What Gave Rise to America's Monroe Doctrine?

In 1823, U.S. President James Monroe declared in a report to Congress, “the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers … America will not intervene in the affairs of state of any existing Powers, but also does not allow European Powers to intervene in the affairs of the Americas.”* This message is what is often called the Monroe Doctrine. Contained within it are two principles — a principle of noncolonialism on the American continent and a principle of mutual nonintervention between America and the European powers.

Strictly speaking, America’s involvement in World War I actually violated the Monroe Doctrine’s principle of mutual nonintervention, which means that from then on America no longer upheld the Monroe Doctrine. However, due to the “the Americas are for the Americans” implication within the Monroe Doctrine, whenever subsequent generations would speak of the doctrine, they would mainly point to the fact that it left nations within the American continent to the sole intervention and control of the U.S. In a Nov. 18, 2013 address, Secretary of State John Kerry declared the end of the Monroe Doctrine, which must be understood to say that American would no longer brandish its big stick and wave it around the American continents.

That being said, regarding the Monroe Doctrine, the puzzling question on everyone’s minds has always been this: According to the historical conditions at the time, why would America, a relatively weak country compared to the European powers, make such a brazen statement to Europe as, “you’re not allowed to intervene in the affairs of the Americas”? Moreover, wouldn’t it then need to back up that statement?

How Could the Monroe Doctrine Come into Being?

During the time of the Napoleonic Wars, there was a revolt in Spain’s American colonies; multitudinous colonies on the western edge of Latin America gained their independence from the empire. The U.S. welcomed this, showed vigorous support for the Latin American revolutions and was the first to recognize many of these nations’ independence.

There was great risk in America’s independent stance, as the Spanish colonial empire would not recognize defeat. After the Napoleonic Wars, it could put down the rebellion in one swift stroke. Meanwhile, other European countries could very possibly send military aid to Spain. Latin America could easily return to the rule of the Western Hemisphere’s imperialist and colonial powers. Facing such dire straits, what path could the U.S. take? Should it willingly accept Latin America’s return to colonial rule or issue a challenge to the Western Hemisphere’s great colonial-imperialist powers?

In 1823, the problem was both urgent and pressing. On Dec. 2 of that year, President Monroe addressed Congress with a proposal that expressed America’s stance regarding the issue, in no uncertain terms. Though Monroe’s speech didn’t put everything on the table and declare America’s foreign policy to the world, it was regarded by Europe as America’s declaration of independence in the realm of foreign affairs by boldly and clearly stating its position regarding major issues. It was the first time in American history that anything like this had ever occurred.

Although the Monroe Doctrine was a knee-jerk reaction to the turn of events in Latin America, it contained the embodiment of the Founding Fathers’ establishment of isolationist ideological principles in foreign policy. The Monroe Doctrine re-emphasized that the New World on the American continent and the Old World on the European continent had not only natural separation, but also great differences in their core political systems. That aside, under a new set of circumstances, the Monroe Doctrine was yet another step forward in the development of the country’s isolationism. Contained within the Monroe Doctrine was a change in position from “America’s” isolation from Europe to “the Americas’” isolation from Europe, which moreover demanded that Europe refrain from intervening in the affairs of the American continent.

How To Interpret the Monroe Doctrine

First and foremost, within the precepts of the Monroe Doctrine there was no absolute, clear-cut demarcation line separating Europe and the American continent into separate and isolated entities that would have no dealings with each other. The Monroe Doctrine only separated the European and American continents politically; there was nothing within its language that separated the two economically. In fact, the U.S. has always had close trade ties with Europe even after the establishment of its independence; furthermore, protecting profits has always been a prime goal of American foreign policy.

Second, the “policy of mutual noninterference” contained within the Monroe Doctrine is only applicable to the two great regions of the American and European continents. With respect to other major regions across the globe, America and Europe have always maintained competition, conflict and cooperation.

Third, hidden between the lines of the Monroe Doctrine is the idea that “America belongs to Americans” and European meddling in affairs on the American continent would not be tolerated, which carries with it the implication that America regards the American continent as under its sole sphere of influence and that it desired to eliminate the influence of European colonial-imperialist powers.

Finally, in the years following the Monroe Doctrine, America did not actually strictly adhere to it in its dealings with every European state; it actually exhibited a good deal of flexibility and pragmatism. For example, in its territorial disputes on the American continent, the U.S. gave a certain amount of leeway to Britain and Russia; it didn’t totally exclude those nations from profiting from the American continent.

What Gave Rise to the Monroe Doctrine?

After the Monroe Doctrine was released publicly, European countries vocally expressed their displeasure and opposition by flatly refusing to recognize its legality. A British foreign minister once said of the Monroe Doctrine that European countries regarded it only as a declaration in and of itself, and that it was not a criterion that could govern Europe’s actions. However, due to its depleted state, England — America’s primary adversary at the time — ultimately renounced the policy that made America the focal point of colonization and retreated from the American continent.

The Monroe Doctrine’s Application: Three Main Points

First of all was the timing. Europe was absolutely spent as a result of the Napoleonic Wars, and Spain lacked the power to protect its colonies in the Americas. After the Napoleonic Wars came to a close, each European nation was busy dealing with internal crises. They were unconcerned with and actually powerless to ally with Spain or send military aid to protect its holdings on the American continent; the European revolutions of 1848 only served to add fuel to the fire. As a result, even if there had been no Monroe Doctrine, Europe would still have been powerless to interfere on the American continent. After the Monroe Doctrine was issued, some politicians believed that America’s bold warning stating that no European power was to meddle in the affairs of the Americas was downright unnecessary, as Europe itself had already realized that it had no way to intervene on the American continent. They viewed the warning as just a show of America’s revolting arrogance.

Second was positioning. At that time, America was in control of vast expanses of sparsely populated land holdings. The main thrust of American expansion throughout the continent was not an effort to conquer the populace, but to take control of land and resources. When it invaded California, there were only 11,000 Mexicans scattered throughout the region, so it encountered no major opposition or resistance from the local populace. Besides that, after the disintegration of the old colonial imperialist powers, no new powers were firmly established, which resulted in the emergence of a power vacuum. America was in just the right place at the right time to go fishing in troubled waters; by taking advantage of the turmoil, it was able to emerge victorious.

Finally, and most importantly, was the human factor. In the period preceding the issuance of the Monroe Doctrine, there were radical debates among the people as to whether or not America — a republican nation — should carry out territorial expansion like other imperialist powers; ultimately, the consensus was reached that America’s territorial expansion was the expansion of its republican system of government — a so-called “expansion of freedom.” And so, as soon as the Monroe Doctrine was issued, it received an overwhelmingly positive response from the people of the nation. In the decades that followed, each successive president was strongly in favor of territorial expansion to open up new frontiers for the country; by slippery negotiation tactics, by deception or simply by force, the U.S. was able to seize and expand into the territories that became Texas, Oregon, California and Mexico. America became a continental empire and laid the territorial foundation for its later ascension to the status of a world superpower.

In a word, the Monroe Doctrine was a product of a certain phase of early 19th-century America’s development of power, which reflected and expanded upon its deeply rooted isolationist ideology. The very reason why the Monroe Doctrine could actually be implemented was twofold; it was due to the changing power structures in Europe at the time, as well as the opportunities provided it by unrest on the American continent and to the peculiarities inherent in the makeup of American people themselves.

* Editor’s note: The second half of this quote could not be verified.