1 Am. Hist. Rev., Oct., 1899, pp. 95–102. Buchanan to Burke, May 30, 1850.

² See 15 Instructions, France, No. 6, Aug. 26, 1844. Also, 12 Despatches, Mexico, Jan. 9, 1845.

³ 1 Despatches, Venezuela, No. 26, Feb. 13, 1837.

⁴ 2 Despatches, Venezuela, No. 20, Dec. 26, 1842.

⁵ 5 Despatches, Venezuela, No. 47 and No. 48, January, 1848.

⁶ J. B. Moore, International Law Digest, Vol. 6, p. 423.

⁷ 4 International Am. Conferences, pp. 204–205.

⁸ 1 Despatches, Secret and Special Service, pp. 19 and 27 (Aug. 27 and Sept. 27, 1848).

⁹ U. S. Mag. and Democratic Rev., March, 1846, pp. 163–84 (Caleb Cushing).

¹⁰ 15 Instructions, Argentine Republic, p. 19, March 30, 1846.

¹¹ 1 Special Missions, p. 235, No. 2, March 30, 1846; 15 Instructions, Argentine Republic, No. 39, Dec. 26, 1849.

¹² 6 Despatches, Buenos Ayres, No. 13, Harris to Buchanan, July 15, 1847.

¹³ 7 Despatches, Buenos Ayres, No. 49, May 14, 1850.

¹⁴ 15 Cong. Globe, 29th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 197.

¹⁵ Ib.,pp. 240–42.

¹⁶ Ib., pp. 244–47.

¹⁷ Ib.,p. 246.

¹⁸ 31 Cong. Globe, Vol. 27, Appendix, 32nd Cong., 2nd and 3rd Sess. (p. 91).

¹⁹ 31 Cong. Globe, Vol. 27, Appendix, 32nd Cong., 3rd Sess., p. 252.

²⁰ 1 Special Missions, p. 255.

²¹ J. Q. Adams said the South Americans as independent nations had a right to dispose of themselves. (Adams’ Memoirs, 6; 186.)

Cass urged occupation of Yucatan on the ground that it had a right to transfer its sovereignty to European Powers and could do so without giving the United States any cause for offense.

²² Cong. Globe, 30th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 709.

²³ 19 Cong. Globe, 30th Cong., 1st Sess., Appendix, p. 610 (May 9, 1848).

²⁴ Cass later stated that the affair on La Plata and Guizot’s announcement relating to occurrences at Buenos Aires were inconsistent with the Monroe Doctrine. (31 Cong. Globe, App., 32–2p. 91, Jan. 15, 1853.)

²⁵ Ib., pp. 613–15 and p. 619.

²⁶ Calhoun’s Works, Vol., 4, p. 454.

²⁷ 13 Despatches, Mexico, No. 48, Walsh to Clayton, Sept. 13, 1849.

²⁸ J. M. Callahan, Cuba and International Relations, pp. 207–08.

²⁹ On May 13, 1848, Secretary Buchanan, in instructions to Mr. Livingston, minister to Ecuador, after referring to the failure of the military and naval expedition which General Flores (former president of Ecuador) had organized in Europe in 1846, said, “You will also assure him [President of Peru] that the intervention or dictation, direct or indirect, of European governments in the affairs of the independent States of the American hemisphere, will never be viewed with indifference by the Government of the United States. On the contrary, all the moral means at least, within their power, shall upon every occasion be employed to discourage and arrest such interference.” (Moore, int. Law Digest, Vol. 6, p. 473.)

Later in the year, after reports of English and French designs in Santo Domingo, Buchanan sent a secret agent (Ben. E. Green) to defeat the efforts of Great Britain to get Samana Bay. (1 Desps. Secret and Spl. Service, pp. 19 and 27 and p. 133, Feb., 1849.)

³⁰ 1 Instructions, Bolivia, p. 2, Buchanan to Appleton, June 1, 1848.

³¹ 15 Instructions, American States, pp. 51–61 (Guatemala).

³² 8 Despatches, Peru, No. 27, June 12, 1849.

³³ Richard Rush, Occasional Productions (Phila., 1860), p. 143,et. seq.

³⁴ Democratic Review, January, 1852.

³⁵ Cong. Globe, 32nd Cong., 1st Sess., p. 310.

³⁶ Ib., pp. 173 and 177.

³⁷ Seward’ s Works, Vol. 1, pp. 196–221.

³⁸ Webster’s Works, Vol. 6, p. 488ff.

³⁹ H. Ex. Doc. 48, 53—2. Sen. Ex. Doc. 77, 52–2.

⁴⁰ 15 Instructions, Colombia, pp. 121–26, No. 1. Clayton to Foote, July 19, 1849.

⁴¹ 16 Instrs., Gr. Br., p. 75, No. 10, Dec. 13, 1849; 16 Instr. Gr. Br., June 4, 1849.

⁴² J. B. Moore, Internat. Law Digest, Vol. 6, pp. 509–14.

⁴³ 31 Cong. Globe, Vol. 27, Appendix, 32–2 and 3, pp. 71–79.

⁴⁴ 14 Instructions, Spain.

⁴⁵ 31 Cong. ’Globe, Vol. 27, Appendix 32–3, p. 278.

⁴⁶ 44 British and Foreign State Papers, p. 114.

⁴⁷ J. B. Moore, Internat. Law Digest, Vol. 6, p. 460.

⁴⁸ South Quart. Rev., Jan., 1854.

In submitting the correspondence to Rives at Paris, Secretary Everett explained that the policy of the United States was based upon “The steady rule of our policy to avoid, as far as possible, all disturbances of the existing political relations of the West Indies.” Although he recognized that the United States had had an opportunity to get a permanent foothold in Santo Domingo, where the United States needed a naval station as much as any European Power, he felt that the attempt of one of the great Powers to obtain exclusive advantages in the West Indies might end in converting the archipelago into a great theater of “national competition for exclusive advantages anil territorial acquisitions which might become fatal to the peace of the world.” (15 Instrs. France, No. 56, Dec. 17, 1852.)

⁴⁹ 16 Despatches, Mexico, No. 7, Dec. 24, 1852.

⁵⁰ At the same time, in reply to the Lavasseur statement that England had .designs on Yucatan which caused her to interfere to prevent any adjustment of the Tehuantepec question, he declared that the United States would never permit such an appropriation so long as it had power to prevent, and that its ability to maintain the settled policy not to allow European governments to extend their domains on this continent was not likely soon to be diminished.

⁵¹ 15 Instructions, American States, pp. 64–94 (Guatemala).

⁵² 31 Cong. Globe, Vol. 27, Appendix, 32nd Cong., 3rd Sess., p. 254.

Sen. Ex. Doc., 43, Vol. 5, 31–2, Feb. 28, 1851; 40 Br. and’ For. State Papers, 1850–51.

⁵³ Clayton at this time had a despatch from Letcher, the American minister in Mexico, reporting rumors and fears of British designs to seize Lower California for the payment of debts due British citizens. 14 Desps. Mex., No. 3, March 8, 1850.

⁵⁴ 31 Cong. Globe, Vol. 27, Appendix, 32–3, March 14, 1853 (pp. 263–66).

⁵⁵ Am. Whig Rev., March, 1856, p. 276, et seq.

⁵⁶ 25 Cong. Globe, Vols. 23, 31–2, p. 263.

⁵⁷ U. S. Whig Rev., May, 1853.

⁵⁸ Am. Uist. Rev., Oct., 1899, pp. 95–102; Buchanan to Burke, May 30, 1850.

⁵⁹ 31 Cong. Globe, Vol. 27, Appendix, 32–2, p. 171.

⁶⁰ 31 Cong. Globe, 32–2 and 3, p. 255.

⁶¹ 31 Cong. Globe, Vol. 27, Appendix, 32–3, p. 285.

⁶² 41 Cong. Globe, 34th Sess., p. 441.

In a speech on January 12 and 16, 1854, in reply to Cass, Clayton patriotically declared : “All Americans—those who regard the faith of treaties, and all who regard the principles of the Monroe Doctrine, would be united in the defense of American rights and in resistance to foreign oppression of American republics.” (35 Cong. Globe, Vol. 29, Appendix, 33–1, p. 100.)

Clayton, in the Senate, later, said the issue in Central America could be better met by the Clayton–Bulwer treaty than by the threats of the Monroe Doctrine or of debates in Congress. Although he doubted not that there might

arise a case requiring the application of the Monroe Doctrine, he declared “You can never prevail on Congress to go to war with a foreign nation for the violation of a principle laid down by Monroe.”

(36 Cong. Globe, 33–2, pp. 835–?6.)

⁶³ Mobile Register, Jan. 1, 1858 and Feb. 8, 1859.

⁶⁴ 16 Instrs. Gr. Br., pp. 222–23 and 238 July 6, 1853, No. 2, Marcy to Buchanan.

⁶⁵ 30 Cong. Globe, Vol. 26, 32nd Cong., 2nd Sess., p. 199.

⁶⁶ “The Monroe Doctrine was a right one…because it was well–timed. As a practical question it has ceased to be. It is obsolete. You are already the great continental power of America.”

⁶⁷ Seward’s Works, Vol. 3, pp. 605–18 (Jan. 26, 1853).

⁶⁸ 65 Despatches, Great Britain, No. 20, Buchanan to Marcy, Jan. 10, 1854.

⁶⁹ 1 Notes from Ecuador, Dec. 1, 1853.

⁷⁰ Special Service (Despatches), pp. 752–59 and 786–89 (Dec. 26, 1854).

⁷¹ 11 Despatches, Peru, No. 239, Dec. 25, 1854; 3 Despatches, Ecuador (Confidential), White to Marcy, Nov. 24, 1854.

⁷² 3 Desps., Ecuador, No. 47, March 31, 1855.

⁷³ 11 Despatches, Peru, No. 239, Dec. 15, 1854.

⁷⁴ Senator Cass, asserting that France and England had recently acted in concert in opposition to every measure of American foreign policy (in Cuba, in Hawaii, in Santo Domingo, in Ecuador, in the Gallipagos Islands and elsewhere) said the United States should declare her rights in the Gulf and the Caribbean and its intention to maintain them.

(36 Cong. Globe, Vol. 30, 33rd Cong., 2nd Sess., Feb. 20, 1855.)

⁷⁵ To avoid boundary disputes, such as that between Nicaragua and Costa Rica, which gave England an opportunity to assert her earlier territorial claims, Marcy favored the reëstablishment of the Central American confederation. In December, 1853, he instructed Borland to express American anxiety to prevent European intermeddling in the affairs of Central America and to encourage Honduras to resist the British encroachments; but, desiring to be left free to determine what course to pursue, he warned him not to pledge his government to expel the British from the Bay Islands.

⁷⁶ 2 Notes from Central Am., Jan. 16, 1855.

⁷⁷ 41 Cong. Globe, 34th Cong., 1st Sess. (L. D. Evans, in Appendix, July 24, 1856).

⁷⁸ Ib., Feb, 26, 1856.

⁷⁹ On March 31, 1855, soon after the negotiation of a guano treaty between the United States and Ecuador, the watchful Mr. White, after perusing the Valparaiso newspaper, reported that Chile, which through the efforts of General Flores had become disaffected toward the United States, would probably send to Quito a minister invested with ulterior discretion to enlist Ecuador in a Spanish American league against United States “encroachment.” (3 Despatches, Ecuador, No. 47, March 31, 1855.) In 1856–57 the archives are full of allusions to the Spanish American League and to various negotiations regarded as unfriendly to the United States and to the general interests of republican institutions in America. On January 31, 1856, Peru and Costa Rica negotiated a treaty of mutual protection and guarantee. Similar stipulations were signed in Chile by Peru, Chile and Ecuador, and in Washington by representatives of Costa Rica, Peru, New Granada, Mexico, Guatemala, Salvador, Nicaragua, Venezuela and Brazil (12 Desps., Chile, No. 34, Feb. 26, 1859.

⁸⁰ 1 Despatches, Bolivia, Feb. 28, and (No. 34) March 13, 1857.

⁸¹ Desps., Bolivia, No. 36, March 25, 1857.

⁸² Buchanan was elected on a Democratic platform of 1856 (June 2) which asserted the national need for the principles of the Monroe Doctrine, favored their application “with unbending rigidity,” and urged that the United States could under no circumstances surrender her preponderance in the adjustment of all questions arising from the control of the canal routes and the inter-American relations incident thereto.

⁸³ Sen. Ex. Doc., 112, 46th Cong., 2nd Sess., Vol. 4 (March 8, 1880), pp. 21–27.

⁸⁴ 8 Notes to Gr. Brit., Sept. 10, 1857.

⁸⁵ 8 Notes to Gr. Brit., (Private), Oct 20, 1857.

⁸⁶ 15 Instrs., Am. States, No. 6, June 3, 1858.

⁸⁷ Ib., July 25, 1858.

⁸⁸ Instrs., France, No. 169, Nov. 26, 1858; Despatches, France, (Confidential), Dec. 18, 1858.

⁸⁹ Rp. Am. Hist. Ass’n., 1910, pp. 133–151.

⁹⁰ 18 Desps. Mex., No. 51, Dec. 16, 1854.

⁹¹ 19 Desps. Mex. (No. 60), Apr. 3 (No. 63), May 18, and (No. 77) Nov. 25, 1855.

⁹² Desps. Mex., No. 12, May 7, 1859.

⁹³ 17 Instrs., Mex., pp. 245–61, No. 16, July 30, and No. 21, Nov. 4, 1859.

⁹⁴ 17 Instrs., Mex., No. 38, Aug. 8, 1860.

⁹⁵ 26 Desps., Mex., Sept. 1, 1860; 17 Instrs., Mex., pp. 306–38, No. 39, Sept. 20, 1860.

⁹⁶ Moore, Internat. Law Digest, Vol. 6, p. 481.

⁹⁷ 26 Desps., Mex., No. 104, of Nov. 5, and 106, of Nov. 12, 1860.

⁹⁸ J. M. Callahan, Seward’s Mexican Policy.

⁹⁹ 16 Instrs., France, No. 75, Oct. 30, 1861.

¹⁰⁰ 16 Instrs., France, pp. 230–39, No. 204.

¹⁰¹ 16 Instrs., France, pp. 376–80, No. 342, May 11, 1863.

¹⁰² lnstrs., Gr. Br., No. 296, July 11, 1862; Desps. Gr. Br., No. 201, Aug. 1, 1862; 16 Instrs., Fr., p. 240, No. 205, Aug. 25, 1862; 52 Desps., Fr., No. 185, Aug. 29, 1862; 2 Notes from New Granada, June 26, 1862; 3 Communications from Agents of Colombia, Jan. 6, 1863.

¹⁰³ 12 Notes from Mex., March 19. 1863.

¹⁰⁴ 16 Instrs., Colombia, p. 52, No. 43, Oct. 28, 1862.

¹⁰⁵ Ib., pp. 144–45, No. 134.

¹⁰⁶ Sen. Ex. Doc., 112, 46th Cong., 2nd Sess.; 4 Notes from Colombia, Apr. 23, 1867.

¹⁰⁷ Baker, Works of Seward, Vol. 5, p. 414.

¹⁰⁸ 20 Instrs., Gr. Br., pp. 456–61, No. 1745, Apr. 25, 1866.

¹⁰⁹ 4 Desps., Guatemala, No. 12 (Crosby), May 6, 1862, and No. 32, May 15, 1862; 2 Desps., Costa Rica, No. 86 (Riotte), Oct. 13, 1863; 24 Desps., Colombia, No. 273 (Burton), Sept. 13, 1866.

¹¹⁰ 16 Instrs., Am. States, p. 214, No. 18 (to Riotte) June 4, 1862.

¹¹¹ 16 Instrs., Am. States (Central Am.), pp. 225–29, No. 20, July 7, 1862 (Also see No. 25 of Sept. 17, 1862).

¹¹² 1 Desps., Costa Rica, No. 44, Aug. 27, 1862.

¹¹³ 1 Communications from Venezuela, Dec. 1, 1864.

¹¹⁴ “Those who think” said he, “that the ’United States could enter as an ally into every war in which a friendly republican state on this continent becomes involved, forget that peace is the constant interest and unwavering policy of the United States * * * We have no armies for the purpose of aggressive war; no ambition for the character of a regulator. * * *

If there is any one characteristic of the United States which is more marked than any other, it is that they have from the time of Washington adhered to the principle of non-intervention, and have perseveringly declined to seek or contract entangling alliances even with the most friendly States.” (Dip. Cor., 1866, part 2, p. 413.)

¹¹⁵ 15 Instrs., Chile, pp. 333–37, No. 9, June 2, 1866; Moore, Internat. Law Digest, Vol. 6, pp. 507–08.

¹¹⁶ In the following May, Seward, in a confidential interview with the Spanish minister, said the United States was content that Cuba should indefinitely remain a colony of Spain, but must regard with very great concern its transfer to any foreign power.

(Moore, Internat. Law Digest, Vol. 6, p. 456.)

¹¹⁷ 16 Instrs. Brazil, p. 158, No. 189, Oct. 10, 1866.

¹¹⁸ Ib., p. 213 (Private), Sept. 22, 1868.

¹¹⁹ On September 2, 1863, Clay, writing to Seward from St. Petersburg, said, “Whether we move at once to maintain the Monroe Doctrine in Mexico * * * there is but one opinion among Americans, and that is that the Monroe Doctrine ought to be and shall be vindicated.” (20 Despatches, Russia, No. 19.)

On September 19 he suggested that the time had come for all America to unite in a defensive alliance to sustain the Monroe Doctrine.

¹²⁰ 17 Instrs., France.

¹²¹ 17 Instrs., France, pp. 393–95, No. 187, July 3, 1865.

¹²² 58 Despatches, Fr., No. 158, Aug. 21, 1865.

¹²³ 17 Instrs., France, pp. 432–37, No. 259.

¹²⁴ Mr. Seward’s note, of December 6, 1865, to Montholon, did not base objections to French interference in Mexico on the ground of the Monroe Doctrine, but on the ground that “the people of every State on the American continent have a right to secure for themselves a republican government if they choose, and interference by foreign States to prevent the enjoyment of such institutions deliberately established is wrongful, and in its effects antagonistical to the free and popular form of government in the United States.” (Moore, Internat. Law Digest, Vol. 6, p. 502.)

¹²⁵ Seward’s Works, Vol. 5, p. 426.

¹²⁶ Moore, Internat. Law Digest, Vol. 6, pp. 502–03.

¹²⁷ Dip. Cor., 1862, p. 726.

¹²⁸ Seward’s Works, Vol. 5, p. 557.

¹²⁹ Ib., pp. 579–83.