[T]he 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 colonization by any European powers.
Of course, the progenitor of the doctrine was John Quincy Adams, who recorded in his diary:
[House Speaker Henry Clay] entered also into conversation upon the Message, which he said seemed to be the work of several hands— And that the War and Navy Departments made a magnificent figure in it; as well as the Post-Office.— I said there was an account of a full treasury; and much concerning foreign Affairs, which was within the business of the Department of State—
He said yes, and the part relating to foreign affairs, was he thought the best part of the Message— He thought the Government had weakened itself and the tone of the Country, by withholding so long the acknowledgment of the South-American Independence: and he believed even a War for it against all Europe including even England, would be advantageous to us— I told him I believed a War for South-American Independence might be inevitable, and under certain circumstances might be expedient, but that I viewed War in a very different light from him— As necessarily placing high interests of different portions of the Union in conflict with each other; and thereby imminently endangering the Union itself—
Not a successful War, he said— But a successful War to be sure created a military influence, and power, which he considered as the greatest danger of War— He said he had thoughts of offering a Resolution, to declare this Country an Asylum for all fugitives from oppression; and to connect with it a proposal for modifying the naturalization Law, to make it more easily attainable.
How intriguing, and so germane today. Now let's go a little further back:
In 1818, during the First Seminole War, Jackson invaded Spanish Florida—likely without authorization—illegally convened a court-martial to try two British subjects for aiding the Indians, and executed them both. Many Americans, particularly in the South and West, again ignored the unconstitutional moves and high-handed approach, and instead roundly applauded those various deeds. This time Henry Clay did not remain silent. Such egomaniacal actions had to be curbed or this home-grown Bonaparte might continue his march toward military despotism.
Hmm, that also sounds vaguely familiar (small wonder that Trump loves Andy Jackson so much). Anyway, this is what Henry Clay said in the House on January 16, 1819:
However guilty these men were, they should not have been condemned or executed without the authority of the law. I will not dwell, at this time, on the effect of these precedents in foreign countries ; but I shall not pass unnoticed their dangerous influence in our own country.
Bad examples are generally set in the cases of bad men...I beseech the committee not to be so captivated with the charms of eloquence, and the appeals made to our passions and our sympathies, as to forget the fundamental principles of our government. The influence of a bad example will often be felt, when its authors and all the circumstances connected with it are no longer remembered.
How about that? Going even further back to February 22, 1810:
Another effect of war will be the reproduction and cherishing of a commercial1 spirit among us. Is there not danger that we shall become enervated by the spirit of avarice unfortunately so predominant? I do not wish to see that diffusive military character, which, pervading the whole nation, might possibly eventuate in the aggrandizement of some ambitious chief, by prostrating the liberties of the country.
Yeah, seems bad. In conclusion: America is a land of...well, the same shit over and over again.
1 - I've seen "commercial" replaced with "martial" in various texts, but I'll take what's in the Annals as definitive.
No comments:
Post a Comment