assistance to Spain in suppressing insurrection at home and also
in bringing back the Spanish Colonies into subjection to the mother
country. The insurrection at home was suppressed by France
acting for the Alliance, and there seemed to be a strong probability
that assistance was to be rendered to Spain in her struggle with
her revolted Colonies. The Holy Alliance, therefore, comprising
the great nations of continental Europe, and the United States
stood in 1823 in tacit antagonism. It was clearly necessary for
the United States to declare to the world its attitude in reference
to the new States which it had just recognized, and to the peoples
of Europe forming the Holy Alliance. After consultation with
Jefferson and Madison, President Monroe sent the famous message
to Congress, in which that part embodying the "Monroe Doctrine ' '
is as follows :
' ' In the wars of the European Powers in matters relating
to themselves, we have never taken any part, nor does it
comport with our policy so to do. It is only when our rights
are invaded or seriously menaced that we resent injuries or
make preparation for our defense. With the movements in
this Hemisphere we are of necessity more immediately con
nected by causes which must be obvious to all enlightened
and impartial observers. The political system of the allied
powers is essentially different in this respect from that of
America. The difference proceeds from that which exists in
their respective governments. AND TO THE DEFENSE
OF OUR OWN, WHICH HAS BEEN ACHIEVED BY
THE LOSS OF SO MUCH BLOOD AND TREASURE,
AND MATURED BY THE WISDOM OF OUR MOST
ENLIGHTENED CITIZENS, AND UNDER WHICH
WE HAVE ENJOYED UNEXAMPLED FELICITY,
THIS WHOLE NATION IS DEVOTED. We owe it,
therefore, to candor and to the amicable relations existing
between the United States and those powers, 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. With the existing colonies
or dependencies of any European Power we have not inter
fered and shall not interfere ; but with the governments who
have declared their independence and have maintained it,
and whose independence we have on great consideration and
on just principles, acknowledged, we could not view any
interposition for the purpose of oppressing them or controll
ing in any manner their destiny by any European Power in
any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly
disposition towards the United States."
This is simple, specific and also entirely beneficent. It
asserts the independence and sovereignty of the South American
States, and maintains that any subversion of their republican
form of government by the absolutist monarchies of Europe
would be a menace and danger to the republican form of govern
ment in the United States. Our declaration of principle was not
for the benefit of the South American Republics primarily, or of
the world primarily, but for our own safety and security. The
only connection or tie which binds us to them, or them to us, is
that we will in effect prevent any European government from
conquering them or overthrowing their institutions by force of
arms. Beyond that we have nothing whatever to connect us
with them, except the ties of friendship and gratitude.
Having thus clearly in mind what the Monroe Doctrine
originally was, the question then arises as to what it in later times
grew to be. That is nowhere more succinctly presented than by
reference to the Maximilian episode, in the sixties. In 1862,
Secretary Seward in his instructions to our Minister in France,
wrote as follows :
' ' France has a right to make war against Mexico and to
determine for herself the cause. We have a right and
interest to insist that France shall not improve the war she
makes, to raise up in Mexico an anti-republican or anti-
American government, or to maintain such a government
there. France has disclaimed such designs, and we, besides

reposing faith in the assurances given in a frank, honorable
manner, would, in any case, be bound to wait for and not
anticipate a violation of them."
It was not until they were violated that Secretary Seward
protested, and was supported by Congress in a resolution, which
passed without a dissenting vote, and which declared that :
' ' It does not accord with the policy 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."
At the close of the Civil War, Mr. Bigelow, the United States
Minister to France, was instructed to demand the immediate
withdrawal of French troops from Mexico. Mr. Seward's instruc
tions to the American Minister were to inform the French
Government :
" First — that the United States earnestly desire to continue
and cultivate sincere friendship with France. Second, that
this policy will be brought into immediate jeopardy unless
France deems its consistent with her interest and honor to
desist from prosecutions of armed intervention in Mexico to
overthrow the domestic Republican Government existing
there, and to establish upon its ruins the foreign monarchy
which has been attempted to be encouraged in the capital of
that country."
Still later, and within the memory of all of us, England under
took to enforce, against the protest of Venezuela, a boundary line
of demarkation between Venezuela and British Guiana to which
Venezuela did not agree. In the light that Great Britain was
wrong in her view, this became a forcible increase of monarchical
sovereignty in South America, and a decrease of government of a
republican order. President Cleveland insisted — and Congress
took the same view — that England should bring before some im
partial tribunal the question of the true boundary, and abide by
that decision. England eventually acceded to our view, and the
incident was closed in that way. In short, up to the time of

President Roosevelt, the Monroe Doctrine had not extended be
yond its original scope. We have from the first insisted, and we
now insist, that the extension of monarchical government in the
Western Hemisphere is inimical to our Republic and our form of
government. In the light of this explanation of the Monroe Doctrine, the
President's views are at first blush startling. He enunciates
in effect the most strenuous form of protectorate. He classes
these independent nations as inferior in position to the States
of the Union, and resembling nothing so much as an African
dependency. He instructs them that they must act with decency
in political and industrial matters ; that they must keep order,
pay their obligations, not be guilty of brutal wrongdoing, of
impotence, of loosening the ties of society, but must govern them
selves well, and be prosperous and orderly. These instructions
are issued by the President of the United States to sovereign
nations under penalty of intervention and chastisement.
That this should be possible would seem like a dream were
it not so fraught with real tragedy — not to the South American
Republics, but to ourselves. There are twenty republics which
would be included in President Roosevelt's classification, in which
revolutions have been frequent — from four or five in Chili, the
most orderly of all, to forty in Colombia, besides minor internal
disorders innumerable. These republics have all contracted debts,
internal and external, in the aggregate large. For the collection
of these, according to the President, we should be responsible.
Are we ready and is it our duty to so control and govern these
twenty republics, scattered over a vast continent? And if so,
would they willingly allow us to play such a r61e ? Certainly the
party or the man who advocates that we should raise an issue of a
character more serious than has ever yet confronted us.
We are a peaceable and industrious people. We took into
this nation the thirteen original colonies ; we have taken in the

VALE UNIVERSITY L

3 9002 08561 1987

8

additional States subsequently organized upon the basis that they
gave up all the rights of diplomatic negotiation and of making
war upon each other and should solve their controversies only in
the Supreme Court. We haVe given to the National Govern
ment only certain enumerated powers, among which this right
or power to control, govern or police the Republics of South
America is not included.
Under this Constitution we have prospered and have shown to
the world how a people can be happy and great and can influence
the world by example without trespassing upon the rights or
impairing the happiness of others and without the intolerance of
insisting that other nations should pursue happiness only in our
way. We submit to the American people that we are not ready to
abandon the course which has so greatly conduced to our tran
quility and prosperity. We are not ready to assume the role of
the moral instructor and final arbiter on what is the duty of other
nations to other persons or nations. In the absence of some direct
interest of our own in the acts of the South American Republics
we must leave them as we leave all other nations to the adminis
tration of their own affairs and to the solution of their own
difficulties. The course proposed by President Roosevelt is not the Monroe
Doctrine and would neither be constitutional, sagacious nor safe.
PARKER CONSTITUTION CLUB OF NEW YORK CITY,
By Wheeler H. Peckham,
John G. Carlisle,
William B. Hornblower,
John G. Milburn,
Adrian H. Joline,
William Morton Grinnell,
Howard Taylor,
Committee on Reports.
[48,66ia]