406 AMERICAN DIPLOMATIC QUESTIONS 



Thus closed the episode with a complete vindication of 

 those principles upon which the original Monroe Doctrine 

 was founded, but without mention of the Doctrine itself, and 

 without the slightest allusion to its author. This was the 

 first overt act in American history looking to the establish- 

 ment of European monarchy on the Western continent ; the 

 only case where the threat was made good by actual inva- 

 sion the only case, indeed, which really threatened the 

 interests or safety of the United States. Yet the adminis- 

 tration, being fully alive to the situation, preferred to justify 

 American intervention upon those broad grounds of self- 

 defence that are recognized by all civilized nations, and 

 accepted by all authorities as sanctioned by the public law. 

 It did not choose to summon specifically the Monroe Doctrine 

 in* its defence. No precedent was needed, no appeal to sen- 

 timent was necessary, there were no doubters to be soothed 

 or cajoled by mjigical words. American intervention in 

 Mexico involved no ulterior political schemes which had to 

 be hidden under the cloak of a " national policy," or clothed 

 with the appearance of right by the sanctity of a popular 

 slogan. The danger to the United States of a new European 

 empire, planted upon her very borders, was too real to call 

 for sleight-of-lisuid methods to arouse opposition to it. There 

 was no party to be led on by high-sounding phrases. 



The principles of the Monroe Doctrine were fully vindi- 

 cated, as they always must, and always will, be when the 

 proper occasion calls. Those principles belong, not to the 

 United States alone, but to all nations alike. The Monroe 

 Doctrine was not alluded to, because the object of that 

 declaration had long since been fulfilled ; because from 

 Mr. Seward's point of view, if it could be regarded as a 

 " national policy " at all, it had fallen into disgrace ; and 

 finally, because a purely national policy can have no authori- 

 tative place in international law. 



To William H. Seward is due a credit, not generally ac- 

 corded him, for the able manner in which he defended"/ 

 American interests against the schemes of Napoleon III, 

 also for his skill as a diplomatist in conciliating foreign 



