History of USA Page 1 of 21

HISTORY

Subject : History
(For under graduate student.)

Paper No. : Paper-VII

History of USA

Unit, Chapter & Title : Unit- 1

Chapter- c
Evolution of American democracy

Topic No. & Title : Part 5

Evolution of American democracy:
Monroe doctrine

The principles of the Monroe Doctrine were deeply rooted in

the foreign policy of the United States (Dexter Perkins,
1941). Though born out of a speech delivered by James
Monroe it soon became the cornerstone of the external
policies of America. Since its inception it has never
remained static and has been subjected to occasional
reviews of meaning and definition.

James Monroe was not a very daunting and awe-inspiring

President like his predecessors; but he was a nationalist to
the very core and it was his nationalist concerns that made
History of USA Page 2 of 21

him accommodate the principles drawn up by his dynamic

Secretary of State, John Quincy Adams.

Background
In order to understand the origin and meaning of the Monroe
Doctrine we must first contextualize the document.
Elaborating on this matter Dexter Perkins has argued that,
“To Americans, European absolutism in 1823 was a system as
odious, and as devoid of moral sanctions, as Nazi Germany or
Stalinist Russia.” (Michael Schmid, 2007).

James Monroe had proclaimed in his December, 2 nd address

that, “with the movement in this hemisphere we are in
necessity more immediately connected....The political system
of the [European] power is essentially different.....from that
of America.... We should consider any attempt on their part to
extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as
dangerous to our peace and safety” (David D. Carto, 1981).
This consideration lay at the roots of the inception of the
Monroe doctrine in 1823.

The Monroe Doctrine had its origins in the farewell speech of

George Washington in 1798, in which he categorically
History of USA Page 3 of 21

outlined America’s future policy as, “Why, by interweaving

any part of our destiny with that of any part of Europe,
entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European
ambition, rivalry, interest, humour, or caprice?” (Michael
Schmid, 2007). Thomas Jefferson reiterated the words of
Washington when he wrote to Thomas Paine that, “We shall
avoid implicating ourselves with the powers of Europe. They
have so many interests different from ours, that we must
avoid being entangled in them” (Michael Schmid, 2007).

The edification of the Monroe speech was however effected by

James Monroe, on the advice of his Secretary of State John
Quincy Adams. With the intention of making the proclamation
memorable and effective it was announced by James Monroe,
when the U.S Congress met to hear the annual message of
the President (Michael Burgan, 2007).

In the general atmosphere of non-aggression after the War of

1812 foreign policy had almost taken a backstage. The
Americans were going through a period of serious internal
refurbishment and upliftment in different economic sectors.
But a sudden reversal of the situation occurred with the
interventionist stand adopted by Russia and the Quadruple
History of USA Page 4 of 21

Alliance of Europe in the neighborhood of America. Martin

Sicker has pointed out that, as Czarist Russia“....expanded
eastward towards the North American coast by way of
Kamchatka, the Aleutian islands, and Alaska” it became more
than evident that,” if the grip of Spain in California ever
weakened, Russia would be eager to take her place” (Martin
Sicker, 2002).

Revolts in the Latin American countries like Peru, Bolivia,

Argentina, and Chile became a matter of serious concern for
the Americans. They were afraid of continental interference in
these countries, and their fears proved to be true when the
continental Quadruple Alliance, announced their willingness to
take serious action against the Latin American countries, in
support of Spain. This led to Xenophobia among the
Americans and they decided to counter this move by
announcing that, “We owe it, therefore, to candour, and to
the amicable relations existing between the United States and
those powers, to declare that we should consider any attempt
on their part to extend their system to any portion of this
hemisphere, as dangerous to our peace and safety....it is not
impossible that the allied powers should extend their political
system to any portion of either continent without endangering
History of USA Page 5 of 21

our peace and happiness; nor can anyone believe that our
own southern brethren, if left to themselves, would adopt it of
their own accord.” (Martin Sicker, 2002). This categorical
announcement led to the creation of the strategic American
geo-political site of the ‘western hemisphere’; a ploy to secure
the American borders as a threat to America’s neighbors was
a threat to its own security.

The United States was not very strong during this period, in
terms of military or naval power. With the threat of likely
transgression of the borders of her neighbors by the
continental powers it became America’s prime concern to
ensure that the European powers did not discover her rather
unstable defenses and this according to Professor Palit, led
America to adopt a strong policy statement. The positive
outcome of this concern was the Monroe doctrine.

Provisions of the Monroe Doctrine: The Truth Behind It

The Monroe doctrine was initially simply a policy statement; it
was largely due to later additions and alterations over the
years, that it later acquired the characteristic doctrinary
status. But prior to analyzing the Doctrine, one must be
History of USA Page 6 of 21

familiar with its provisions, to be better able to assess the

later transformation that it underwent.

The message, as Dexter Perkins has pointed out, had two

‘affirmative’ and two ‘negative’ statements (Dexter Perkins,
1941). In the first affirmative statement made in the message
Monroe said “.....henceforth not to be considered as subjects
for future colonization by any European powers”
(www.brittanica.com). The second affirmative statement
stated “The political system of the allied powers is essentially
different in this respect from that of America. . . . We owe it,
therefore, to candour, and to the amicable relations existing
between the United States and those powers, to declare that
we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their
system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our
peace and safety” (www.brittanica.com).

The third provision of the doctrine has been categorized by

Perkins as negative, in which Monroe had declared that, “With
the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power
we have not interfered and shall not interfere”
(www.brittanica.com). He also categorically stated that, “But
with the governments who have declared their independence
History of USA Page 7 of 21

and maintained it, and whose independence we have, on

great consideration and on just principles, acknowledged, we
could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing
them, or controlling in any other manner their destiny, by any
European power, in any other light than as the manifestation
of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States… It is
equally impossible, therefore, that we should behold any form
of interference with indifference." (www.brittanica.com).

Elaborating on Perkins’s characterization of the first two

statements as ‘affirmative’, Professor Palit has pointed out
“.....if American colonies were subjected to interference or if
the political system of the continental power was grafted on
the United States, they were going to take action..... no direct
statement had been made regarding military retaliation. It
was simply a statement backed by some kind of assertion”,
and as such he is in agreement with Dexter Perkins in
referring to them as ‘a set of affirmative statements’.”

Regarding the two other statements Professor Palit has

categorically highlighted its negative nature pointing out that
“.....there is an attitude of surrender, when it is asserted that
the United States had never interfered, nor intends to
History of USA Page 8 of 21

interfere in the near future in the affairs of other countries.

So it was a kind of submission or surrender to the pressure of
the Old World powers.”Professor Palit further reiterates that
“...America never intended to colonize any part of the
world,...America was a land of democracy and therefore
America would not like to colonize any other part of the
world. Rather she wanted to grow as a democratic country...
……and this was carried forward by James Monroe and his
foreign minister John Quincy Adams in the year 1823.”He
thus characterizes the Doctrine as a remarkable work of
statesmanship. Commenting on its nature Professor Palit has
opined that “............if we carefully balance the two then we
will come to the conclusion that on the whole it was a positive
statement of foreign policy. And considering the fact that
American democracy was at its adolescent stage it was not
possible to be bolder than the manner in which James Monroe
and John Quincy Adams had stated in their joint
communiqué.”

Though the Monroe Doctrine derived its name from President

Monroe it was in reality a handiwork of John Quincy Adam, his
Secretary of State. But being the understanding person that
he was, and his prime concern being the security and
History of USA Page 9 of 21

prosperity of America, he accepted the plan suggested and

drafted by John Quincy Adams.

Efficacy of the Monroe Doctrine

Even though the Monroe doctrine was not backed by naval
and military power it still exerted a profound effect on the
continental powers. They decided to respect the newly
asserted rights of America and respect their newly created
boundary of ‘western hemisphere’. Therefore it was able to
win accolades for Monroe’s foreign policy. Professor Palit is of
the opinion that, though the speech was nothing but an
empty threat it still turned out to be a military deterrent for
the continental powers. This signaled its gradual burgeoning
from a mere diplomatic speech, to a fully fledged doctrine.

The doctrine was however put to cold storage after Monroe’s

Presidency. The next President, John Quincy Adams did not
think it was imperative enough to rely on it when framing
foreign policies. Despite falling into unuse it continued to
inspire awe amongst the continental powers, and made them
keep off the boundary of the ‘western hemisphere’.
History of USA Page 10 of 21

Transition from Speech to Doctrine

The speech made by Monroe in 1823 at a Congress session
acquired the status of a doctrine over a long period of policy
formulation and improvisation. This section will trace the long
journey that the Monroe speech had to traverse before it
could become ‘the Monroe Doctrine’, and give the United
States of America a prime position in the arena of
international politics.

American foreign policy making has since its inception been

guided by a cautionary principle of keeping the continental
powers off the land of the New World and not participating in
any kind of politics relating to the continental nations. The
natural outcome of these beliefs was reflected in the ‘No-
Transfer Principle’ and the ‘Monroe Doctrine.’

The speech of Monroe had categorically stated that America

was for the Americans, and that America would diligently
follow a policy of non-colonization and non-intervention.
Dexter Perkins is of the opinion that after Monroe’s Presidency
the Monroe doctrine had been in disuse for over twenty years,
demarcated as a period of “quiescence” by him. During this
period President John Quincy Adams was more concerned
History of USA Page 11 of 21

with the expansionist policies of the continental powers and

took the bold step, (bolder than the Monroe declaration),
commonly known as the No-Transfer principle. In the
meantime the Monroe Doctrine was relegated to the
backburner.

This long period of ‘quiescence’, witnessed a gradual growth

in the American economy, along with new lands being
brought under the banner of the American flag. America thus
steadily expanded and prospered in splendid isolation, a
natural corollary of the Monroe speech. Professor Palit has
pointed out that “..........this is the period when expansion
towards the south-west was being carried out, when the
Texan question came up.” He goes on to say that “...this led
to some kind of an American aggression on the weak.” The
Texan affair demonstrated that the Americans were out to
expand their land, even at the cost of subduing their weaker
neighbours, like in the case of Mexico. This sordid affair could
only be attained with the war which eventually took place in
1845.

The Mexican war opened up a new chapter in the history of

the Monroe doctrine. The Monroe doctrine re-surfaced in
History of USA Page 12 of 21

American policy, and its revival was marked by a speech

delivered by the then President, James Polk, in 1845 who
stated categorically that:

“The American system of government is entirely different

from that of Europe……, lest any one of them become too
powerful for the rest, has caused them anxiously to desire the
establishment of what they term the ‘balance of power.’ It
cannot to be permitted to have any application on the North
American continent......We must ever maintain the principle,
that the people of this continent alone have the right to
decide their own destiny.”

This announcement by James Polk hastened the transition of

the Monroe speech to a major foreign policy statement and
laid the foundation of the future policy of “Manifest Destiny”,
which was to be adopted by the later American Presidents.

The doctrine was revived to prevent Mexico from acquiring

any external help (ie. extra-American assistance). America
was afraid that in case a war broke out, Mexico would beg for
assistance, and it was more than likely that it would be
granted by Spain, their previous colonial master. In this
History of USA Page 13 of 21

situation the adoption of the Monroe Doctrine once again

could avert the problem faced by America. This second
successful trial in foreign policy matters raised its importance
in the opinion of foreign policy makers.

The Monroe doctrine was gradually being converted into a

talisman of American foreign policy. Rhetoric is a major factor
for any successful leadership. David Zarefsky has pointed out
that this phenomenon is best demonstrated by the success of
the Monroe Doctrine. He has shown that “.......it became a
rhetorical touchstone to which later presidents appealed.”
(L.G. Dorsey, 2008). He has further highlighted its usage by
James Polk pointing out that “James K. Polk, while professing
adherence to Monroe’s intent, transformed the doctrine from
a defensive to an active programme, by appealing to popular
fears of potential European influence in order to get public
support for the Mexican war.” (L.G. Dorsey, 2008).

Dawn of the Monroe ‘Doctrine’

The transition of the speech to a doctrine was not an easy
one; it suffered from several vicissitudes, and was even on
the verge of falling into disuse, yet it survived, and a time
came when the content of the Monroe speech was
History of USA Page 14 of 21

transformed into a major policy action by the American

Presidents.

Professor Palit opines that the economic prosperity that

America was witnessing during this period owing to the
agricultural and Industrial Revolutions also played a major
role in transforming the Monroe speech into a full-fledged
doctrine. Both these factors were interconnected.
“Mechanization was basic to the agricultural revolution as it
had been to the Industrial Revolution 100 years earlier.” (Don
Paarlberg, 2000). Production of labour saving machinery
solved the classic American problem of abundant land but
scarce labour. Cyrus McCormick, John Deere, and John
Froelich were among the pioneers in this field. (Don
Paarlberg, 2000). Production of petroleum in Pennsylvania by
the Rockefellers added a new dimension to the industrial
revolution in America. At about the same time steel was being
made out of iron ore by Andrew Carnegie.

This sudden upsurge of the nation’s wealth and prosperity

also accounted for a general growth in the surplus of the
nation. According to capitalist logic, this production surplus in
turn required a steady market for its disposal. This called for
History of USA Page 15 of 21

America’s expansion beyond their natural boundaries to

create more space.

Economic growth dictated a change in American foreign policy

matters, the impact of which was reflected most strongly in a
change in the nature and usage of the Monroe Doctrine.
Professor Palit has pointed out that, this made America
assume a more bellicose mood. Gradually they assumed the
role of a ‘big brother’ of the western hemisphere, where they
were no longer content with just maintaining peace and
order, but desired to establish a strong American bastion.

This attitude got America involved in a war with Spain over

Cuba in 1893. The war against Spain was justified by America
as one dictated by protective concerns, and Spain was
portrayed as a tyrannical colonial power oppressing the
people of Cuba. This stance gave America the opportunity,
during the Presidency of William McKinley, to revive the
Monroe Doctrine in the name of helping Cuba. Strong
sentiments brewed amongst the American population who
were incited by newspaper articles, novels, stories and poems
in favour of the revival of the Monroe Doctrine. One such
History of USA Page 16 of 21

poem written during this period in the Rural New Yorker

echoed such sentiments:
“Off yonder in the ocean blue
Fair Cuba strives in freedom’s battle,
She has a right to look to you,
For manly words-not idle prattle.” (Bilhartz and Elliot,
2007)
Manly indeed, was their attitude and subsequent action. They
adopted the slogan “Cuba or liver”, which aptly demonstrated
their mood to annex Cuba in the name of safeguarding
democracy in the ‘western democracy’.

This stance and revival of the Monroe Doctrine, with a

definitive imperialist fervour, proved immensely successful.
Charged with the financial backing of the powerful and strong
industrial lobby of the country, America strove into Cuba,
armed with the Monroe Doctrine. Victory in Cuba encouraged
them to charge further down the Pacific into Samoa, Haiti and
finally into the Philippines.

The ‘western hemisphere’ which was the outcome of the

Monroe Doctrine was supposed to be a protectorate of the
United States. This protectorate-ship was gradually turned
History of USA Page 17 of 21

into virtual control of these regions by America for their own

economic reasons and for the geo-political security of the
American boundary, which was just an excuse for expanding
the American ‘space’.

The doctrine once again proved very useful to the American

policy makers when the British were trying to extend their
power into the Central America (Honduras, Yucatan, and
British Guyana). This amounted to a direct threat to the
American defence line of ‘western hemisphere’. Under such
circumstances Roosevelt decided to revive the Monroe
Doctrine under the pretext “........the United States had no
further territorial claims or ambitions in the hemisphere, it
reserved an “international police power” when a country’s
“inability or unwillingness to do justice at home or abroad had
violated the rights of the United States or had invited foreign
aggression to the detriment of the entire body of American
nations.” This Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, as
it became known, made the United States the sole arbiter for
both the Europeans and the countries of the region. The
United States was asserting the right of intervention to
maintain order in its vast backyard.” (Fareed Zakaria, 1998)
History of USA Page 18 of 21

After the Presidency of Theodore ‘Teddy’ Roosevelt the

Monroe Doctrine was once again pushed to the backstage.
The beginning of the First World War forced America to move
beyond their ‘western hemispheric’ boundary and participate
in world politics. Woodrow Wilson considered it to be the right
moment to declare America’s appearance on the world stage.
But the attempt proved to be futile. The Paris Peace
Conference of 1919 demonstrated that Europe was not yet
ready to accept America as a major world power. Woodrow
Wilson attended the Conference but was allotted no special
treatment as the representative of America and apart from
incorporating his ‘fourteen points’ in the peace declaration
America was given no space in the centre stage of the world
politics.

This disappointment made America turn towards their weaker

neighbours once, using their status of ‘big brother’ to eke out
territory for themselves in Latin America. The outcome was
that soon American territory virtually included the Latin
American countries of Chile, Argentina, Peru, Uruguay and the
other Latin American nations.
History of USA Page 19 of 21

The coming of the Second World War however once again

changed the policy of America. John A. Logan is of the opinion
that the Second World War led to a relative decline in the
importance of the Monroe Doctrine. The need to participate in
world affairs owing to the Pearl Harbour attack made them
give up their ‘western hemispheric’ principle once again.

The Monroe Doctrine however returned to the centre-stage of

American foreign policy during the Presidency of Franklin D.
Roosevelt. The ‘Good Neighbour Policy’ adopted by him in
1940 was a natural continuation of the Monroe Principles. This
was meant to instigate a Pan-American feeling amongst the
inhabitants of the western hemisphere. “......the Good
Neighbour Policy promoted stability over
democracy.......coupled with self-determination, that found its
way into the global application of the Monroe Doctrine.“
(David Ryan, 2000). It was a new Monroe Doctrine with a
new international force (John A. Logan, 1961).

Assessment of the Monroe Doctrine

“The Monroe doctrine may be said to have epitomized the
foreign policy of democracy” (Ernest R. May, 1975). It was
initiated as a principle to safeguard the democracy of America
History of USA Page 20 of 21

and its neighbours. It was in this very principle that the larger
idea of ‘western hemisphere’ was born. “Broadly speaking,
the choice of security policies that the U.S faced was between
traditional hemispheric isolationism and a limited adherence
to the principle of collective security. For most of the people
and their representative in Congress the rising spectre war in
Europe and Asia only confirmed a determination that America
could and must remain aloof, and strengthened the
underlying assumption of Monroeism......” (John A. Logan,
1961). But gradually, under the duress exerted on the
American policy by the ever evolving foreign and domestic
matters the Monroe Principle was metamorphosed into a
doctrine with a clear imperialist stand.

Assessing the Monroe Doctrine Carl Schmitt, an influential

20th century German Right-wing theorist, has said that it was,
“.....a form of mean spirited, inferior ‘cleverness and
Machiavellianism’........a perfect manifestation of ‘real and
great imperialism’” (William E. Scheuerman, 1999). The
doctrine was a western hemispheric philosophy which was
tailored for the Americans, so that they could expand their
space into the lands of their weaker neighbours as would be
demonstrated by their eventual actions.
History of USA Page 21 of 21

The Monroe Doctrine indeed outgrew the intention of its

author. From the protector of democracy the Doctrine was
transformed into an imperialist policy. But this does not
reduce the geo-strategic importance of the doctrine. It still
inspires awe among millions of Americans and holds a pride of
place among the foreign policy matters of the glorious nation
called America.