The rapid advance of the United States in the Caribbean, described in the preceding pages, naturally aroused the fears of the smaller Latin-American states and lent color to the charge that the United States had converted the Monroe Doctrine from a policy of benevolent protection to one of imperialistic aggression. As a matter of fact, the Monroe Doctrine has never been regarded by the United States as in any sense a self-denying declaration. President Monroe said that we should consider any attempt on the part of the European powers "to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety." The primary object of the policy outlined by President Monroe was, therefore, the peace and safety of the United States. The protection of Latin-American states against European intervention was merely a means of protecting ourselves. While the United States thus undertook to prevent the encroachment of European powers in Latin America, it has never admitted any limitation upon the possibility of its own expansion in this region. The silence of the Monroe Doctrine on this question has been remedied to some extent by President Wilson, who, at the outset of his administration, gave the assurance that "the United States will never again seek one additional foot of territory by conquest." This declaration, followed by his refusal to be forced into war with Mexico, has done much to remove the suspicion with which our recent policies in the Caribbean have been regarded by our Southern neighbors. His sincerity was further attested by his ready acceptance of the proffered mediation of the A B C powers in the Mexican embroglio and by the encouragement which he has given to the Pan American movement. FOOTNOTES: [259] E. D. Adams, "British Interests and Activities in Texas, 1838-1845" (1910); Justin H. Smith, "The Annexation of Texas" (1911) and "The War with Mexico," 2 vols. (1919); Diplomatic Correspondence of the Republic of Texas, edited by G. P. Garrison (Annual Reports, Am. Hist. Ass'n, 1907, 1908). [260] House Doc. No. 1444, Sixty-second Cong., Third Sess., pp. 2, 3; Sen. Ex. Doc. No. 1, Sixty-fifth Cong., Special Sess., pp. 47, 48. [261] Sen. Ex. Doc. No. 1, Sixty-fifth Cong., Special Sess., pp. 24-34. [262] Sen. Ex. Doc. No. 1, Sixty-fifth Cong., Special Sess., p. 35. [263] _Ibid._, p. 41. [264] Sen. Ex. Doc. No. 1, Sixty-fifth Cong., Special Sess., p. 44. [265] _Ibid._ [266] Sen. Ex. Doc. No. 1, Sixty-fifth Cong., Special Sess., pp. 53-79. [267] Sen. Ex. Doc. No. 1, Sixty-fifth Cong., Special Sess., pp. 87-88. [268] Foreign Relations, 1905, p. 298; Moore, "Digest of Int. Law," Vol. VI, pp. 518-529; _Am. Journal of Int. Law_, Vol. I, p. 287, and Documentary Supplement, p. 231. [269] Foreign Relations, 1909, p. 455. [270] D. G. Munro, "The Five Republics of Central America," p. 257.