Of course Hamilton, when he tried to found the international policy of his country upon the national interest, wholly failed to identify that interest with any positive democratic purpose; but in this, as in other respects, Hamilton was not a thorough-going democrat.
While he was right in seeking to prevent the American people from allying themselves with the aggressive French democracy, he was wrong in failing to foresee that the national interest of the United States was identified with the general security and prosperity of liberal political institutions--that the United States must by every practical means encourage the spread of democratic methods and ideas.

As much in foreign as in domestic affairs must the American people seek to unite national efficiency with democratic idealism.

The Monroe Doctrine, consequently, is not to be condemned, as it has been condemned, merely because it went far beyond the limited foreign policy of Hamilton.

The real question in regard to the Doctrine is whether it seeks in a practicable way--in a way consistent with the national interest and inevitable international responsibilities--the realization of the democratic idea.

Do the rigid advocates of that Doctrine fall into an error analogous to the error against which Washington and Hamilton were protesting?
Do they not tend, indirectly, and within a limited compass, to convert the American democratic idea into a dangerously aggressive principle?
The foregoing question must, I believe, be answered partly in the affirmative.