THE MONKOE DOCTRINE 399, 



in Mexico which might tend toward an overthrow of its 

 legitimate government. England's attitude toward the 

 United States Government he well .knew to be unfriendly > 

 and the unfortunate affair of the Trent was fresh in every 

 mind ; a further offence to England, under the circumstances, 

 would have been inexpedient and possibly unsafe. 



When Napoleon's inner motives came to light, and the 

 English and Spanish withdrew their forces from Vera Cruz, 

 the new danger thrust itself upon the State Department. 

 Success of the Rebellion, and the division of Anglo-Saxon 

 power in America, was clearly in direct line with French 

 interest. That Mr. Seward was fully alive to the dangerous 

 situation is apparent in the cautious tone of his despatches. 

 It was only when Appomattox closed this critical period 

 of American history that the administration was enabled 

 to assume its proper attitude toward the French invasion 

 of Mexico. With a veteran army to back the demand, 

 Napoleon was requested to abandon at once his project in 

 Mexico. The Monroe Doctrine was vindicated. 



A few quotations selected from a voluminous mass of offi- 

 cial despatches will suffice to indicate the position of the 

 government in this matter, at its various periods, from 

 1861 to 1866, and to present as well a budget of official lit- 

 erature upon the doctrine under discussion. 



When the intervention was first decided upon by the three 

 powers, Mr. Cass, Secretary of State, wrote to Mr. McLane, 

 September 20, 1860 : - 



While we do not deny the right of any other power to carry 

 on hostile operations against Mexico, for the redress of its griev- 

 ances, we firmly object to its holding possession of any part of 

 that country, or endeavoring by force to control its political des- 

 tiny. 



This opposition to foreign interf ei-ence is known to France, Eng- 

 land, and Spain, as well as the determination of the United States 

 to resist any such attempt by all the means in their power. . . . 

 I have already referred to the extent of the principle of foreign 

 interference which we maintain with regard to Mexico. It is proper 

 to add that while that principle denies the right of any power to 



