PresidentJames Monroe first articulated the doctrine on December 2, 1823, during his seventh annualState of the Union Address toCongress (though it would not be named after him until 1850).[3] At the time, nearly all Spanish colonies in the Americas had either achieved or were close toindependence. Monroe asserted that theNew World and theOld World were to remain distinctly separatespheres of influence,[4] and thus further efforts by European powers to control or influence sovereign states in the region would be viewed as a threat to U.S. security.[5][6] In turn, the United States would recognize and not interfere with existing European colonies nor meddle in the internal affairs of European countries.
Because the U.S. lacked both a credible navy and army at the time of the doctrine's proclamation, it was largely disregarded by the colonial powers. While it was successfully enforced in part by theUnited Kingdom, who used it as an opportunity to enforce its ownPax Britannica policy, the doctrine was still broken several times over the course of the 19th century, notably with thesecond French intervention in Mexico. By the beginning of the 20th century, however, the United States itself was able to successfully enforce the doctrine, and it became seen as a defining moment in the foreign policy of the United States and one of its longest-standing tenets. The intent and effect of the doctrine persisted for over a century after that, with only small variations, and would be invoked by many U.S. statesmen and several U.S. presidents, includingUlysses S. Grant,Theodore Roosevelt,John F. Kennedy, andRonald Reagan.
After 1898, the Monroe Doctrine was reinterpreted by lawyers and intellectuals as promoting multilateralism andnon-intervention. In 1933, under PresidentFranklin D. Roosevelt, the United States affirmed this new interpretation, namely through co-founding theOrganization of American States.[7] Into the 21st century, the doctrine continues to be variably denounced, reinstated, or reinterpreted.
According toS.E. Morison, "as early as 1783, then, the United States adopted the policy of isolation and announced its intention to keep out of Europe. The supplementary principle of the Monroe Doctrine, that Europe must keep out of America, was still over the horizon".[8]
Despite the United States' beginnings as an isolationist country, the foundation of the Monroe Doctrine was already being laid almost immediately after the end of theAmerican Revolution.Alexander Hamilton, writing inThe Federalist Papers, was already wanting to establish the United States as a world power and hoped that it would suddenly become strong enough to keep the European powers outside of the Americas, despite the fact that the European countries controlled much more of the Americas than the U.S. herself.[8] Hamilton expected that the United States would become the dominant power in the New World and would, in the future, act as an intermediary between the European powers and any new countries blossoming near the U.S.[8]
A note fromJames Madison (Thomas Jefferson'ssecretary of state and a future president) to theU.S. ambassador to Spain, expressed the U.S. government's opposition to further territorial acquisition by European powers.[9] Madison's sentiment might have been meaningless because, as was noted before, the European powers held much more territory in comparison to the territory held by the U.S. Although Jefferson was pro-French, in an attempt to keep the U.S. out of any European conflicts, the federal government under Jefferson made it clear to its ambassadors that the U.S. would not support any future colonization efforts on the North American continent.
British foreign policy was compatible with the general objective of the Monroe Doctrine, and Britain offered to declare a joint statement concerning the doctrine. The British feared their trade with the Americas would be damaged if other European powers further colonized it. In fact, for many years after the doctrine took effect, Britain, through theRoyal Navy, was the sole nation enforcing it, as theUnited States Navy was a comparatively small force.[12] The U.S. government did not issue a joint statement due to the recentWar of 1812; however, the immediate provocation was the RussianUkase of 1821[13] asserting rights to thePacific Northwest and forbidding non-Russian ships from approaching the coast.[14][15]
Doctrine
The full document of the Monroe Doctrine, written chiefly by future president and then secretary of stateJohn Quincy Adams, is long and couched in diplomatic language, but its essence is expressed in two key passages. The first is the introductory statement, which asserts that the New World is no longer subject to colonization by the European countries:[16]
The occasion has been judged proper for asserting, as a principle in which the rights and interests of the United States are involved, that 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.
The second key passage, which contains a fuller statement of the Doctrine, is addressed to the "allied powers" of Europe; it clarifies that the U.S. remains neutral on existing European colonies in the Americas but is opposed to "interpositions" that would create new colonies among the newly independent Spanish American republics:[6]
We owe it, therefore, to candor 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. With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power, we have not interfered and shall not interfere. But with the Governments who have declared their independence 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.
Monroe's speech did not entail a coherent and comprehensive foreign policy.[2][17] It was mostly ignored until proponents of the European non-intervention in the Americas tried to craft a cohesive "Monroe doctrine" decades later.[2] It was not until the mid-20th century that the doctrine became a key component of U.S.grand strategy.[2]
Effects
Victor Gillam's 1896 political cartoon depictingUncle Sam standing with a rifle between the Europeans and Latin Americans
International response
Because the United States lacked both a credible navy and army at the time, the doctrine was largely disregarded internationally.[4] PrinceKlemens von Metternich of Austria was angered by the statement, and wrote privately that the doctrine was a "new act of revolt" by the U.S. that would grant "new strength to the apostles of sedition and reanimate the courage of every conspirator."[11]: 156
The doctrine, however, met with tacit approval from Britain, which enforced it tactically as part of the widerPax Britannica, which included enforcing thefreedom of the seas. This was in line with the developing British policy of supportinglaissez-fairefree trade and opposingmercantilism.Britain's fast-growing industries sought markets for their manufactured goods, and, if the newly independent Latin American states became Spanish colonies again, British access to these markets would be cut off by Spanish mercantilist policies.[18]
Latin American reaction
The reaction in Latin America to the Monroe Doctrine was generally favorable but on some occasions suspicious. John A. Crow, author ofThe Epic of Latin America, states, "Simón Bolívar himself, still in the midst of hislast campaign against the Spaniards,Santander inColombia,Rivadavia inArgentina,Victoria in Mexico—leaders of theemancipation movement everywhere—received Monroe's words with sincerest gratitude".[19] Crow argues that the leaders of Latin America were realists. They knew that the president of the United States wielded very little power at the time, particularly without an alliance with Britain, and figured that the Monroe Doctrine was unenforceable if the U.S. stood alone against the Holy Alliance.[19]
While Latin Americans appreciated and praised their support in the north, they knew that the future of their independence was in the hands of the British and their powerful navy. In 1826, Bolivar called upon hisCongress of Panama to host the first "Pan-American" meeting. In the eyes of Bolivar and his men, the Monroe Doctrine was to become nothing more than a tool of national policy. According to Crow, "It was not meant to be, and was never intended to be a charter for concerted hemispheric action".[19] At the same time, some people questioned the intentions behind the Monroe Doctrine.Diego Portales, a Chilean businessman and minister, wrote to a friend: "But we have to be very careful: for the Americans of the north [from the United States], the only Americans are themselves".[20]
In 1842, U.S. presidentJohn Tyler applied the Monroe Doctrine to theHawaiian Kingdom and warned Britain not to interfere there. This began the process of annexing Hawaii to the U.S.[24] On December 2, 1845, U.S. presidentJames K. Polk announced that the principle of the Monroe Doctrine should be strictly enforced, reinterpreting it to argue that no European nation should interfere with American western expansion ("manifest destiny").[25]
In 1861, Dominican military commander and royalist politicianPedro Santana signed a pact with the Spanish Crown and reverted theDominican nation to colonial status. Spain was wary at first, but with the United States occupied with its own civil war, Spain believed it had an opportunity to reassert control in Latin America. On March 18, 1861, theSpanish annexation of the Dominican Republic was announced. TheAmerican Civil War ended in 1865, and following the re-assertion of the Monroe Doctrine by the U.S. government, this prompted Spanish forces stationed within the Dominican Republic to extradite back to Cuba within that same year.[26]
In 1862, French forces underNapoleon III invaded andconquered Mexico, giving control to the puppet monarchMaximilian I. Washington denounced this as a violation of the doctrine but was unable to intervene because of the American Civil War. This marked the first time the Monroe Doctrine was widely referred to as a "doctrine".[citation needed] In 1865 the U.S. garrisoned an army on its border to encourage Napoleon III to leave Mexican territory, and they did subsequently remove their forces, which was followed by Mexican nationalists capturing and then executing Maximilian.[27] After the expulsion of France from Mexico, Secretary of StateWilliam H. Seward proclaimed in 1868 that the "Monroe doctrine, which eight years ago was merely a theory, is now an irreversible fact."[28]
In 1865, Spain occupied theChincha Islands in violation of the Monroe Doctrine.[21] In 1862, the remaining British colonies within modern-day Belize were merged into a singlecrown colony known asBritish Honduras. The U.S. government did not express disapproval for this action, either during or after the Civil War.[29] In the 1870s, PresidentUlysses S. Grant and Secretary of StateHamilton Fish endeavored to supplant European influence in Latin America with that of the U.S. In 1870, the Monroe Doctrine was expanded under the proclamation "hereafter no territory on this continent [referring to Central and South America] shall be regarded as subject to transfer to a European power."[11]: 259 Grant invoked the Monroe Doctrine in his failed attempt to annex theDominican Republic in 1870.[30]
PresidentGrover Cleveland twisting the tail of the British Lion; cartoon inPuck by J.S. Pughe, 1895
TheVenezuelan crisis of 1895 became "one of the most momentous episodes in the history of Anglo-American relations in general and of Anglo-American rivalries in Latin America in particular."[31]Venezuela sought to involve the U.S. in aterritorial dispute with Britain and hired former U.S. ambassadorWilliam Lindsay Scruggs to argue that Britain's actions over the issue violated the Monroe Doctrine. PresidentGrover Cleveland, through Secretary of StateRichard Olney, cited the doctrine in 1895, threatening strong action against Britain if the British failed to arbitrate theirdispute with Venezuela. In a July 20, 1895, note to Britain,Olney stated, "The United States is practically sovereign on this continent, and its fiat is law upon the subjects to which it confines its interposition."[11]: 307
British prime ministerLord Salisbury took strong exception to the American language. The U.S. subsequently objected to a British proposal for a joint meeting to clarify the scope of the Monroe Doctrine. Herring wrote that by failing to pursue the issue further, the British "tacitly conceded the U.S. definition of the Monroe Doctrine and its hegemony in the hemisphere."[11]: 307–8 German chancellorOtto von Bismarck, did not agree and in October 1897 called the doctrine an "uncommon insolence".[32] Sitting inParis, the Tribunal of Arbitration finalized its decision on October 3, 1899.[31] The award was unanimous, but gave no reasons for the decision, merely describing the resulting boundary, which gave Britain almost 90% of the disputed territory[33] and all of the gold mines.[34]
The reaction to the award was of surprise, with the award's lack of reasoning a particular concern.[33] The Venezuelans were keenly disappointed with the outcome, though they honored their counsel for their efforts (their delegation's secretary, Severo Mallet-Prevost, received theOrder of the Liberator in 1944), and abided by the award.[33] The boundary dispute asserted for the first time a more outward-looking U.S. foreign policy, particularly in the Americas, marking the United States as a world power. This was the earliest example of moderninterventionism under the Monroe Doctrine in which the U.S. exercised its claimed prerogatives in the Americas.[35]
In 1898, the U.S. intervened in support ofCuba during its war for independence from Spain. The resultingSpanish–American War ended in a peace treaty requiring Spain to cede Puerto Rico, thePhilippines, andGuam to the U.S. in exchange for $20 million. Spain was additionally forced to recognize Cuban independence, though the island remained under U.S. occupation until 1902.[36]
Big Brother
The "Big Brother" policy was an extension of the Monroe Doctrine formulated byJames G. Blaine in the 1880s that aimed to rally Latin American nations behind U.S. leadership and open their markets to U.S. traders. Blaine served as Secretary of State in 1881 under PresidentJames A. Garfield and again from 1889 to 1892 under PresidentBenjamin Harrison. As a part of the policy, Blaine arranged and led the FirstInternational Conference of American States in 1889.[37]
The Olney Corollary, also known as theOlney interpretation orOlney declaration was U.S. secretary of stateRichard Olney's interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine when the border dispute for the Essequibo occurred between the British and Venezuelan governments in 1895. Olney claimed that the Monroe Doctrine gave the U.S. authority to mediate border disputes in the Western Hemisphere. Olney extended the meaning of the Monroe Doctrine, which had previously stated merely that the Western Hemisphere was closed to additional European colonization. The statement reinforced the original purpose of the Monroe Doctrine, that the U.S. had the right to intervene in its ownhemisphere and foreshadowed the events of the Spanish–American War three years later. The Olney interpretation was defunct by 1933.[38]
Canada
In 1902, Canadian prime ministerWilfrid Laurier acknowledged that the Monroe Doctrine was essential to his country's protection. The doctrine provided Canada with ade facto security guarantee by the United States; the U.S. Navy in the Pacific, and the Royal Navy in the Atlantic, made invading North America almost impossible. Because of thepeaceful relations between the two countries, Canada could assist Britain in a European war without having to defend itself at home.[39]
The doctrine's authors, chiefly future president and then secretary of stateJohn Quincy Adams, saw it as a proclamation by the U.S. of moral opposition tocolonialism, but it has subsequently been re-interpreted and applied in a variety of instances. As the U.S. began to emerge as a world power, the Monroe Doctrine came to define a recognized sphere of control that few dared to challenge.[4]
Before becoming president,Theodore Roosevelt had proclaimed the rationale of the Monroe Doctrine in supporting intervention in the Spanish colony of Cuba in 1898.[citation needed] TheVenezuela crisis of 1902–1903 showed the world that the U.S. was willing to use its naval strength to intervene to stabilize the economic affairs of small states in theCaribbean andCentral America if they were unable to pay their international debts, in order to preclude European intervention to do so.[40] The Venezuela crisis, and in particular the arbitral award, were key in the development of the Corollary.[40]
In Argentine foreign policy, theDrago Doctrine was announced on December 29, 1902, byArgentine foreign ministerLuis María Drago. The doctrine itself was a response to the actions of Britain,Germany, andItaly, which, in 1902, had blockaded Venezuela in response to the Venezuelan government's refusal to pay its massive foreign debt that had been acquired under previous administrations before PresidentCipriano Castro took power. Drago set forth the policy that no European power could use force against an American nation to collect debt owed. Roosevelt rejected this policy as an extension of the Monroe Doctrine, declaring, "We do not guarantee any state against punishment if it misconducts itself".[11]: 370
Instead, Roosevelt added theRoosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine in 1904, asserting the right of the U.S. to intervene in Latin America in cases of "flagrant and chronic wrongdoing by a Latin American Nation" to preempt intervention by European creditors. This re-interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine went on to be a useful tool to take economic benefits by force when Latin American nations failed to pay their debts to European and U.S. banks and business interests. This was also referred to as thebig stick ideology because of the oft-quoted phrase from Roosevelt, "speak softly and carry a big stick".[4][11]: 371 [41] The Roosevelt Corollary provoked outrage across Latin America.[42]
The Corollary was invoked to intervene militarily in Latin America to stop the spread of European influence.[41] It was the most significant amendment to the original doctrine and was widely opposed by critics, who argued that the Monroe Doctrine was originally meant to stop European influence in the Americas.[4]Christopher Coyne has argued that the addition of the Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine began the second phase of "American Liberal Empire" and "can be understood as a foreign policy declaration based on military primacy." It initiated a tectonic shift in the political and economic relations between the United States and Latin America, and with European governments.[43] Other critics have argued that the Corollary asserted U.S. domination in the area, effectively making them a "hemispheric policeman".[44]
The early decades of the 20th century saw a number ofinterventions in Latin America by the U.S. government often justified under the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine.[45] PresidentWilliam Howard Taft vieweddollar diplomacy as a way for American corporations to benefit while assisting in the national security goal of preventing European powers from filling any possible financial power vacuum.[46]
The United States launched multiple interventions into Latin America, resulting in U.S. military presence inCuba,Honduras,Panama (via theHay–Bunau-Varilla Treaty andIsthmian Canal Commission),[47]Haiti (1915–1935),[48] theDominican Republic (1916–1924) andNicaragua (1912–1925 and 1926–1933).[49] U.S. marines began to specialize in long-term military occupation of these countries, primarily to safeguard customs revenues which were the cause of local civil wars.[50]
ThePlatt Amendment amended a treaty between the U.S. and theRepublic of Cuba after the Spanish–American War, virtually making Cuba a U.S. protectorate. The amendment outlined conditions for the U.S. to intervene in Cuban affairs and permitted the United States to lease or buy lands for the purpose of the establishing naval bases, includingGuantánamo Bay.[51]
Lodge Corollary
The so-called "Lodge Corollary" was passed[52] by theU.S. Senate on August 2, 1912, in response to a reported attempt by a Japan-backed private company to acquireMagdalena Bay inBaja California Sur. It extended the reach of the Monroe Doctrine to cover actions of corporations and associations controlled by foreign states.[53]
The Clark Memorandum rejected the view that the Roosevelt Corollary was based on the Monroe Doctrine. However, it was not a complete repudiation of the Roosevelt Corollary but was rather a statement that any intervention by the U.S. was not sanctioned by the Monroe Doctrine but rather was the right of the U.S. as a state. This separated the Roosevelt Corollary from the Monroe Doctrine by noting that the doctrine only applied to situations involving European countries. One main point in the Clark Memorandum was to note that the Monroe Doctrine was based on conflicts of interest only between the United States and European nations, rather than between the U.S. and Latin American nations.
World War II
American servicemen inGreenland during World War II
AfterWorld War II began, a majority of Americans supported defending the entire Western Hemisphere against foreign invasion. A 1940 national survey found that 81% supported defending Canada; 75%Mexico and Central America; 69%South America; 66%West Indies; and 59%Greenland.[54]
During World War II, the US invoked its Monroe Doctrine andoccupied Greenland to prevent use by Germany following theGerman occupation of Denmark. The US military remained in Greenland after the war, and by 1948, Denmark abandoned attempts to persuade the US to leave. The following year, both countries became members of theNATO military alliance. A 1951 treaty gave the US a significant role in Greenland's defense. As of 2025, the US Space Force maintainsPituffik Space Base in Greenland, and the US military frequently takes part in NATO exercises in Greenlandic waters.
Latin American reinterpretation
After 1898, jurists and intellectuals in Argentina,Brazil,Chile, andUruguay, especially Luis María Drago,Alejandro Álvarez, andBaltasar Brum, reinterpreted the Monroe Doctrine. They sought a fresh continental approach to international law in terms of multilateralism and non-intervention. Indeed, an alternative Spanish American origin of the idea was proposed, attributing it toManuel Torres.[56] However, U.S. officials were reluctant to renounce unilateral interventionism until theGood Neighbor policy enunciated by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933. The era of the Good Neighbor Policy ended with the ramp-up of theCold War in 1945, as the United States felt there was a greater need to protect the western hemisphere from Soviet influence. These changes conflicted with the Good Neighbor Policy's fundamental principle of non-intervention and led to a new wave of U.S. involvement in Latin American affairs. Control of the Monroe doctrine thus shifted to the multilateralOrganization of American States (OAS) founded in 1948.[7]
The Monroe Doctrine means what it has meant since President Monroe and John Quincy Adams enunciated it, and that is that we would oppose a foreign power extending its power to the Western Hemisphere [sic], and that is why we oppose what is happening in Cuba today. That is why we have cut off our trade. That is why we worked in theOAS and in other ways to isolate the Communist menace in Cuba. That is why we will continue to give a good deal of our effort and attention to it.[57]
During the Cold War, the Monroe Doctrine was applied to Latin America by the framers of U.S. foreign policy.[58] When theCuban Revolution (1953–1959) established a communist government with ties to theSoviet Union, it was argued that the Monroe Doctrine should be invoked to prevent the spread of Soviet-backed communism in Latin America.[59] Under this rationale, the U.S. provided intelligence and military aid to Latin and South American governments that claimed or appeared to be threatened by communist subversion (as in the case ofOperation Condor).
During theCuban Missile Crisis in 1962, Kennedy cited the Monroe Doctrine as grounds for the United States' confrontation with the Soviet Union over the installation of Soviet ballistic missiles on Cuban soil.[60]
The debate over this new interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine burgeoned in reaction to theIran–Contra affair. It was revealed that the U.S.Central Intelligence Agency had been covertly training "Contra" guerrilla soldiers inHonduras in an attempt to destabilize and overthrow theSandinista revolutionary government ofNicaragua and its president,Daniel Ortega.CIA directorRobert Gates vigorously defended the Contra operation in 1984, arguing that eschewing U.S. intervention in Nicaragua would be "totally to abandon the Monroe Doctrine".[61]
Secretary of StateJohn Kerry told the Organization of American States in November 2013 that the "era of the Monroe Doctrine is over."[62] Several commentators have noted that Kerry's call for a mutual partnership with other countries in the Americas is more in keeping with the intentions of the policy's namesake than the policies that were enacted after Monroe's death.[63]
PresidentDonald Trump implied potential use of the doctrine in August 2017 when he mentioned the possibility of military intervention in Venezuela,[64] after CIA directorMike Pompeo declared that the nation's deterioration was the result of interference from Iranian- and Russian-backed groups.[65] In February 2018, Secretary of StateRex Tillerson praised the Monroe Doctrine as "clearly… a success", warning of "imperial"Chinese trade ambitions and touting the United States as the region's preferred trade partner.[66] Pompeo replaced Tillerson as Secretary of State in May 2018. Trump reiterated his commitment to the implementation of the Monroe Doctrine at the 73rd UN General Assembly in 2018.[67]Russian permanent representative to the United NationsVasily Nebenzya criticized the U.S. for whatRussia perceived as an implementation of the Monroe Doctrine at the 8,452nd emergency meeting of theUN Security Council on January 26, 2019. Venezuela's representative listed 27 interventions in Latin America that Venezuela considers to be implementations of the Monroe Doctrine and stated that, in the context of the statements, they considered it "a direct military threat to the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela". Cuba's representative formulated a similar opinion, "The current Administration of the United States of America has declared the Monroe Doctrine to be in effect..."[68]
On March 3, 2019,National Security AdvisorJohn Bolton invoked the Monroe Doctrine in describing the Trump administration's policy in the Americas, saying "In this administration, we're not afraid to use the word Monroe Doctrine...It's been the objective of American presidents going back to PresidentRonald Reagan to have a completely democratic hemisphere."[69][70]
President Trump's determination to treat the Western Hemisphere as a U.S. sphere of influence has been characterized as a revival of the Monroe Doctrine.[71][72]
Criticism
The Pull of the Monroe Magnet highlights theinterventionist and paternalistic practices of the United States in Latin America; cartoon inPuck byUdo Keppler, 1913
Historians have observed that while the doctrine contained a commitment to resist further European colonialism in the Americas, it resulted in some aggressive implications for U.S. foreign policy, since there were no limitations on its own actions mentioned within it. Historian Jay Sexton notes that the tactics used to implement the doctrine were modeled after those employed by European imperial powers during the 17th and 18th centuries.[73] American historianWilliam Appleman Williams, seeing the doctrine as a form ofAmerican imperialism, described it as a form of "imperialanti-colonialism".[74]Noam Chomsky argues that in practice the Monroe Doctrine has been used by the U.S. government as a declaration ofhegemony and a right of unilateral intervention over the Americas.[75]
^Mark T. Gilderhus, "The Monroe doctrine: meanings and implications."Presidential Studies Quarterly 36.1 (2006): 5–16onlineArchived September 25, 2022, at theWayback Machine
^abScarfi, Juan Pablo (2014). "In the Name of the Americas: The Pan-American Redefinition of the Monroe Doctrine and the Emerging Language of American International Law in the Western Hemisphere, 1898–1933".Diplomatic History.40 (2):189–218.doi:10.1093/dh/dhu071.
^"Monroe Doctrine, 1823".Office of the Historian. United States Department of State. April 6, 2016. RetrievedMarch 26, 2016.
^For the text of the Ukase of 1821, see:"Imperial Russian Edicts Relating to the Russian–American Company".Fur-Seal Arbitration: Appendix to the Case of the United States Before the Tribunal of Arbitration to Convene at Paris Under the Provisions of the Treaty Between the United States of America and Great Britain, Concluded February 29, 1892. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 1892. p. 16.
^no by-line."James K. Polk: Reaffirmation of the Monroe Doctrine".Encyclopædia Britannica. RetrievedJuly 28, 2016.In his message to Congress of December 2, 1845, President Polk reinterpreted the Monroe Doctrine in terms of the prevailing spirit of Manifest Destiny. Whereas Monroe had said only that the Western Hemisphere was no longer open to European colonialism, Polk now stated that European nations had better not interfere with projected territorial expansion by the U.S.
^abHumphreys, R. A. (1967).Anglo-American Rivalries and the Venezuela Crisis of 1895: Presidential Address to the Royal Historical Society December 10, 1966. Vol. 17. pp. 131–164.{{cite book}}:|work= ignored (help)
^Young, George B. (1942). "Intervention Under the Monroe Doctrine: The Olney Corollary".Political Science Quarterly.57 (2):247–280.doi:10.2307/2143553.JSTOR2143553.
^Dziuban, Stanley W. (1959)."Chapter 1, Chautauqua to Ogdensburg".Military Relations Between the United States and Canada, 1939–1945. Washington DC: Center of Military History, United States Army. pp. 2–3.LCCN59-60001. Archived fromthe original on May 7, 2019. RetrievedDecember 2, 2016.
^abMatthias Maass (2009), "Catalyst for the Roosevelt Corollary: Arbitrating the 1902–1903 Venezuela Crisis and Its Impact on the Development of the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine",Diplomacy & Statecraft, Volume 20, Issue 3, pages 383–402
^abRoosevelt, Theodore (December 6, 1904)."State of the Union Address". TeachingAmericanHistory.org. Archived fromthe original on June 13, 2010. RetrievedDecember 20, 2008.
^Coyne, Christopher J. (2022).In Search of Monsters to Destroy : The Folly of American Empire and the Paths to Peace. Independent Institute. pp. 14–15.ISBN9781598133479.
^Lerner, Adrienne Wilmoth (2004)."Monroe Doctrine".Encyclopedia of Espionage, Intelligence, and Security. Thistertiary source reuses information from other sources but does not name them.
^Chandler, Charles Lyon (July 1914). "The Pan American Origin of the Monroe Doctrine".American Journal of International Law.8 (3):515–519.doi:10.2307/2187493.S2CID147379518;García Samudio, Nicolás (1941). "La misíon de don Manuel Torres en Washington y los orígenes suramericanos de la doctrina Monroe".Boletín de Historia y Antigüedades (in Spanish).28:474–484; criticized byWhitaker, Arthur P. (1954).The Western Hemisphere Idea: Its Rise and Decline. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press. p. 27.
^Dominguez, Jorge (1999)."US–Latin American Relations During the Cold War and its Aftermath"(PDF).The United States and Latin America: The New Agenda. Institute of Latin American Studies and the David Rockefeller Center for Latin Americas Studies. p. 12. Archived fromthe original(PDF) on March 9, 2012. RetrievedAugust 4, 2010.
"Present Status of the Monroe Doctrine".Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science.54:1–129. 1914.ISSN0002-7162.JSTORi242639. 14 articles by experts
Bingham, Hiram.The Monroe Doctrine: An Obsolete Shibboleth (Yale University Press, 1913); a strong attack;online
Bolkhovitinov, Nikolai N., and Basil Dmytryshyn. "Russia and the Declaration of the non-colonization principle: new archival evidence."Oregon Historical Quarterly 72.2 (1971): 101–126.online
Bryne, Alex.The Monroe Doctrine and United States National Security in the Early Twentieth Century (Springer Nature, 2020).
Gilderhus, Mark T. (2006) "The Monroe Doctrine: meanings and implications."Presidential Studies Quarterly 36.1 (2006): 5–16.OnlineArchived September 25, 2022, at theWayback Machine
May, Robert E. (2017) "The Irony of Confederate Diplomacy: Visions of Empire, the Monroe Doctrine, and the Quest for Nationhood."Journal of Southern History 83.1 (2017): 69-106.excerpt
Meiertöns, Heiko (2010).The Doctrines of US Security Policy: An Evaluation under International Law. Cambridge University Press.ISBN978-0-521-76648-7.
Murphy, Gretchen (2005).Hemispheric Imaginings: The Monroe Doctrine and Narratives of U.S. Empire. Duke University Press. Examines the cultural context of the doctrine.excerpt
Nakajima, Hiroo. "The Monroe Doctrine and Russia: American views of Czar Alexander I and their influence upon early Russian-American relations."Diplomatic History 31.3 (2007): 439–463.
Poston, Brook. (2016) "'Bolder Attitude': James Monroe, the French Revolution, and the Making of the Monroe Doctrine"Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 124#4 (2016), pp. 282–315.online
Rossi, Christopher R. (2019) "The Monroe Doctrine and the Standard of Civilization."Whiggish International Law (Brill Nijhoff, 2019) pp. 123–152.
Sexton, Jay (2011).The Monroe Doctrine: Empire and Nation in 19th-Century America. Hill & Wang. 290 pages; competing and evolving conceptions of the doctrine after 1823.excerpt
Primary sources
Alvarez, Alejandro, ed.The Monroe Doctrine: Its Importance in the International Life of the States of the New World (Oxford University Press, 1924) includes statements from many countriesonline.
External links
Listen to this article (22 minutes)
This audio file was created from a revision of this article dated 29 August 2019 (2019-08-29), and does not reflect subsequent edits.
Written message with national radio address * Split into multiple parts
† Included a detailed written supplement
‡ Not officially a "State of the Union" PresidentsWilliam Henry Harrison (1841) andJames Garfield (1881) died in office before delivering a State of the Union
(2).jpg)
.jpg)
%2c_Carlos_Par%25C3%25ADs_(1820_-_1835).png)
.jpg)
