The feeling of which we speak is one that arose from the rapid growth of this country, and of the fears that that growth had created as to the safety of European States.  It had nothing to do with the character of our national polity, or with the political opinions of our people.  It would have existed all the same, if we had been governed by an Autocrat or a Stratocrat, instead of having a movable President for our chief.  It would have been as strong, if our national legislature had been as quiescent as Napoleon I.’s Senate, instead of being a reckless and an undignified Congress.  It owed its existence to our power, our growth, our ambition, our “reannexing” spirit, our disposition to meddle with the affairs of others, our restlessness, and our frequent avowals of an intention to become masters of all the Occident.  We might have been regarded as even more dangerous than we were, had our government been as firmly founded as that of Russia, or had it, like that of France, the power that proceeds at once from the great intellect and the great name of its chief.  A Napoleon or a Nicholas at the head of a people so intelligent and so active as Americans would indeed have been a most formidable personage, and likely to employ his power for the disturbance of mankind.

But in addition to the fear that was created by our rapid growth in greatness, the rulers of foreign nations regarded us with apprehension because of our political position.  We stood at the head of the popular interest of Christendom, and all that we effected was carried to the credit of popular institutions.  We stood in antagonism to the monarchical and aristocratical polities of Europe.  The greater our success, the stronger was the testimony borne by our career against the old forms of government.  Our example was believed to have brought about that French movement which had shaken the world.  The French Revolution was held to be the child of the American Revolution; and if we had accomplished so much in our weak youth, what might not be expected from our example when we should have passed into the state of ripened manhood?  Our existence in full proportions would be a protest against hereditary rule and exclusiveness.  Imitation would follow, and every existing political interest in Europe was alarmed at the thought of the attacks to which it was exposed, and which might be precipitated at any moment.  On the other hand, if our “experiment” should prove a failure, if democracy should come to utter grief in America, if civil war, debt, and the lessening of the comforts of the masses should be the final result of our attempt to establish the sovereignty of the people, would not the effect be fatal to the popular cause in Europe?  Certainly there would be a great reaction, perhaps as great, and even as permanent, as that Catholic reaction which began in the generation that followed the death of Luther, and which has been so forcibly painted by the greatest literary artists of our time.  This was the second