Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

CHAPTER XXXVIII.

AMERICAN POLICY OF NON-INTERVENTION.

As to the abolition of national neutrality, and the adoption of the intervention policy of Kossuth, which is now urged by the Free German Association, that, it is to be hoped, will only take place when the American people no longer revere the name of Washington, nor respect the lessons of wisdom taught them in his Farewell Address. As was truly and eloquently remarked by Commodore Stockton, at the Congressional Celebration of Washington's Birth-day, in 1852, "we shall be true to our country, the American people will be true to their country and to its Constitution, just so long as we are all true to the memory of Washington. Through all time, the virtue of our people will be guaged by the intensity of their veneration for his precepts of wisdom, by the vigor of their appreciation for his character, and by the respect which they cherish and manifest for his virtues. If the time shall come when unholy ambition, the lust for power, and foreign conquest or the glory of expensive war, shall animate our public men, and their fierce passions and dangerous designs cannot be checked by the remembrance of the probity of Washington and his policy, then indeed the golden age of this republic will be forgotten. If the time shall come, when, under the influence of generous, hospitable emotions, or ill-considered partiality, our people shall rashly seek to involve the republic in the stormy and wretched vortex of European politics; and, abandoning the ground of Washington, seek to place themselves on that of foreign powers-forgetful that their first and chief duty is to take care of their own country-then, if the farewell warnings of the Father of his Country cannot recall them to a true perception of the duties of patriotism, nothing but those calamities which entangling alliances, and the long and fearful train of evils which float in the wake of pernicious war, will reveal the delusion, the folly, and the errors of their degenerate age."

Those who now demand the abolition of neutrality, and the active intervention of our government in the affairs of other nations, ask nothing more nor less than to repudiate the Washingtonian policy, and no longer heed the warning voice of his Farewell Address. In that memorable State paper he thus cautions his countrymen on this subject:

“The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith Here let us stop

"Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

"Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people, under an efficient government, the period is not far off when me may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon, to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.

"Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?"

Nor is this the only expression of his opinion on the subject. Numerous letters written by him may be referred to in which similar views were expressed. In one, addressed to Patrick Henry, dated October 9, 1795, he says:

"My ardent desire is, and my aim has been, so far as depended on the Executive department, to comply strictly with all our engagements, foreign and domestic, but to keep the United States free from political connections with any other country-to see them independent of all, and under the influence of none. In a word, I want an American character, that the powers of Europe may be convinced we act for ourselves and not for others. This, in my judgment, is the only way to be respected abroad and happy at home," &c.

This is emphatic enough. Nothing left for exegetical skill to exercise itself upon. His ardent desire is to keep "the United States free from political connections with any other country." In another, addressed to Gouverneur Morris, dated December 22, 1795, he uses this language:

"My policy has been, and will continue to be, while I have the honor to remain in the administration, to maintain friendly terms with, but to be independent, of all the nations of the earth; to share in the broils of none; to fulfill our own engagements; to supply the wants and to be carriers for them all," &c.

Again, in a letter written by him to Alexander Hamilton, in 1796, when Lafayette was imprisoned in Austria, and an effort was made by Americans to release him, he uses the following strong and remarkable language:

"The result of my reflections on this subject, and which I have communicated to the two young men, is, that although I am convinced in my own mind that Mr. Lafayette will be held in confinement by the combined powers until peace is established, yet, to satisfy them and their friends of my disposition to facilitate their wishes, so far as can be done with any propriety on my part, I would, as a private citizen, express in a letter to the Emperor my wish, and what I believe to be the wishes of this country towards that

:

gentleman, viz. that the liberation of him, conditioned on his repairing hither, would be a grateful measure."

General Washington, as we all know, must have had more feeling upon this subject than could have found an existence in the bosom of any other living man. Lafayette was his friend and companion in our conflict for liberty; and with all those generous, and noble, and heaven-descended emotions that must have filled the breast of that great and good man; yet, under circumstances of so much feeling and sympathy, such was the regard of Washington for his own country, that he refused to interpose, even in that case, except as a private citizen. Yet now we are told, by these foreign reformers, that, in this enlightened day of "progress," Washington was declaring a policy good for that day, but not for this, when his mighty soul, heaving with affection for his companion in arms, could not so far forget his own policy, and what was due to his country, as to write an official letter in favor of his release. Again, upon a similar occasion, in writing to Hamilton, when Mr. Talleyrand de Perigord was here, General Washington said:

66

My wish is, and it is not less my duty as an officer of the republic, to avoid offence to powers with whom we are in friendship, by conduct towards their proscribed citizens which would be disagreeable to them; whilst, at the same time, these immigrants, if people of good character, ought to understand that they will be protected in their persons and property, and will be entitled to all the benefits of our laws. For the rest they must depend upon their own behavior, and the civilities of citizens at large, who are less restrained by political considerations than the officers of government must be."

Here, again, we find General Washington declaring the same principle, in language so strong, so clear, and so plain, that none can misunderstand him. And in a letter to William Heath, dated May 20, 1797, he again declares:

"No policy, in my opinion, can be more clearly demonstrated than that we should do justice to all, and have no political connection with any of the European powers beyond those which result from and serve to regulate our commerce with them," &c.

This is equally explicit. It shows distinctly the only object which, in his judgment, would justify political connection with foreign countries, viz.: a connection growing out of or serving to regulate our commerce with them. In a letter to Thomas Pinckney, dated May 28, 1797, he says:

“A little time will show who are its [the country's] true friends, or, what is synonymous, who are true Americans-those who are stimulating a foreign nation to unfriendly acts, repugnant to our rights and dignity, and advocating all its measures, or those whose only aim has been to maintain a strict neutrality, to keep the United States out of the vortex of European politics and preserve them in peace."

And still later, in a letter to Gen. Lafayette, dated Dec. 25, 1798, he says:

"On the politics of Europe I shall express no opinion, nor make any inquiry who is right or who is wrong. I wish well to all nations and to all men. My politics are plain and simple. I think every nation has a right to establish that form of government under which it conceives it may live most happy, provided it infracts no right or is not dangerous to others; and that no governments ought to interfere with the internal concerns of another, except for the security of what is due to themselves."

Such was the policy of Washington, and such has been the policy of our government ever since its establishment, as might easily be shown by historical references, among which it may not be out of place to note the following language used by Henry Clay, while Secretary of State, in his instructions to Mr. Poinsett, relative to the Panama mission:

[ocr errors]

« Finally, I have it in charge to direct your attention to the subject of the forms of government, and to the cause of free institutions on this continent. The United States never have been, and are not, animated by any spirit of propagandism. They prefer to all other forms of government, and are perfectly contented with their own confederacy. Allowing no foreign interference, either in the formation or the conduct of their government, they are equally scrupulous in refraining from all interference in the original structure or subsequent interior movements of the government of other independent nations. Indifferent they are not, because they cannot be indifferent to the happiness of any nation. But the interest which they are accustomed to cherish in the wisdom or folly which may mark the course of other powers in the adoption and execution of their political system, is rather a sympathy of feeling than a principle of action."

And such, too, was the language of Gen. Jackson, in his fourth annual message to Congress, as will be seen by the following extract from it :

"In the view I have given of our connection with foreign powers, allusions have been made to their domestic disturbances or foreign wars, to their revolutions or dissensions. It may be proper to observe, that this is done solely in cases where those events affect our political relations with them, or to show their operation on our commerce. Further than this, it is neither our policy nor our right to interfere. Our best wishes on all occasions, our good offices when required, will be afforded to promote the domestic tranquillity and foreign peace of all nations with whom we have any intercourse. Any intervention in their affairs further than this, even by the expression of an official opinion, is contrary to our principles of international policy, and will always be avoided."

Thus far our government has perseveringly adhered to the advice given by Washington on this subject. Its policy, to use the language of Jefferson, has been: "Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever State or persuasion, religious or political; peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none;" and it is most devoutly to be hoped that there must be other reasons than those urged by the Free German Association, or any which have yet been suggested from any other source, to make true and patriotic Americans depart from

it.

"We have seen great principles laid down by Washington, for the administration of this government," said Henry Clay, in a letter, dated February 21, 1852, written but a few months before his death, " especially in regard to its foreign policy, drawn in question, his wisdom doubted, and serious efforts made and making to subvert those maxims of policy by. the conformity to which this nation has risen to its present unparalleled greatness. We have seen serious attempts to induce the United States to depart from its great principles of peace and neutrality, of avoiding all entangling alliances with foreign powers, and of confining ourselves to the growth, improvement and prosperity, of our new country, and, in place of them, to plunge ourselves, by perilous proceedings and insensible degrees, in the wars of Europe. Under such circumstances, it is right, and proper, and useful, to repair to the great fountain of Washington's patriotism, and, drinking deep at it, to return refreshed and invigorated by the draught."

[ocr errors]

And who can doubt the wisdom and propriety of the suggestion here made by the great statesman? A reassertion of his principles, said Theo. Frelinghuysen, about the same time, was never more needed than at this time, and we must still hope that the sober reflection of our people will yield to the wisdom and truth of his counsels." Washington's policy was a wise, enlightened, comprehensive American policy. His object, as has been well remarked by Senator Toombs, was that to which his whole life had been devoted, to protect and to perpetuate the liberty and independence of his country. The special dangers against which he warned his countrymen were "political connection" with European governments, "implicating ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships and enmities," quitting "our own to stand on foreign ground," "interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe," "entangling our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice," subjecting "the will and policy" of this country "to the will and policy" of other countries. He negatives the reasoning as well as the fact of entangling our country in European politics. His argument answers all the plausible fallacies in favor of a crusade for pulling down despotisms or building up republics; and asserts clearly and distinctly our duty to act justly and impartially towards all nations, no matter what may be their form of government— towards all belligerents, no matter what may be their cause of quarrel. He sought to place his country in a position, where, neither entangled by foreign alliances, nor compromitted with foreign politics or interest, she might, on all occasions and in every emergency, freely adopt that policy which might be best calculated to protect her own rights, maintain her own interests, and promote her own happiness. If it be necessary to

« AnteriorContinuar »