1822-3] Congress of Verona. Monroe's Declaration

369

direction, now took heart, and in March, 1822, recommended recognition. In this the House of Representatives gladly concurred, and without one dissenting vote appropriated $100,000 to meet the expense of sending Ministers. The Senate agreed, and on May 4, 1822, Monroe signed the Bill. In this way the United States recognised the independence of the South American Colonies of Spain.

In September the Allies met at Vienna, but soon adjourned to Verona, where in October, 1822, the affairs of Spain were carefully considered. Certain changes, it was agreed, should be demanded in the Spanish Constitution; and, if they were not made, a French army, supported, if necessary, by troops from Russia, Austria, and Prussia, should invade Spain. The demand was made and refused; the Ministers of the Allies left Madrid; and on April 7, 1823, a French army entered Spain. Then Canning, the British Foreign Secretary, began to act. He knew, as everybody knew, that when the Allies had restored absolute monarchy in Spain they would go on and attempt to restore to her the rebellious colonies in South America lately recognised by the United States as independent republics. Turning to the American Minister, Richard Rush, he asked if the United States would join with Great Britain in a declaration that, while neither Power desired the colonies of Spain for herself, it was impossible to look with indifference on European intervention in their affairs. Rush had no instructions, but he replied that the United States "would regard as highly unjust, and as fruitful of disastrous consequences, any attempt on the part of any European Power to take possession of the colonies by conquest, by cession, or on any other ground or pretext whatsoever "; and he promised to join in the declaration if Great Britain would first recognise the independence of the little republics. This Canning would not agree to; so the joint declaration was never made. When Rush's report of his conversation with Canning reached the Secretary of State and was shown to Monroe, the President was sorely puzzled how to act. He turned, therefore, for advice to ex-presidents Jefferson and Madison, and, encouraged by them, laid the matter before his cabinet. With its approval he announced in his Annual Message to Congress, on December 2, 1823, the three principles ever since known as the Monroe Doctrine.

The first related to the conduct of the Allies, and reads thus: "We owe it, therefore, to candor and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those Powers, to declare that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety. With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European Power we have not interfered, and shall not interfere. But with the governments who have declared their independence and maintained it, and whose independence we have, on great consideration and on just principles

C. M. H. VII.

24

370

The Monroe Doctrine

[1823

acknowledged, we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any other manner their destiny, by any European Power, in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States."

The second announced the policy of the United States towards affairs in Europe, in these words: "Our policy in regard to Europe, which was adopted at an early stage of the wars which have so long agitated that quarter of the globe, nevertheless remains the same, which is not to interfere in the internal concerns of any of its Powers; to consider the government, de facto, as the legitimate government for us; to cultivate friendly relations with it, and to preserve those relations by a frank, firm, and manly policy, meeting in all instances the just claims of every Power, submitting to injuries from none. But, in regard to these continents, circumstances are eminently and conspicuously different. It is impossible that the Allied Powers should extend their political system to any portion of either continent without endangering our peace and happiness; nor can anyone believe that our southern brethren, if left to themselves, would adopt it of their own accord. It is equally impossible, therefore, that we should behold such interposition, in any form, with indifference."

The doctrine was to hold good for all time, and, put in plain language, was this: (1) The United States will "not interfere in the internal concerns" of any European Power. (2) "But, in regard to these continents [North and South America], circumstances are eminently and conspicuously different"; and, if any European Power attempts at any future time to extend its political system to any part of this hemisphere" for the purpose of oppressing" the nations or "controlling in any other manner their destiny," the United States will interfere.

The third principle was called forth by the claims of Russia to the north-western coast, and was stated as follows: "In the discussions to which this interest has given rise, and in the arrangements by which they may terminate, the occasion has been judged proper for asserting, as a principle in which the rights and interests of the United States are involved, that the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonisation by any European Powers."

In February, 1822, the Russian Minister, Chevalier de Politica, had placed in the hands of the Secretary of State a copy of an edict of the Emperor Alexander, which set forth that the pursuits of commerce, whaling, and fishing, and indeed of all other industries, whether on the islands or in the ports and gulfs of the north-western coast of America, from Behring Straits to 51° north latitude, were exclusively granted to Russian subjects. Foreign ships were, therefore, not to come within one hundred Italian miles of coasts or islands. So unexpected an attempt to define the limits of the Oregon country alarmed the President; and

1822-7] Conventions with Russia and Great Britain

371

Adams was instructed to demand the grounds on which the claim was based. He was told that the Russians had long maintained a settlement at Novo-Archangelsk in latitude 57°, and that latitude 51° was about half-way between that settlement and the mouth of the Columbia river. The restriction forbidding an approach to the coast was made to prevent foreigners carrying on illicit trade with the natives to the injury of the Russian American Fur Company. Adams protested against these doctrines; but the Russian Minister declined to discuss the question; and Monroe, in December, 1822, suggested to Congress that the time. had come to think seriously of occupying Oregon. Congress refused to consider the question; and so the matter rested when Baron de Tuyl, the new Russian Minister, requested that the issue should be settled by negotiation at St Petersburg. The invitation was accepted; and, while Adams was preparing instructions, the Baron called one day at the State Department and was told that Russia's claim to a right to colonise the Pacific coast could not be listened to; and that both North and South America were closed to colonisation by European Powers because of the independent position the nations of the New World had assumed and maintained. The Minister dissented vigorously; but Adams stood firm. He reasserted the principle in his instructions to the American Minister at St Petersburg; and Monroe announced it in his famous message of December, 1823.

Great Britain meantime had protested against the imperial ukase, and had likewise been invited to negotiate for a settlement of the boundary issue. But, when it was found that the British envoy could discuss but could not settle the question, the American Minister offered 55° as the northern boundary of Oregon. Russia offered 54° 40', which was accepted and embodied in a convention with Russia, signed in April, 1824. Great Britain in a convention with Russia in 1825 accepted the same line; and 54° 40' became the boundary between Alaska and Oregon. In 1827, as the ten-year period of joint occupancy was drawing to a close, Great Britain and the United States, by a new convention, continued the agreement indefinitely.

The announcement of the principles which compose the Monroe Doctrine was hailed, both in Great Britain and America, with delight. The British people, press, and statesmen were loud in their praise of the firm stand that Monroe had taken against the Allies. "The question,” said Brougham, "with regard to South America is now disposed of, or nearly so; for an event has recently happened than which no event has dispersed greater joy, exultation, and gratitude over all the freemen of Europe. That event, which is decisive of the subject in respect to South America, is the message of the President of the United States to Congress."

In America the interest aroused by the promulgation of the Monroe Doctrine was soon overshadowed by a hotly contested presidential election. No part of the Constitution gave less popular satisfaction

372

Presidential elections

[1796-1800

than the method of electing a President. As originally provided, each State was to appoint, in such manner as the State legislature might direct, as many presidential electors as it had senators and representatives in Congress. The electors were to meet in their respective States; and each was to write upon a ballot the name of two persons. A list of all names voted for and the number of votes for each was then to be made, and a certified copy sent to the President of the Senate, who, in the presence of the House and Senate, on the appointed day, was to open and count the votes. The person having the greatest number of votes (if a majority of the whole) was to be President of the United States; and he who received the next highest was to be Vice-president. Under this system the President was to be an official chosen and elected by sundry citizens having no connexion with the government, for no senator, representative, or office-holder may be an elector; he was to be eligible for any number of terms; and he was to enter upon his high office bound by no pledges, representing no section, and belonging to no party. He was to be the choice of fellow-citizens called from private life to act as electors without collusion, and perfectly free to vote for any duly qualified men they pleased.

So long as Washington consented to serve as President, the system of election worked well; but in 1796 he declined to serve a third term; and the first contest for the presidency took place. The Federalist electors gave all their votes for the office of President to John Adams, but scattered them so widely for that of Vice-president that their second candidate, Thomas Pinckney, fell twelve votes behind Adams. The Republicans agreed to vote for Thomas Jefferson, who was but three votes behind Adams, intervening between the two Federalist candidates, and was thus elected Vice-president. The defects of the system from the point of view of party government were now clearly illustrated. Pinckney was defeated because the Federalist electors had scattered their votes among many candidates instead of concentrating them on two. When the next election occurred, in 1800, both parties attempted to prevent the recurrence of such a defeat. Each Federalist elector was instructed to vote for John Adams, and all save one to vote for Charles C. Pinckney; and they implicitly obeyed. The Republican leaders at a private "caucus" selected Jefferson and Burr as their candidates, but failed to designate the man who should not vote for Burr. In consequence of this omission Jefferson and Burr received an equal number of votes 73 each; and therefore neither was elected President. But, as this number exceeded by eight the votes cast for Adams, he was defeated. Consequently no President was chosen by the electoral colleges of the States. The duty of deciding whether Jefferson or Burr should be President thus devolved on the House of Representatives; and Jefferson was chosen.

The Constitution plainly needed amendment; and, before the election

1800-24]

Presidential elections: the Caucus

373

of 1804 occurred it was altered by providing that each elector, instead of writing two names on one ballot without designating which was his choice for President, should cast two separate ballots, one for President and one for Vice-president. But the Republicans went a step further, and, at a "caucus" of Republican members of Congress, formally nominated Jefferson and George Clinton as their candidates. By so doing they deprived their party electors of all choice, required them to vote for these two men and no others, and thus reduced the electoral colleges to mere boards of registration. The custom of "caucus" nomination thus introduced was followed in 1808, in 1812, in 1816, in 1820, and, for the last time, in 1824. The Federalists, though hopelessly in the minority, continued to put forward candidates (selected in private "caucus" by free leaders) till 1816, when they ceased to be a national party, and never again named candidates. From the election of Monroe in 1816, therefore, there was but one great national party - the Republican. The old issues, growing out of foreign complications, disappeared with the peace of 1815. No domestic issues which could divide the people into two great parties existed; and, while they were growing up afresh, the Republicans formed the only national party. In 1820, therefore, Monroe had no competitor. He was the only candidate before the electors, and would have received every electoral vote, had not one elector thrown away his vote lest Monroe should be unanimously elected, an honour never conferred on any man save Washington.

With the second election of Monroe the Republican party began to go to pieces. The old leaders of Revolutionary days were now dead or in retirement. Among the active party leaders there was none whose services so overshadowed those of others as to point him out as the one man entitled to party support. The friends of each leader therefore rallied about their favourite; and, in the course of two years, five candidates representing the four great sections of the country and nominated by members of State legislatures, by mass meetings, and by the Congressional "caucus" were put before the public. These men were John Quincy Adams of Massachusetts, Secretary of State; Henry Clay of Kentucky, Speaker of the House of Representatives; Andrew Jackson, a citizen of Tennessee; John C. Calhoun of South Carolina, Secretary of War; and William H. Crawford of Georgia, Secretary of the Treasury, who was chosen by the Congressional "caucus."

The selection of these men is notable for many reasons. It meant the absence of great party issues; it meant a revolt against the old method of "caucus "nomination, a method now denounced throughout the country as "King Caucus "; it meant the assertion by the people of a right to have a voice in the nomination and election of a President, a condition which the framers of the Constitution never contemplated. In the first election (1789) eleven States participated. In four of these the people took part in the election of electors; but in seven the State legislatures