The birth of the Monroe Doctrine - An essay

Résumé du document

John Quincy Adams, one of the doctrine's authors warned the United States of America (U.S) in 1821 against the temptation to spread freedom beyond national boundaries, especially in Latin America. Owing to him, America "goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all". This declaration seemed to announce a strong will to remain strictly neutral in any conflict on the American continent that did not concern her directly. In 1823, President James Monroe, in his annual address to Congress brought forward a new American anti-colonial stand in America and in Europe, in reaction to foreign issues in the past decade,. Since then, this so-called doctrine has become a milestone in the American foreign policy, to the point that many myths surround it. However, the context in which this declaration was pronounced is crucial to obtain an understanding of its substance. Therefore it seems compulsory to purge the "cult of Monroeism" by analyzing carefully the diplomatic "chess game" that triggered this strong American reaction of a vindictive Europe.

Extraits

[...] Despite tremendous commercial development opportunities in Latin America, Secretary of State James Monroe advocated in 1811 that destiny of these provinces must depend on themselves”. Adams was also very worried that any military intervention in Latin America would offend the Spanish crown and jeopardize the purchase of Florida. This cautious position proved to be full of wisdom since the U.S eventually got Florida. One of the other boundaries conflicts concerned the Russian attempt to settle a colony in Alaska in 1821. [...]

[...] She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all”. This declaration seemed to announce a strong will to remain strictly neutral in any conflict on the American continent that did not concern her directly. In 1823, President James Monroe, in his annual address to Congress brought forward a new American anti-colonial stand in reaction to foreign issues in the past decade, in America and in Europe. Since then, this so-called doctrine has become a milestone in the American foreign policy, till the point that many myths surround it. [...]

[...] John Quincy Adams had just enunciated one of the principles of the future Monroe Doctrine. Canning's proposal of partnership between the U.S and the most powerful colonial empire on Earth was very attracting but maybe to good to be true. The foreign office listed principles to which the U.S was to subscribe if they wanted the partnership to be effective. It stated that the U.S should abandon the idea of recovering colonies by Spain and that the U.S “couldn't conceive to see any portion of these territories to any other Power”. [...]

[...] McDougall, Promised Land and Crusader State, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston -http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/washing.htm: Monroe Doctrine -American Diplomatic History, Lecture John Quincy Adam's American System: Origins of the Monroe Doctrine, 1815-1830 Historian Thomas A. Bailey quoted in Promised Land, Crusader State, by Walter A. McDougall See Promised Land, Crusader State, Chapter by Walter A. McDougall idem See Jefferson quoted in Promised Land, Crusader State, Chapter by Walter A. McDougall Promised Land, Crusader State, Chapter Page 69, by Walter A. McDougall quoted in Promised Land, Crusader State, Chapter Page 73, by Walter A. [...]

[...] The most important characteristics of all, is that the doctrine was not the initiative of President Monroe or any other American Statesman. The speech was indeed a response to a British proposition, which influenced some of the main ideas stated in the doctrine. The international new order that followed the Congress of Vienna in 1815 upset American diplomats and had the greatest influences on U.S foreign policy. A united, coordinated and monarchist Europe was the “worst nightmare”[3] of America since Prussia, Austria, Russia, France and Spain, trough an informal pact were determined to crush any revolutionary “Jacobinism”. [...]