EDITOR'S TABLE. 



847 



American republics by foreign Powers. 

 In his next message President Monroe 

 said: 



We declare that we should consider any 

 attempt [of the allied Powers] to extend their 

 system to any part of this hemisphere as dan- 

 gerous to our peace and safety. . . . With the 

 governments who have declared their inde- 

 pendence and maintained it, and whose in- 

 dependence we have on great consideration 

 and on just principles acknowledged, we 

 could not view any interposition for the pur- 

 pose of oppressing them or controlling, in any 

 manner, their destiny by any European Pow- 

 er, in any other light than as the manifesta- 

 tion of an unfriendly disposition toward the 

 United States. 



This was a courageous and timely 

 and most proper declaration, and it had 

 its effect ; the Continental despotisms 

 abandoned their projects of interfer- 

 ence. A revived Napoleon, indeed, re- 

 vived the experiment in the case of Max- 

 imilian of propagating the European 

 system on this continent; but it quick- 

 ly ended in disaster, carrying Napoleon 

 himself with it and turning France into 

 a republic. 



The emergency which called forth 

 the declaration of this doctrine having 

 passed away, it has since been used as 

 mere political stock buncombe to cover 

 unscrupulous projects which could not 

 be openly and honestly defended. At 

 first an expression of national dignity 

 and justice in defense of the rights of 

 the weak, it has been made the excuse 

 for subverting the very objects it was 

 designed to promote. Conceived and 

 promulgated in the interests of freedom, 

 it has been villainously pressed into the 

 interests of slavery. When there was 

 apprehension that Spain might in some 

 future contingency give liberty to the 

 blacks of Cuba, and thus endanger the 

 American slave system by the contagion 

 of moral example, the Monroe doctrine 

 was invoked to forestall the humane 

 possibility. Buchanan, of Pennsylvania, 

 and Mason, of Virginia, fulminated the 

 " Ostend Manifesto " to prevent " for- 

 eign interference on this continent," 

 that slavery might be perpetual ; and 



this in the name of the Monroe pol- 

 icy. 



And now it is proposed again to per- 

 vert the Monroe doctrine to an end nev- 

 er dreamed of by its promulgators, and 

 in point-blank subversion of its legiti- 

 mate objects. We have already shown 

 that, promptly following the Monroe 

 declaration, came Congressional instruc- 

 tions to the President to open negotia- 

 tions with other nations for the en- 

 couragement of all canal-constructors. 

 It was then well enough understood 

 that the Monroe doctrine was declared, 

 to stop the extension of political despot- 

 isms, not to stop the free and beneficent 

 extension of commerce. It was to pre- 

 vent aggressive interference with young 

 and feeble republics on this continent, 

 that they may take their equal and in- 

 dependent place among the nations. In 

 the exercise of its national rights thus 

 affirmed, the Republic of Colombia has 

 entered into arrangements to avail itself 

 of foreign enterprise in constructing a 

 canal through its territory. And now, 

 forsooth, the loud proclaimers of the 

 Monroe doctrine of non-interference 

 propose to violate the principle by in- 

 terfering with the riglit of Colombia to 

 open a canal. The principle of the Mon- 

 roe doctrine is not capable of any such 

 application ; it is the very bulwark of 

 De Lesseps's enterprise. Originally de- 

 signed to guarantee to Colombia her 

 sovereign rights over her own soil, it 

 now becomes a hypocritical pretext for 

 invading and crushing her nationality. 



Slavery and war are the surviving 

 scourges of barbarism. The ^lonroe 

 doctrine, having been used to fortify 

 and prolong the curse of slavery, is 

 now to be used to multiply the curses 

 of war, and of war against the progress 

 of peace-promoting commerce. 



The sham reasons for defeating De 

 Lesseps being out of the way, there is 

 little difficulty in getting at the real 

 motives of hostility to his project, as 

 evinced by a large portion of the press 

 and embodied in the Congressional res- 

 olutions. There are powerful rival in- 



