Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T16:10:13.501Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Henry Clay and the Poinsett Pledge Controversy of 1826

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 December 2015

Randolph Campbell
Randolph Campbell*
Affiliation:
North Texas State University, Benton, Texas
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It is well known that the initial task of interpreting the Monroe Doctrine as a functional policy in international relations fell largely on John Quincy Adams. Somewhat ironically, the noncolonization principle in Monroe's famed Annual Message of 1823 for which Adams, then Secretary of State, was most responsible, received relatively little attention in the 1820's. Leaders in the United States and Spanish America alike were more concerned with the meaning of the other main principle involved in the Message—nonintervention. What were the practical implications of Monroe's warning that the United States would consider intervention by a European power in the affairs of any independent American nation “ as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States ” ? John Quincy Adams laid the groundwork for an answer to this question in July, 1824, when Colombia, alarmed by rumors of French interference in the wars for independence, sought a treaty of alliance. The President and Congress, Adams replied, would take the necessary action to support nonintervention if a crisis arose, but there would be no alliance. In fact, he added, it would be necessary for the United States to have an understanding with certain European powers whose principles and interests also supported nonintervention before any action could be taken or any alliance completed to uphold it. The position taken by the Secretary of State cooled enthusiasm for the Monroe Doctrine, but Spanish American leaders did not accept this rebuff in 1824 as final.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Americas , Volume 28 , Issue 4 , April 1972 , pp. 429 - 440
Copyright
Copyright © Academy of American Franciscan History 1972 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Robertson, William S., “South America and the Monroe Doctrine, 1824–1828,” Political Science Quarterly, 30 (March, 1915), 87–92 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Manning, William R., Editor, Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States Concerning the Independence of the Latin American Nations (New York, 1925), 2, 1281–1282,Google Scholar José María Salazar to Adams, July 2, 1824; I, 224–226, Adams to Salazar, August 6, 1824.

2 Clay, Henry, The Papers of Henry Clay, edited by Hopkins, James F. (Lexington, Ky., 1959– ), 3, 597.Google Scholar

3 Bemis, Samuel F., John Quincy Adams and the Foundations of American Foreign Policy (New York, 1949), 538.Google Scholar Clay’s friendly approval of Adams’s role in announcing the Monroe Doctrine is described in Adams, John Quincy, Memoirs of John Quincy Adams Comprising Portions of His Diary from 1795–1848, edited by Adams, Charles F. (Philadelphia, 1874–1877), 6, 224.Google Scholar

4 Perkins, Dexter, The Monroe Doctrine, 1823–1826 (Cambridge, Mass., 1927), 209–210,Google Scholar for example, devotes only two paragraphs to the Poinsett pledge question. Parton, Dorothy M., The Diplomatic Career of Joel R. Poinsett (Washington, 1934), 111–112,Google Scholar explains the matter in a footnote while Rippy, J. Fred, Joel R. Poinsett, Versatile American (Durham, N.C., 1935)Google Scholar does not mention it. Johnson, Guion G., “The Monroe Doctrine and the Panama Congress,” James Sprunt Historical Studies, 19, #2 (1927), 67–71,Google Scholar is one of the fullest published accounts of the controversy.

5 Alvarez, Alejandro, The Monroe Doctrine (New York, 1924), 118,Google Scholar Bolívar’s “Letter from Jamaica” of September 6, 1815; 141–143, Invitation by Bolívar to the Congress of Panama, December 7, 1824; Masur, Gerhard, Simon Bolivar (Albuquerque, N. M., 1948), 265–270, 585Google Scholar; Whitaker, Arthur P., The Western Hemisphere Idea: Its Rise and Decline (Ithaca, N. Y., 1954), 25.Google Scholar Bolívar’s attitude toward the United States and Great Britain on this question is explained in Bolívar, Simón, Selected Writings of Bolivar, edited by Bierck, Harold Jr. (New York, 1951), 2, 489,Google Scholar Bolívar to Francisco de Paula Santander, April 7, 1825; II, 543, Bolívar to Santander, October 21, 1825.

6 Alvarez, , Monroe Doctrine, 145, Santander to Bolívar, February 6, 1825; 146–147, Guadalupe Victoria to Bolívar, February 23, 1825.Google Scholar

7 Manning, , Diplomatic Correspondence, 3, 1641,Google Scholar Victoria to Adams, November 1, 1825; III, 1642–1643, Obregón to Clay, November 3, 1825.

8 Ibid., II, 1286–1288, Salazar to Clay, November 2, 1825.

9 Clay, Henry, The Works of Henry Clay, Comprising His Life, Correspondence and Speeches, edited by Colton, Calvin (New York, 1904), 4, 134,Google Scholar Clay to Francis Brooke, November 30, 1825. The same idea is expressed in the Henry Clay Papers, Library of Congress, Clay to James Brown, November 14, 1825.

10 Clay’s replies to Mexico and Colombia are in American State Papers, Foreign Relations, V, 837–839, Clay to Obregón and Clay to Salazar, November 30, 1825. (This source is hereinafter cited as ASP, FR. )Perkins, , Monroe Doctrine, 1823–1826, 206–20,Google Scholar argues that Clay should have destroyed immediately any illusions the Spanish Americans had concerning an alliance. After the Panama Congress came to nothing in 1826, Clay succinctly explained the Administration’s reasons for accepting the invitations in somewhat general terms. See the account of his speech at Lewisburg, Virginia (now West Virginia) in Niles’ Weekly Register,, XXXI September 13, 1826, 60–62.

11 ASP, FR, V, 834–836.

12 Ibid., V, 857–865.

13 Ibid., V, 852–854.

14 Ibid., V, 854–855.

15 Register of Debates in Congress, 1825–1831, 19th Congress, 1st Session, II, part 1, 155–157, 162–164.

16 Ibid., 200–201, 244–247, 283–284, 296–297; ASP, FR, V, 875–879.

17 Richardson, James D., Editor, A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789–1897 (Washington, 1907), 3, 896–906.Google Scholar

18 ASP,FR, V, 900–904.

19 Debates in Congress, 19th Congress, 1st Session, II, part 2, 1765–1820.

20 Manning, , Diplomatic Correspondence, 1, 268–269.Google Scholar Clay to House of Representatives, March 29, 1826; ASP,FR, V, 909–910.

21 Debates in Congress, 19th Congress, 1st Session, II, part 2, 2029, 2065–2073.

22 Ibid., 2318–2319.

23 Ibid., 2195–2215.

24 Perkins, , Monroe Doctrine, 1823–1826, 209–210.Google Scholar

25 Debates in Congress, 19th Congress, 1st Session, II, part 2. 2254–2277, 2514.

26 Remini, Robert V., The Election of Andrew Jackson (Philadelphia, 1963, 39–41)Google Scholar; Reinhold, Frances L., “New Research on the First Pan American Congress held at Panama in 1826,” Hispanic American Historical Review, 17 (August, 1938), 355 Google Scholar; Adams, , Memoirs, 7, 111.Google Scholar

27 Van Buren’s remark is quoted in Schurz, Carl, Henry Clay (Boston, 1893), 1, 273.Google Scholar All the points of opposition in Congress are summarized in Sanders, Ralph, “Congressional Reaction in the United States to the Panama Congress of 1826,” The Americas, 11 (October, 1954), 141–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

28 Manning, , Diplomatic Correspondence, 3, 1657–1658, Poinsett to Clay, May 6, 1826.Google Scholar

29 Alvarez, , Monroe Doctrine, 132–133.Google Scholar

30 Gaston Nerval ( de Medina, Raul Diez), Autopsy of the Monroe Doctrine (New-York, 1934), 122–125 Google Scholar; Garcia-Merou, Martin, Historia de La Diplomacia Americana (Buenos Aires, 1904), 348.Google Scholar