422 AMERICAN DIPLOMATIC QUESTIONS 



Twenty years later, however, the situation had changed. The 

 lately born nation had greatly increased in power and resources, 

 had demonstrated its strength on land and sea and as well in the 

 conflicts of arms as in the pursuits of peace, and had begun to 

 realize the commanding position on this continent which the char- 

 acter of its people, their free institutions, and their remoteness 

 from the chief scene of European contentions combined to give 

 to it. The Monroe administration therefore did not hesitate to 

 accept and apply the logic of the Farewell Address by declaring 

 in effect that American non-intervention in European affairs neces- 

 sarily implied and meant European non-intervention in American 

 affairs. Conceiving unquestionably that complete European non- 

 interference in American concerns would be cheaply purchased 

 by complete American non-interference in European concerns, 

 President Monroe, in the celebrated Message of December 2, 1823, 

 used the following language : . . . 



' The Monroe administration, however, did not content itself 

 with formulating a correct rule for the regulation of the rela- 

 tions between Europe and America. It aimed at also securing 

 the practical benefits to result from the application of the rule. 

 Hence the message just quoted declared that the American conti- 

 nents were fully occupied and were not the subjects for future 

 colonization by European powers. To this spirit and this pur- 

 pose, also, are to be attributed the passages of the same message 

 which treat any infringement of the rule against interference in 

 American affairs on the part of the powers of Europe as an act 

 of unfriendliness 'to the United States. It was realized that it 

 was futile to lay down such a rule unless its observance could be 

 enforced. It was manifest that the United States was the only 

 power in this hemisphere capable of enforcing it. It was there- 

 fore courageously declared not merely that Europe ought not to 

 interfere in American affairs, but that any European power doing 

 so would be regarded as antagonizing the interests and inviting 

 the opposition of the United States. 



That America is in no part open to colonization, though the 

 proposition was not universally admitted at the time of its first 

 enunciation, has long been universally conceded. We are now 

 concerned, therefore, only with that other practical application 

 of the Monroe doctrine the disregard of which by an European 

 power is to be deemed an act of unfriendliness towards the United 

 States. The precise scope and limitations of this rule cannot be 

 too clearly apprehended. It does not establish any general pro- 

 tectorate by the United States over other American states. It 

 does not relieve any American state from its obligations as fixed 



