ple, his attachment to liberal institutions, his con-
cessions on all occasions to . . . the people them-
selves have been so conspicuous that our people have... formed for him a more distinct and a higher personal attachment than they have ever felt for any emperor who (has) existed since our history begun (sic).[1]
And Sherman of Ohio, the most influential opponent of a
hasty recognition of the newly established government of
Brazil declared that he was actuated in part by
a feeling of respect for one of the most distin-
guished men of our century, a man who, though an emperor, never exercised powers as great as our President; an emperor who was always willing to yield to the will of his subjects; an emperor who never did an unkind act, and in his long reign was a more thorough democrat . . . than any emperor who ever before in the history of the world held that rank.[2]
But the republican ardor of the people of the United
States was in reality not cooled by their admiration for the
last American emperor. To many the pacific fashion in
which Dom Pedro abdicated seemed to indicate a voluntary
surrender to what he conceived to be the will of the people,
and his departure from Rio de Janeiro signified a deliberate
abandonment of all claims of the House of Braganza to
Brazil. If hereafter Dom Pedro or any other member of
that House should decide to re-assert those claims, the ar-
dent republicans of the United States were inclined to as-
sume that they would do so under European persuasion
or pressure and that they could only succeed in recovering
the lost American empire with the aid of the European
powers. Such persuasion, pressure, or assistance these
republicans professed to consider a violation of the Monroe
Doctrine.
This fear of European intervention and preference for
republican institutions, even in a case where the choice was
—6—
