THE MONROE DOCTRINE 389 



can states. " We are not to have quoted upon us, on every 

 occasion, general declarations to which any and every mean- 

 ing may be attached." Whether the country intends to 

 resist by force any interposition from abroad rests with 

 Congress; and must be decided upon the merits of the case 

 itself. It should be asked does such interposition affect the 

 safety of the country? Is it to the best interests of the 

 nation to resist it, and if so, are our interests involved suffi- 

 ciently great to make war expedient? In some particular 

 instances this would be proper proper because wise and 

 Mr. Calhoun cited the cases of Cuba and Texas. Here he 

 "would resort to the hazard of war with all its calamities." 

 In the case of Yucatan, the only duty devolving upon the 

 United States was to respond to a cry for help. 



From this review of the Monroe Doctrine, the following 

 deductions seem to be clear : 



The safety of the United States did not demand the 

 annexation of Yucatan. 



The, occupation of this country by Great Britain or Spain 

 would not have been for the purpose of dominion. It would 

 have been only the friendly interposition of another power 

 at the solicitation of Yucatan herself. 



Occupation of this sort could not properly be called 

 colonization. 



The doctrine as enunciated by its authors did not apply 

 in this case. 



There was but a slight desire in the United State_s to annex 

 Yucatan. The country was regarded as practically worth- 

 less, and its admission into the Union to be a mistake. It i& 

 not easy to determine, however, what final action the Senate 

 might have taken in the matter, had not the incident been 

 closed by a treaty between the whites and the Indians which 

 put an end to their difficulties. 



X. THE FRENCH INTERVENTION IN MEXICO 



There is no event in the history of the Monroe Doctrine in 

 which the principles it embodies have had such direct and 



