The Bent of International Intercourse [pp. 162-169]

The Bent of International Intercourse.
nations in these respects? What has put
this country, after so much early resistance,
at last within the influence of the old world,
whose tastes, manners, and thought are
known to be inimical to republican life?
Thomas Jefferson has undoubtedly given
us an important clue. During his life-time
he attributed the virtue of his fellow citizens
to the fact that "they have been separated
from the parent stock and kept from contamination, either from them or the people
of the old world, by the intervention of so
wide an ocean." Here, then, is the cause
of the change: the ocean no longer intervenes. It has practically dried up, leaving
but a narrow channel to cross. The shore
which was for Jefferson about two months
distant, is for us less than a week for travel,
and less than a moment for thought!
Tocqueville, with prophetic vision, anticipated many evils which would beset the new
Republic, but contamination by contact
with Europe he left to the finer patriotic instincts of Thomas Jefferson. The ocean was
then a real barrier between the two continents, the winds and the waves beating
back adventurous craft, and allowing few to
break their lines. No prophet, however endowed, would, one hundred years ago, have
ventured to predict this marvelous annihilation of space! Europe and America are today, for most purposes, as closely bound together, by grace of electricity and steam, as
are California and New York, parts of our
own continent and country. Aye, more so,
for in the one case the highway is free, and
the expenses of transportation less. And
the West might as well expect ultimate immunity from Eastern influence, as the United
States hope to keep its institutions intact, on
account of the intervention of what was once
an ocean, but is now a "pond."
The question then suggests itself, as a corollary, Should not America, self-reliant and
firm in her principles, discourage too close a
communication with Europe, whereby a fickle
and perverse generation might become enamored of a condemned civilization, and fall
away from their own? The Israelites, when
they observed in their wanderings that other
nations had royal establishments, cried out
for a king; and such was the force of example that they disregarded the advice of their
judges to put not their trust in princes, and
later had reason to repent it. The same
people, in servile imitation, worshiped idols
when most favored by the living God. "What
the eye does not see the heart does not crave
for." And we also know by proverbial wisdom the effects of touching pitch and loving
danger. Therefore, if the products of European life are detrimental to our own, there
should certainly be a discriminating moral
prohibition against them.
The old world bears about the same relation to the new that Judaism bears to Christianity. The ever constant surprise to the
Pharisees is that so much good should have
come out of Nazareth. The old law was rejected by the Master, in-so-far as it was inconsistent with the new. The disciples turned
their backs upon the religion of their fathers
and let the dead past bury its dead. The
new dispensation had come, better and more
hopeful.
The traditional policy of this country, as
declared by Monroe and Madison, and by
Washington himself, in his farewell address,
is to leave Europe severely alone. Says
Washington: "Europe has a set of primary
interests, which, to us, have none or a very
remote relation." Again: "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." Monroe declared
that "we should consider any attempt on
their part to extend their system to any por'tion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our
peace and safety."
Europe was, as it is plainly seen, an object
of suspicion, from which nothing was asked.
Washington thought that such were the resources, and "thle peculiarly happy and remote situation" of this country, that it could,
without loss, assume an attitude of entire independence.
Is this policy still pursued? Has not the
diplomatic service been extended unnecessarily? Has not the United States, without
1885.]
165