Page images

shall be passed in conformity thereto, by which any citizen, of either of the states in this Union, shall be excluded from the enjoyment of any of the privileges and immunities to which such citizen is entitled under the constitution of the United States: Provided, That the legislature of the said state, by a solemn public act, shall declare the assent of the said state to the said fundamental condition, and shall transmit to the President of the United States, on or before the fourth Monday in November next, an authentic copy of the said act; upon the receipt whereof, the President, by proclamation, shall announce the fact; whereupon, and without any further proceeding on the part of Congress, the admission of the said state into this Union shall be considered as complete.

[U.S. Stat. at Large, III., 645.]

No. 80. Monroe's Message enunciating the Monroe Doctrine

December 2, 1823

THE triumph of Napoleon in Spain in 1808 was followed by a succession of revolts in the Spanish colonies in America, and by 1821 all the colonies had established revolutionary governments. In 1823 France, with the sanction of the so-called Holy Alliance, had restored Ferdinand VII. of Spain to his throne; and later in the year another meeting of the allies was suggested to consider the question of aiding Spain to reduce its colonies to submission. In the meantime, in September, 1821, a Russian ukase had asserted the claim of that country to all the Pacific coast of North America north of the 51st parallel, and forbidden foreigners to trade in the region. The claim of Russia was opposed by both Great Britain and the United States. A proposal from Great Britain, in September, 1823, "that the two countries should unite in a declaration against European intervention in the colonies," was, however, declined. In his annual message of Dec. 2, 1823, Monroe, in discussing the relations of the United States with Russia, Spain, and the SpanishAmerican colonies, stated the policy which afterwards came to be known as the Monroe doctrine. The principal portions of the message dealing with the subject are given in the extracts following.

REFERENCES. Text of the message in House and Senate Journals, 18th Cong., 1st Sess.; the extracts here given are from the Senate Journal, 11, 21-23. On the origin of the statements in the message, see J. Q. Adams's Memoirs, VI.; Madison's Writings (ed. 1865), III., 339, 340; Jefferson's Works (ed. 1854), VII., 315–317. Correspondence relating to the Russian

treaty of 1824 is in Amer. State Papers, Foreign Relations, V., 434-471; the correspondence with Spain, ib., V., 368–428, throws light on the condition of the colonies. The policy stated by Monroe had been frequently enunciated, though less definitely, before 1823; interesting extracts, from 1787 onwards, are collected in Amer. History Leaflets, No. 4. The leading discussions of the Monroe doctrine are Gilman's Monroe, chap. 7 (with valuable bibliography, Appendix IV.); G. F. Tucker's Monroe Doctrine; Wharton's Intern. Law Digest (ed. 1887), I., 268-298; Snow's American Diplomacy, 237-294.

At the proposal of the Russian imperial government, made through the minister of the Emperor residing here, a full power and instructions have been transmitted to the Minister of the United States at St. Petersburgh, to arrange, by amicable negotiation, the respective rights and interests of the two nations on the northwest coast of this continent. A similar proposal had been made by his Imperial Majesty to the government of Great Britain, which has likewise been acceded to. . . . 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 colonization by any European powers.





It was stated at the commencement of the last session, that a great effort was then making in Spain and Portugal, to improve the condition of the people of those countries, and that it appeared to be conducted with extraordinary moderation. It need scarcely be remarked, that the result has been, so far, very different from what was then anticipated. Of events in that quarter of the globe, with which we have so much intercourse, and from which we derive our origin, we have always been anxious and interested spectators. The citizens of the United States cherish sentiments the most friendly, in favor of the liberty and happiness of their fellow men on that side of the Atlantic. In the wars of the European powers, in matters relating to themselves, we have never taken any part, nor does it comport with our policy so to do. It is only when our rights are invaded, or seriously menaced, that we resent injuries, or make preparation for our defence. With the movements in this hemisphere, we are, of necessity,

more immediately connected, and by causes which must be obvious to all enlightened and impartial observers. The political system of the allied powers is essentially different, in this respect, from that of America. This difference proceeds from that which exists in their respective governments. And to the defence of our own, which has been achieved by the loss of so much blood and treasure, and matured by the wisdom of their most enlightened citizens, and under which we have enjoyed unexampled felicity, this whole nation is devoted. 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, 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 towards the United States.

[blocks in formation]

No. 81. The Bank Controversy: Jackson's First Annual Message

December 8, 1829

THE charter of the Bank of the United States did not expire until 1836, three years after the close of the term for which Jackson had been elected; it was probable, however, that the bank would make early application for a renewal of its privileges. Jackson undoubtedly sympathized with those who feared the political and economic power of a great financial monopoly; the controversy involving the branch bank at Portsmouth, N. H., however, was probably the occasion for beginning his attack on the bank, which he did in his first annual message, transmitted to Congress Dec. 8, 1829. In the House this portion of the message was referred to the Committee of Ways and Means, which made an elaborate report April 13, 1830, through McDuffie of South Carolina, sustaining the bank. May 10 resolutions offered by Potter of North

Carolina, against paper money and the bank, and against the renewal of the charter, were, by a vote of 89 to 66, laid on the table. May 26 Wayne of Georgia submitted resolutions calling on the Secretary of the Treasury for a great variety of information about the conduct and business of the bank; on the 29th these were disagreed to. In the Senate the Committee on Finance, through Smith of Maryland, reported, March 29, against any change in the currency.

[ocr errors]

REFERENCES. Text of the message in House and Senate Journals, 21st Cong., 1st Sess.; the extract here given is from the House Journal, 27, 28. For the discussions, see Cong. Debates, VI. McDuffie's report is printed as House Rep. 358; it is also in Cong. Debates, VI., part II., appendix, 104-133. Smith's report is Senate Rep. 104. Documents connected with the Portsmouth branch controversy are collected in Niles's Register, XXXVII., XXXVIII.; Ingham's "Address," in his own defence, is in ib., XLII., 315, 316. The bank controversy as a whole is treated at length in all larger histories of the period, and in biographies of leading statesmen of the time. Niles's Register, XXXVII.-XLV., gives invaluable documentary material. Benton's Abridgment, X.-XII., gives full reports of debates; the same author's Thirty Years' View, I., is also of great value.

The charter of the Bank of the United States expires in 1836, and its stockholders will most probably apply for a renewal of their privileges. In order to avoid the evils resulting from precipitancy in a measure involving such important principles, and such deep pecuniary interests, I feel that I cannot, in justice to the parties interested, too soon present it to the deliberate consideration of the Legislature and the People. Both the constitutionality and the expediency of the law creating this Bank are well questioned by a large portion of our fellow-citizens; and it must be admitted by all, that it has failed in the great end of establishing a uniform and sound currency.

Under these circumstances, if such an institution is deemed essential to the fiscal operations of the Government, I submit to the wisdom of the Legislature whether a national one, founded upon the credit of the Government and its revenues, might not be devised, which would avoid all constitutional difficulties; and, at the same time, secure all the advantages to the Government and country that were expected to result from the present Bank.


No. 82.

The Bank Controversy: Jackson's
Second Annual Message

December 7, 1830

LITTLE attention was paid by Congress to so much of Jackson's second annual message as related to the Bank of the United States. December 9, in the House, an attempt by Wayne of Georgia to have that portion of the message referred to a select committee, instead of to the Committee of Ways and Means, was unsuccessful, the vote being 67 to 108. February 2, 1831, the Senate, by a vote of 20 to 23, rejected Benton's motion for leave to bring in a joint resolution declaring that the charter ought not to be renewed. The result in each of these cases was a victory for the bank.

REFERENCES. Text of the message in House and Senate Journals, 21st Cong., 2d Sess.; the extract here given is from the Senate Journal, 30, 31. For the discussions, see Cong. Debates, or Benton's Abridgment, XI.

The importance of the principles involved in the inquiry, whether it will be proper to recharter the Bank of the United States, requires that I should again call the attention of Congress to the subject. Nothing has occurred to lessen, in any degree, the dangers which many of our citizens apprehend from that institution, as at present organized. In the spirit of improvement and compromise which distinguishes our country and its institutions, it becomes us to inquire, whether it be not possible to secure the advantages afforded by the present bank, through the agency of a Bank of the United States, so modified in its principles and structure as to obviate constitutional and other objections.

It is thought practicable to organize such a bank, with the necessary officers, as a branch of the Treasury Department, based on the public and individual deposites, without power to make loans or purchase property, which shall remit the funds of the Government, and the expense of which may be paid, if thought advisable, by allowing its officers to sell bills of exchange to private individuals at a moderate premium. Not being a corporate body, having no stockholders, debtors, or property, and but few officers, it would not be obnoxious to the constitutional objections, which are urged against the present bank; and having no means to operate on the hopes, fears, or interests, of large masses of the community, it would be shorn of the influence which makes that

« PreviousContinue »