THE MONROE DOCTRINE AFTER THE WAR 263 President Wilson in his war message to Congress on April 2, 1917, stating that his mind had not changed since January 22, said: Our object now, as then, is to vindicate the principles of peace and justice in the life of the world as against selfish autocratic power and to set up amongst the really free and self-governed peoples of the world such a concert of purpose and of action as will henceforth insure the observance of those principles. Monroe, looking to the political system of central Europe in 1823, had taken a similar position, saying of the attitude of the powers belonging to the so-called Holy Alliance that it was impossible that they "should extend their political system to any portion of either [American] continent without endangering our peace and happiness; nor can any one believe that our southern brethren, if left to themselves, would adopt it of their own accord." It is evident now that the United States does not desire to maintain alone the principles of such a doctrine as that enunciated by Monroe, for President Wilson in his address to Congress on April 2, 1917, said: A steadfast concert for peace can never be maintained except by a partnership of democratic nations. No autocratic government could be trusted to keep faith within it or observe its covenants. It must be a league of honor, a partnership of opinion. Intrigue would eat its vitals away; the plottings of inner circles who could plan what they would and render account to no one would be a corruption seated at its very heart. Only free peoples can hold their purpose and their honor steady to a common end and prefer the interests of mankind to any narrow interest of their own. means of a league of peace among the nations, and he not only spoke in favor of such a league but he is trying to induce the American Senate to take the steps necessary to give effect to it. It would not be right to regard this proposal as something altogether Utopian. You know that almost up to our own day dueling continued, and just as the settling of private disputes by the sword has now become unthinkable, so, I think, we may hope that the time will come when all the nations of the world will play the part which Cromwell described as his life work -to act as constable and keep peace. That time will come, I hope. "Our aim is the same as President Wilson's. What he is longing for we are fighting for. Our sons and brothers are dying for it, and we mean to secure it. The heart of the people of this country is longing for peace. We are praying for peace, a peace which will bring back in safety those who are dear to us, but a peace which will mean this-that those who will never come back shall not have laid down their lives in vain."-(Andrew Bonar Law, Chancellor of the Exchequer, January 24, 1917.) Certainly some kind of league will be needed if the principles of the Monroe Doctrine are to receive general respect. There is developing a growing opinion favorable to a sanction for international security and peace through co-operation or joint action of some kind. Whether this sanction be furnished by a league to enforce peace" or by some other guaranty, it is certain that the world seems weary of the old system under which any ruler might, if he decided it to be for his interest, disturb the peace of the world and subdue weaker peoples. Monroe in 1823 had said of the then weaker states to the south of the United States that this Government would view as "the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States . . . any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any other manner their destiny." These states were at that time democracies and they were small and weak. The United States placed behind them the considerable power which the nation at that time wielded, and the democratic form of government has prevailed 14 The program of the League to Enforce Peace is as follows: "We believe it to be desirable for the United States to join a league of nations binding the signatories to the following: "First: All justiciable questions arising between the signatory powers, not settled by negotiation, shall, subject to the limitations of treaties, be submitted to a judicial tribunal for hearing and judgment, both upon the merits and upon any issue as to its jurisdiction of the question. "Second: All other questions arising between the signatories, and not settled by negotiation, shall be submitted to a council of conciliation for hearing, consideration and recommendation. "Third: The signatory powers shall jointly use forthwith both their economic and military forces against any one of their number that goes to war, or commits acts of hostility, against another of the signatories before any question arising shall be submitted as provided in the foregoing. "The following interpretation of Article Three has been authorized by the Executive Committee: "The signatory powers shall jointly employ diplomatic and economic pressure against any one of their number that threatens war against a fellow signatory without having first submitted its dispute for international inquiry, conciliation, arbitration or judicial hearing, and awaited a conclusion, or without having in good faith offered so to submit it. They shall follow this forthwith by the joint use of their military forces against that nation if it actually goes to war, or commits acts of hostility, against another of the signatories before any question arising shall be dealt with as provided in the foregoing.' "Fourth: Conferences between the signatory powers shall be held from time to time to formulate and codify rules of international law, which, unless some signatory shall signify its dissent within a stated period, shall thereafter govern in the decisions of the Judicial Tribunal mentioned in Article One." THE MONROE DOCTRINE AFTER THE WAR 265 upon the western continents. The United States, by treaty agreement putting the Monroe Doctrine to the test of fair international opinion, has in recent years in many treaties shown its willingness to justify the doctrine upon its merits. Now with broader policy the United States proposes that after the war the powers of the world unite to guarantee for the larger area what it has guaranteed for the Americas-that democracy shall have an opportunity to develop without foreign intervention. The acceptance of this idea by the states of the world is not yet certain. The American argument is not difficult, however. If it is good for the Americas that states and peoples should have complete freedom for self-realization, it is likewise good for the other states of the world. Of this belief the United States and other American states are now giving proof by action. While such a doctrine may imperil thrones, it builds up peoples, and for its extension even hostilities may be justified, as has been officially asserted: We shall fight for the things we have always carried nearest our hearts, for democracy, for the right of those who submit to authority to have a voice in their own governments, for the rights and liberties of small nations, for a universal dominion of right by such a concert of free peoples as shall bring peace and safety to all nations and make the world itself at last free. The United States cannot under such principles claim isolation as a justification for its policies, but the Monroe Doctrine, if it is to survive after the war, must rest upon the broader support which its fundamental character merits. It is possible that in its narrower interpretation as applied to the Americas because of their "free and independent condition" the Monroe Doctrine may still be maintained after the war, but it is to be hoped that under the broader scope of the principles of the doctrine, through a concert of the nations life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness may be permanently secure under governments deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. APPENDIX. The following summary of historical events and collection of documents has been prepared to accompany Professor Wilson's paper and is intended to elucidate the political situation which called forth the original Monroe Doctrine and to afford material for a broad comparison of that situation with the present one, which has called forth President Wilson's declaration respecting a Monroe doctrine for the world. The texts of the original message of President Monroe, of explanatory or expansive statements by subsequent Presidents and other public documents of the United States which relate to the subject matter of the doctrine are also printed. I. THE EUROPEAN BACKGROUND OF THE MONROE DOCTRINE. The European rulers opposed to Napoleon objected to him because to them he represented the French Revolution and its ideas. The established rulers were by no means reconciled to his assumption of imperial powers for, though it was a tacit tribute to their status in the world, it involved admitting a parvenu to their circle and was followed by Napoleon's setting up many plebeians on thrones. These circumstances deeply grieved hereditary royalty, which considered the conditions an affront against their divine right to rule. It was inevitable that, after Napoleon's abdication on April 6, 1814, they should combine to restore the "legitimate" ruler in the person of a Bourbon, Louis XVIII. The powers who had accomplished the overthrow of Napoleon might perhaps have left the principle of legitimacy there had it not been for their desire to assure that France should be removed from the hegemony of Europe, which she had held for nearly two centuries. Accordingly they prepared to make certain of the future impotence of France by excluding her from any important part in the Congress of Vienna. By a protocol of September 22, THE PRINCIPLE OF LEGITIMACY 267 1814, they agreed that, "as France has adopted a legitimate government," she would not be banished completely from the discussions, but that she "ought to be satisfied" with being "admitted only when the other parties are already of one mind.”1 France was aware of this intention and the instructions to Prince Talleyrand, the principal French delegate to the Congress of Vienna, were drawn up with a view to protecting French interests, prestige and future influence to the greatest extent possible, especially on the basis of the balance of power. These instructions' had a single refrain, "legitimacy," expressed in the terms of the recognized legal term of sovereignty, by which, however, was to be understood for the purpose the fee-simple rights of "sovereigns" over the territory they ruled. The development of this principle in Europe during the next decade was the circumstance that called forth the Monroe Doctrine, for it underlay the Holy Alliance, whose activities made the pronouncement of the American President an act of statesmanship. The religiously mystical influences that gave the Holy Alliance its textual form might have rendered it beneficent, but the principle of legitimacy on which the treaty of Vienna was based insured the opposite effect. The following quotations from Talleyrand's letters to Louis XVIII indicate the extent to which the settlement of 1815 was founded upon the theory which France adduced for her own diplomatic defense: March 14, 1815: The principles of legitimacy, which had to be drawn from beneath the ruins under which the overthrow of so many ancient and the establishment of so many new dynasties had, as it were, buried them, which were accepted so coldly by some and rejected by others when we first produced them, have at last become appreciated. Your firmness in supporting them has not been without its effect. The whole honor of it belongs to your Majesty, and the unanimity with which the powers have pronounced against Bonaparte's last attempt is entirely due to it.' 1Georges Pallain, The Correspondence of Prince Talleyrand and King Louis XVIII, 405-406. 'Comte d'Angeberg (Leonard Boreyko Chodzko), Le Congrès de Vienne et les traités de 1815, 215-238. The instructions are dated September, 1814. Pallain, op. cit., 393. |