Indiana University Bloomington
Y-675: American Political Traditions
04/20/05

A Blanc Check for Intervention -The Evolution of the
Monroe Doctrine and its significance in
contemporary U.S. foreign policy

by: Michael Schmid

Contents

1. Introduction  2

2. Origins, language and historical context of the Monroe Doctrine  3

3. Manifest Destiny and Roosevelt’s vision 8

4. The Roosevelt Corollary  10

5. Extension and Reinterpretation of the Monroe Doctrine  14

6. Conclusion 17

7. Bibliography 19

1. Introduction

The Monroe Doctrine will be 200 years old in 2023 and the world of today could not be more different than from the conditions of the world in which president James Monroe gave his speech, which would become so famous and significant for the direction of U.S. foreign policy. Yet the policies of the Monroe Doctrine are still very much alive. Especially after president Theodore Roosevelt announced the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine in 1904 America’s path of becoming a major player in world affairs with arbitrary power was paved for them.

The argument of this paper is that the document known today as the Monroe Doctrine started out as a simple but efficient and bold proclamation, which dealt with the problems of its time and has been transformed into a tool for global involvement. Originally it attempts to keep Europeans out of the New World but it does not attack the already existing colonies in the Western Hemisphere. Over time various presidents altered this original phrasing. One of the more important examples of this tradition is Theodore Roosevelt’s Corollary to the doctrine, which will serve as an illustration to outline the main argument. Roosevelt turned the meaning of the doctrine around and went from noninterference to active responsibility by the United States to intervene anywhere in the Western Hemisphere where chaos and violence ruled. Still limited on the Western Hemisphere and whatever was defined to fit into this category Roosevelt’s definition of the “international police power” soon became just that. The United States would enter two World Wars on the basic justification that they were restoring order and justice and were only acting out of self-defense reasons. After World War II nothing of what James Monroe had once proclaimed as essential to American progress was left. The defining characteristic of Monroe’s old doctrine-the non-interference with European affairs phrase-had been shattered to pieces. The Cold War forced the United States to become even more dedicated to European matters and even after the Cold War the U.S. or a multilateral coalition under U.S. leadership now dealt with new threats to European peace. With the post 9/11 era all dreams about isolation from Europe were forever destroyed. The War on Terrorism is the latest effort of the United States to change the conditions of countries all around the world. The ends and means of this undertaking shall not be discussed in this paper but it serves as the most recent example of a doctrine that has become something totally different than what it originally meant to accomplish. And even though the doctrine is not cited every time the United States does become involved in Europe or elsewhere the fact that preceding presidents have altered its meaning so that it could actually serve as justification is important.

2. Origins, historical context and language of the Monroe Doctrine

This first part is dedicated to the origins of the Monroe Doctrine and the surrounding context of its development. It will serve as analysis for the particular reasons of why James Monroe felt it necessary to articulate the doctrine in 1823 as well as what specific policy issues he was responding to. In essence the Monroe Doctrine has two important parts which lay out the principles of U.S. foreign policy in the years to come and which have become so well known over the course of the following century. The first important paragraph of the doctrine revolves around an American foreign policy sentiment, which has a long history and dates back to the very origins of the United States. The paragraph deals with the isolationist view so famously voiced by George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. The rhetoric reflects the attitude the newly independent United States began to adopt towards Europe. It was also evidence for two very different views on how countries should be governed. As historian Dexter Perkins argues, “To Americans European absolutism, in 1823 was a system as odious, as devoid of moral sanction, as that of Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia seems to many citizens of the United States today. On the other hand, to many of the statesmen of Continental Europe, the buoyant republicanism and the democratic faith of the people of the United States were a vast dissolvent which threatened destruction to the existing order, and unknown and incalculable perils for the future.”¹ It seems that president Monroe’s message was not only motivated by policy decisions but also more fundamentally by ideals and a deep conviction of how a state should be governed.

As mentioned earlier the isolationist attitude’s roots originated during the founding period of the new republic that came to be the United States. One of the most canonized speeches is George Washington’s farewell address in 1798 in which he lays out the foundation for the Monroe Doctrine. He famously cherished the geographic advantage the United States had according to him with the words: “Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course [from Europe]” and asks “Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?”² Thomas Jefferson agreed with Washington’s assessment and as secretary of state (1792) he made similar remarks in his letter to Thomas Paine: “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.”³ This sense of isolationism was ever present in the Monroe Administration and long before James Monroe delivered his famous speech his Secretary of State John Quincy Adams had begun to formulate similar ideas with reciprocal character concerning Europe. As early as 1819 Adams voiced his thoughts that the world “must be familiarized with the idea of considering our proper dominion to be the continent of North America.”⁴ Adams therefore not only thought that the United States was best not to interfere on the European continent he also believed that Europe should understand that the Americas belong to the Americans. In that regard Adams can be seen as the author of the first part of the Monroe Doctrine. He basically created the reasoning and rhetoric of the paragraph regarding the exclusion of European influence from the American continents.

[...]

1 Perkins: The History of the Monroe Doctrine. p. 28-29.

2 Richardson: Messages and Papers of the President. Volume I, p. 222-3.

3 Thomas: One Hundred Years of the Monroe Doctrine. p. 5.

4 Adams: The Memoirs of John Quincy Adams. Volume IV, p. 438 f.