Monroe Doctrine

File:JuraIndependencia.jpg on February 18, 1818]]

According to S.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".{{Cite journal|last=Morison|first=S.E.|date=February 1924|title=The Origins of the Monroe Doctrine|jstor=2547870|journal=Economica|issue=10|pages=27–51|doi=10.2307/2547870}}

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 the American Revolution. Alexander Hamilton, writing in The 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. 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.

A note from James Madison (Thomas Jefferson's secretary of state and a future president) to the U.S. ambassador to Spain, expressed the U.S. government's opposition to further territorial acquisition by European powers.{{Cite book|title=Autopsy of the Monroe Doctrine|last=Nerval|first=Gaston|publisher=The Macmillan Company|year=1934|location=New York|pages=33}} 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 British–French rivalry out the U.S., 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.

The U.S. feared the victorious European powers that emerged from the Congress of Vienna (1814–1815) would revive monarchical government. France had already agreed to restore the Spanish monarchy in exchange for Cuba.{{cite book|url=https://archive.org/details/oxfordcompaniont00paul_0/page/514|title=The Oxford Companion to United States History|publisher=Oxford University Press|year=2006|isbn=978-0-19-508209-8|editor-last=Boyer|editor-first=Paul S.|location=Oxford|pages=[https://archive.org/details/oxfordcompaniont00paul_0/page/514 514]}}{{Verify source|date=January 2025}} As the Napoleonic Wars (1803–1815) came to an end, Prussia, Austria, and Russia formed the Holy Alliance to defend monarchism. In particular, the Holy Alliance authorized military incursions to re-establish Bourbon rule over Spain and its colonies, which were establishing their independence.{{cite book|url=https://archive.org/details/fromcolonytosupe00herr|title=From Colony to Superpower: U.S. Foreign Relations Since 1776|last=Herring|first=George C.|publisher=Oxford University Press|year=2008|isbn=9780195078220|location=New York}}{{rp|153–5}}

Great Britain shared the general objective of the Monroe Doctrine, and even wanted to declare a joint statement to keep other European powers from further colonizing the New World. The British feared their trade with the New World would be harmed if the other European powers further colonized it. In fact, for many years after the doctrine took effect, Britain, through the Royal Navy, was the sole nation enforcing it, the U.S. lacking sufficient naval capability.{{Cite web |date=April 6, 2016 |title=Monroe Doctrine, 1823 |url=https://history.state.gov/milestones/1801-1829/monroe |access-date=March 26, 2016 |website=Office of the Historian |publisher=United States Department of State}} The U.S. resisted a joint statement because of the recent memory of the War of 1812; however, the immediate provocation was the Russian Ukase of 1821For the text of the Ukase of 1821, see: {{cite book |chapter-url= https://books.google.com/books?id=LYoGAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA16 |chapter= Imperial Russian Edicts Relating to the Russian–American Company |title= 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 |location= Washington, DC |publisher= U.S. Government Printing Office |year= 1892 |page= 16}} asserting rights to the Pacific Northwest and forbidding non-Russian ships from approaching the coast.{{cite book |first1= David M. |last1= Kennedy |first2= Lizabeth |last2= Cohen |first3= Thomas Andrew |last3= Bailey |year= 2008 |title= The American Pageant: A History of the Republic, Volume I |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=gwP8bQsT908C&pg=PT267 |publisher= Cengage Learning |page= 267 |isbn= 9780547166599 }}{{cite book |first1= Robert J. |last1= Miller |first2= Elizabeth |last2= Furse |year= 2006 |title= Native America, Discovered and Conquered: Thomas Jefferson, Lewis & Clark, and Manifest Destiny |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=FL_G_WdsCX0C&pg=PA136 |location= Westport, CT |publisher= Praeger |isbn= 9780275990114 |page= 136}}

The full document of the Monroe Doctrine, written chiefly by future president and then secretary of state John 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:{{cite web |first= James |last= Monroe |url= http://usinfo.org/PUBS/LivingDoc_e/monroe.htm |title= The Monroe Doctrine |publisher= U.S. Department of State |access-date= November 2, 2011}}

{{blockquote|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:

{{blockquote|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.{{Cite journal |last=Riguzzi |first=Paolo |date=2023 |title=Mexico and the Monroe Doctrines, 1863–1920: From Appropriation to Rejection |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/dh/dhad049 |journal=Diplomatic History |volume=47 |issue=5 |pages=781–801 |doi=10.1093/dh/dhad049 |issn=0145-2096|url-access=subscription }} It was mostly ignored until proponents of the European non-intervention in the Americas tried to craft a cohesive "Monroe doctrine" decades later. It was not until the mid-20th century that the doctrine became a key component of U.S. grand strategy.

File:"Keep off! The Monroe Doctrine must be respected" (F. Victor Gillam, 1896).jpg's 1896 political cartoon depicting Uncle Sam standing with a rifle between the Europeans and Latin Americans]]

Because the United States lacked both a credible navy and army at the time, the doctrine was largely disregarded internationally. Prince Klemens 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."{{rp|156}}

The doctrine, however, met with tacit British approval. They enforced it tactically as part of the wider Pax Britannica, which included enforcement of the neutrality of the seas. This was in line with the developing British policy of laissez-faire free trade against mercantilism. Fast-growing British industry sought markets for its 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 policy.{{cite book |last= Hobson |first= Rolf |title= Imperialism at Sea |volume= 163 |page= 63 |publisher= Brill Academic Publishers |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=sbo3f1VmDFoC&q=pax+britannica+neutrality+seas&pg=PA63 |access-date= October 12, 2009 |isbn=978-0-391-04105-9|year= 2002 }}

The reaction in Latin America to the Monroe Doctrine was generally favorable but on some occasions suspicious. John A. Crow, author of The Epic of Latin America, states, "Simón Bolívar himself, still in the midst of his last campaign against the Spaniards, Santander in Colombia, Rivadavia in Argentina, Victoria in Mexico—leaders of the emancipation movement everywhere—received Monroe's words with sincerest gratitude".{{cite book |title=The Epic of Latin America |edition=4th |first=John A. |last=Crow |chapter=Areil and Caliban |location=Berkeley |publisher=University of California Press |year=1992 |pages=[https://archive.org/details/epicoflatinameri00crow/page/676 676] |isbn=0-520-07723-7 |chapter-url=https://archive.org/details/epicoflatinameri00crow/page/676 }} 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 the backing of the British forces, and figured that the Monroe Doctrine was unenforceable if the U.S. stood alone against the Holy Alliance. While they 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 his Congress 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".

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".Uribe, Armando, El Libro Negro de la Intervención Norteamericana en Chile. México: Siglo XXI Editores, 1974.

File:Acción militar en Pueblo Viejo (Batalla de Tampico, 11-9-1829), Carlos París (1820 - 1835).png in 1829]]

In Spanish America, royalist guerrillas continued the war in several countries, and Spain attempted to retake Mexico in 1829. Only Cuba and Puerto Rico remained under Spanish rule, until the Spanish–American War in 1898.

In early 1833, the British reasserted their sovereignty over the Falkland islands, thus violating the Monroe Doctrine.{{Cite journal|last=Castro-Ruiz|first=Carlos|date=1917|title=The Monroe Doctrine and the Government of Chile|url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0003055400106252/type/journal_article|journal=American Political Science Review|language=en|volume=11|issue=2|pages=231–238|doi=10.2307/1943985|jstor=1943985|s2cid=147341271 |issn=0003-0554|url-access=subscription}} No action was taken by the U.S. and historian George C. Herring wrote that the inaction "confirmed Latin American and especially Argentine suspicions of the United States."{{rp|171}}{{cite book |last=Howe|first=Daniel |title=What Hath God Wrought |url=https://archive.org/details/whathathgodwroug00howe|url-access=registration|location=New York |publisher=Oxford University Press |page=[https://archive.org/details/whathathgodwroug00howe/page/115 115] |year=2007|isbn=978-0-19-507894-7 }} In 1838–50, Argentina was under constant naval blockade by the French Navy, which was supported by the British Navy. As such, no action was undertaken by the U.S. to support their fellow Americas nations as Monroe had stated should have been done for collective security against European colonial powers.{{cite news|access-date=July 14, 2020|title=What is the Monroe Doctrine?|url=https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2019/02/12/what-is-the-monroe-doctrine|newspaper=The Economist|issn=0013-0613}}

In 1842, U.S. president John Tyler applied the Monroe Doctrine to Hawaii and warned Britain not to interfere there. This began the process of annexing Hawaii to the U.S.{{cite book|author=Debra J. Allen|title=Historical Dictionary of U.S. Diplomacy from the Revolution to Secession|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=oXQfyXh9pwUC&pg=PA270|year=2012|publisher=Scarecrow Press|page=270|isbn=9780810878952}}

On December 2, 1845, U.S. president James 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").{{cite web |url=http://kids.britannica.com/comptons/article-9116950/Document-James-K-Polk-Reaffirmation-of-the-Monroe-Doctrine |title=James K. Polk: Reaffirmation of the Monroe Doctrine |author=no by-line |website=Encyclopædia Britannica |access-date=July 28, 2016 |quote=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. }}

File:Siège de Puebla - 29 mars 1863.PNG, 1861–1867]]

In 1861, Dominican military commander and royalist politician Pedro Santana signed a pact with the Spanish Crown and reverted the Dominican 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, the Spanish annexation of the Dominican Republic was announced. The American 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.{{cite web |title=Annexation by Spain, 1861–65 |url=http://countrystudies.us/dominican-republic/6.htm |publisher=U.S. Library of Congress}}

In 1862, French forces under Napoleon III invaded and conquered Mexico, giving control to the puppet monarch Maximilian 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|date=October 2021}} 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.M. M. McAllen, Maximilian and Carlota: Europe's Last Empire in Mexico (2014) After the expulsion of France from Mexico, Secretary of State William H. Seward proclaimed in 1868 that the "Monroe doctrine, which eight years ago was merely a theory, is now an irreversible fact."{{Cite book|last=Maass|first=Richard W.|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=mhWTxgEACAAJ|title=The Picky Eagle: How Democracy and Xenophobia Limited U.S. Territorial Expansion|date=2020|publisher=Cornell University Press|isbn=978-1-5017-4875-2|pages=154|language=en}}

In 1865, Spain occupied the Chincha Islands in violation of the Monroe Doctrine.

In 1862, the remaining British colonies within Belize merged into a single crown colony within the British Empire, and renamed as British Honduras. The U.S. government did not express disapproval for this action, either during or after the Civil War.{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=agfvVQnBu9MC|title=Ireland and the Americas|isbn=9781851096145|last1=Byrne|first1=James Patrick|last2=Coleman|first2=Philip|last3=King|first3=Jason Francis|year=2008|publisher=Bloomsbury Academic }}

File:Twist-British-Tail.jpg twisting the tail of the British Lion; cartoon in Puck by J.S. Pughe, 1895]]

In the 1870s, President Ulysses S. Grant and Secretary of State Hamilton 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."{{rp|259}} Grant invoked the Monroe Doctrine in his failed attempt to annex the Dominican Republic in 1870.{{cite book|author1=Ulysses Simpson Grant|author2=John Y. Simon, Editor|title=The Papers of Ulysses S. Grant: November 1, 1870 – May 31, 1871|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=LCf0VPaT1wwC&pg=PA286|year=1998|publisher=SIU Press|page=286|isbn=9780809321971}}

The Venezuelan 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."{{cite book |author-link= Robert Arthur Humphreys |first= R. A. |last= Humphreys |year= 1967 |title= Anglo-American Rivalries and the Venezuela Crisis of 1895: Presidential Address to the Royal Historical Society December 10, 1966 |work= Transactions of the Royal Historical Society |volume= 17 |pages= 131–164}} Venezuela sought to involve the U.S. in a territorial dispute with Britain and hired former U.S. ambassador William L. Scruggs to argue that British behavior over the issue violated the Monroe Doctrine. President Grover Cleveland, through Secretary of State Richard Olney, cited the doctrine in 1895, threatening strong action against Great Britain if the British failed to arbitrate their dispute 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."{{rp|307}} British prime minister Lord Salisbury took strong exception to the American language. The U.S. 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."{{rp|307–8}} German chancellor Otto von Bismarck, did not agree and in October 1897 called the doctrine an "uncommon insolence".{{cite news|url=http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1897/10/20/page/6/article/bismarck-and-the-monroe-doctrine|title=Bismarck and the Monroe Doctrine|date=October 20, 1897|work=Chicago Tribune|access-date=August 16, 2016}}{{Dead link|date=October 2022|bot=InternetArchiveBot|fix-attempted=yes}} Sitting in Paris, the Tribunal of Arbitration finalized its decision on October 3, 1899. The award was unanimous, but gave no reasons for the decision, merely describing the resulting boundary, which gave Britain almost 90% of the disputed territorySchoenrich (1949:526) and all of the gold mines.King (2007:260)

File:Roosevelt monroe Doctrine cartoon.jpg using the Monroe Doctrine to keep European powers out of the Dominican Republic.]]

The reaction to the award was of surprise, with the award's lack of reasoning a particular concern. The Venezuelans were keenly disappointed with the outcome, though they honored their counsel for their efforts (their delegation's secretary, Severo Mallet-Prevost, received the Order of the Liberator in 1944), and abided by the award.

The Anglo-Venezuelan 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 modern interventionism under the Monroe Doctrine in which the U.S. exercised its claimed prerogatives in the Americas.{{cite web| first =Robert H| last =Ferrell| title =Monroe Doctrine| work =ap.grolier.com| url =http://ap.grolier.com/article?assetid=0197260-0&templatename=/article/article.html| access-date =October 31, 2008| url-status =dead| archive-url =https://web.archive.org/web/20080321123615/http://ap.grolier.com/article?assetid=0197260-0&templatename=%2Farticle%2Farticle.html| archive-date =March 21, 2008| df =mdy-all}}

In 1898, the U.S. intervened in support of Cuba during its war for independence from Spain. The resulting Spanish–American War ended in a peace treaty requiring Spain to cede Puerto Rico, the Philippines, and Guam 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.{{cite book |first=Joseph |last=Smith |title=The Spanish–American War 1895–1902: Conflict in the Caribbean and the Pacific |publisher=Routledge |year=2014 |isbn=978-1-138-83742-3 }}

The "Big Brother" policy was an extension of the Monroe Doctrine formulated by James 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 President James A. Garfield and again from 1889 to 1892 under President Benjamin Harrison. As a part of the policy, Blaine arranged and led the First International Conference of American States in 1889.{{cite book |last1= Lens |first1= Sidney |first2= Howard |last2= Zinn |title= The Forging of the American Empire: From the Revolution to Vietnam, a History of U.S. Imperialism |edition= Illustrated |publisher= Pluto Press |year= 2003 |series= Human Security Series |pages= 464 |isbn= 0-7453-2100-3 |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=qvLfIHqkOOAC&pg=PA161 }}

{{Main|Olney interpretation}}

The Olney Corollary, also known as the Olney interpretation or Olney declaration was U.S. secretary of state Richard 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 own hemisphere and foreshadowed the events of the Spanish–American War three years later. The Olney interpretation was defunct by 1933.{{Cite journal |jstor = 2143553|title = Intervention Under the Monroe Doctrine: The Olney Corollary|journal = Political Science Quarterly|volume = 57|issue = 2|pages = 247–280|last1 = Young|first1 = George B.|year = 1942|doi = 10.2307/2143553}}

In 1902, Canadian prime minister Wilfrid Laurier acknowledged that the Monroe Doctrine was essential to his country's protection. The doctrine provided Canada with a de facto security guarantee by the United States; the U.S. Navy in the Pacific, and the British Navy in the Atlantic, made invading North America almost impossible. Because of the peaceful relations between the two countries, Canada could assist Britain in a European war without having to defend itself at home.{{Cite book |chapter-url=http://www.history.army.mil/catalog/pubs/11/11-5.html |title=Military Relations Between the United States and Canada, 1939–1945 |last=Dziuban |first=Stanley W. |publisher=Center of Military History, United States Army |year=1959 |location=Washington DC |pages=2–3 |chapter=Chapter 1, Chautauqua to Ogdensburg |lccn=59-60001 |access-date=December 2, 2016 |archive-date=May 7, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190507094239/https://history.army.mil/catalog/pubs/11/11-5.html |url-status=dead }}

{{Main|Roosevelt Corollary}}

File:Go Away Little Man Charles Green Bush.jpg intimidating Colombia to acquire the Panama Canal Zone]]

The doctrine's authors, chiefly future president and then secretary of state John Quincy Adams, saw it as a proclamation by the U.S. of moral opposition to colonialism, 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.

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|date=July 2016}} The Venezuela 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 the Caribbean and Central America if they were unable to pay their international debts, in order to preclude European intervention to do so.Matthias 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 The Venezuela crisis, and in particular the arbitral award, were key in the development of the Corollary.

In Argentine foreign policy, the Drago Doctrine was announced on December 29, 1902, by Argentine foreign minister Luis María Drago. The doctrine itself was a response to the actions of Britain, Germany, and Italy, 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 President Cipriano 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".{{rp|370}}

File:BigStickinLAmerica.jpg showing the places affected by Theodore Roosevelt's Big stick policy.]]

Instead, Roosevelt added the Roosevelt 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 the Big stick ideology because of the oft-quoted phrase from Roosevelt, "speak softly and carry a big stick".{{rp|371}} The Roosevelt Corollary provoked outrage across Latin America.{{cite book|author=Thomas Leonard|display-authors=etal|title=Encyclopedia of U.S. – Latin American Relations|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=tIOzDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA789|year=2012|publisher=SAGE |page=789|isbn=9781608717927}}

The Corollary was invoked to intervene militarily in Latin America to stop the spread of European influence.{{cite news |first= Theodore |last= Roosevelt |title= State of the Union Address |publisher= TeachingAmericanHistory.org |date= December 6, 1904 |url= http://www.teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=1311 |access-date= December 20, 2008 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20100613090240/http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=1311 |archive-date= June 13, 2010 |url-status= dead }} 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. 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.{{cite book |title=In Search of Monsters to Destroy : The Folly of American Empire and the Paths to Peace |last=Coyne|first=Christopher J. |isbn=9781598133479 |publisher=Independent Institute |year=2022 |pages=14–15 }} Other critics have argued that the Corollary asserted U.S. domination in the area, effectively making them a "hemispheric policeman".{{cite encyclopedia |title=Monroe Doctrine |url= http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3406400597.html |encyclopedia=Encyclopedia of Espionage, Intelligence, and Security |last=Lerner|first=Adrienne Wilmoth |year=2004}}{{tertiary source|date=March 2024}}

The early decades of the 20th century saw a number of interventions in Latin America by the U.S. government often justified under the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine.{{cite web|url=http://www.theodoreroosevelt.org/life/rooseveltcorollary.htm|title=Home - Theodore Roosevelt Association|work=theodoreroosevelt.org}} President William Howard Taft viewed dollar 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.{{cite web |title=Dollar Diplomacy |url=https://www.britannica.com/event/Dollar-Diplomacy |publisher=Encyclopædia Britannica}}

File:American poses with dead Haitian revolutionaries after being killed by US Marine machine gun fire - 10-11-1915.jpg]]

The United States launched multiple interventions into Latin America, resulting in U.S. military presence in Cuba, Honduras, Panama (via the Hay–Bunau-Varilla Treaty and Isthmian Canal Commission),{{cite web|url=http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/panama-declares-independence|title=Panama declares independence|work=HISTORY.com}} Haiti (1915–1935),{{Cite web|url=https://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/wwi/88275.htm|title=U.S. Invasion and Occupation of Haiti, 1915-34|first=Bureau of Public Affairs|last=Department Of State. The Office of Electronic Information|date=July 13, 2007|website=2001-2009.state.gov}} the Dominican Republic (1916–1924) and Nicaragua (1912–1925 and 1926–1933).{{cite news| url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1225283.stm | work=BBC News | title=Nicaragua timeline | date=November 9, 2011}} 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.Lester D. Langley, The Banana Wars: United States Intervention in the Caribbean, 1898–1934 (2001)

The Platt Amendment amended a treaty between the U.S. and the Republic 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, including Guantánamo Bay.{{cite web|url=http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=55|title=Our Documents - Platt Amendment (1903)|work=ourdocuments.gov|date=April 9, 2021 }}

The so-called "Lodge Corollary" was passed{{cite web|url=https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/62-2/s236|title=Senate Vote #236 in 1912}} by the U.S. Senate on August 2, 1912, in response to a reported attempt by a Japan-backed private company to acquire Magdalena Bay in Baja California Sur. It extended the reach of the Monroe Doctrine to cover actions of corporations and associations controlled by foreign states.{{cite book|title=New York Times Current History: the European war, Volume 9|pages=158–159|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=EuALAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA158|year=1917}}

The Clark Memorandum, written on December 17, 1928, by President Calvin Coolidge's undersecretary of state J. Reuben Clark, concerned American use of military force to intervene in Latin American nations. This memorandum was officially released in 1930 by the administration of President Herbert Hoover.

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.

File:C-864 - Members of a mountain-climbing trip observe the glacier after climbing to this great height in Greenland. (52289825160).jpg during World War II]]

After World 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.{{cite magazine | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=xz8EAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA20 | title=What the U.S.A. Thinks | magazine=Life | date=July 29, 1940 | access-date=November 10, 2011 | page=20}}

The December 1941 conquest of Saint Pierre and Miquelon by Free French forces from the control of Vichy France was seen as a violation of the Monroe Doctrine by Secretary of State Cordell Hull.[http://worldatwar.net/article/miquelon/ "Over by Christmas." The Liberation of Saint Pierre and Miquelon]

During World War II, the US invoked its Monroe Doctrine and occupied Greenland to prevent use by Germany following the German 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 the NATO military alliance. A 1951 treaty gave the US a significant role in Greenland's defense. As of 2025, the US Space Force maintains Pituffik Space Base in Greenland, and the US military frequently takes part in NATO exercises in Greenlandic waters.

After 1898, jurists and intellectuals in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Uruguay, especially Luis María Drago, Alejandro Álvarez, and Baltasar 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 to Manuel Torres.{{cite journal|last=Chandler|first=Charles Lyon|date=July 1914|title=The Pan American Origin of the Monroe Doctrine|journal=American Journal of International Law|volume=8|issue=3|pages=515–519|doi=10.2307/2187493|doi-access=|jstor=|s2cid=147379518 |postscript=;}} {{cite journal|last=García Samudio|first=Nicolás|date=1941|title=La misíon de don Manuel Torres en Washington y los orígenes suramericanos de la doctrina Monroe|journal=Boletín de Historia y Antigüedades|language=es|volume=28|pages=474–484|postscript=;}} criticized by {{cite book|last=Whitaker|first=Arthur P.|date=1954|title=The Western Hemisphere Idea: Its Rise and Decline|url=https://archive.org/details/westernhemispher00whit|location=Ithaca, New York|publisher=Cornell University Press|page=[https://archive.org/details/westernhemispher00whit/page/27 27]}} However, U.S. officials were reluctant to renounce unilateral interventionism until the Good Neighbor policy enunciated by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933. The era of the Good Neighbor Policy ended with the ramp-up of the Cold 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 multilateral Organization of American States (OAS) founded in 1948.

In 1954, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles invoked the Monroe Doctrine at the 10th Pan-American Conference in Caracas, denouncing the intervention of Soviet communism in Guatemala. President John F. Kennedy said at an August 29, 1962, news conference:

{{blockquote|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 the OAS 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.{{cite web|url= http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=8839|title= 352 – The President's News Conference August 29, 1962 response to Q[21.]|publisher= Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project.|access-date= April 12, 2014|archive-date= April 13, 2014|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20140413142145/http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=8839|url-status= dead}}}}

{{See|United States involvement in regime change in Latin America}}

File:CIA-Arbenz-overthrow-FOIA-documents-1of5.gif memorandum dated May 1975 which describes the role of the Agency in deposing the Guatemalan government of President Jacobo Árbenz Guzmán in June 1954 (1–5)]]

During the Cold War, the Monroe Doctrine was applied to Latin America by the framers of U.S. foreign policy.{{cite web |url=http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~jidoming/images/jid_uslatin.PDF |title=US–Latin American Relations During the Cold War and its Aftermath |last=Dominguez |first=Jorge |year=1999 |work=The United States and Latin America: The New Agenda |publisher=Institute of Latin American Studies and the David Rockefeller Center for Latin Americas Studies |page=12 |access-date=August 4, 2010 |archive-date=March 9, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120309153730/http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~jidoming/images/jid_uslatin.PDF |url-status=dead }} When the Cuban Revolution (1953–1959) established a communist government with ties to the Soviet Union, it was argued that the Monroe Doctrine should be invoked to prevent the spread of Soviet-backed communism in Latin America.{{cite web |url=https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1969-76ve10/d4 |title=Study Prepared in Response to National Security Study Memorandum 15 |date=July 5, 1969 |publisher=NSC–IG/ARA |access-date=August 4, 2010}} 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 of Operation Condor).

During the Cuban 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.{{cite magazine |title=The Durable Doctrine |magazine=Time |date=September 21, 1962 |url=http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,827518,00.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090306194646/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,827518,00.html |url-status=dead |archive-date=March 6, 2009 |access-date=July 15, 2009}}

The debate over this new interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine burgeoned in reaction to the Iran–Contra affair. It was revealed that the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency had been covertly training "Contra" guerrilla soldiers in Honduras in an attempt to destabilize and overthrow the Sandinista revolutionary government of Nicaragua and its president, Daniel Ortega. CIA director Robert Gates vigorously defended the Contra operation in 1984, arguing that eschewing U.S. intervention in Nicaragua would be "totally to abandon the Monroe Doctrine".{{cite book |first=Gaddis |last=Smith |title=The Last Years of the Monroe Doctrine, 1945–1993 |url=https://archive.org/details/lastyearsofmonro0000smit |url-access=registration |year=1995 |location=New York |publisher=Hill & Wang |isbn=978-0-8090-1568-9 |page=[https://archive.org/details/lastyearsofmonro0000smit/page/201 201]}}

{{Further|Foreign policy of the Barack Obama administration#Americas}}

Secretary of State John Kerry told the Organization of American States in November 2013 that the "era of the Monroe Doctrine is over."{{cite news |last= Johnson |first= Keith |title= Kerry Makes It Official: 'Era of Monroe Doctrine Is Over' |url= https://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/11/18/kerry-makes-it-official-era-of-monroe-doctrine-is-over/ |newspaper= Wall Street Journal |date= November 18, 2013}} Several commentators have noted that Kerry's call for a mutual partnership with the other countries in the Americas is more in keeping with Monroe's intentions than the policies enacted after his death.{{cite web |url= https://thediplomat.com/2013/11/the-us-renounces-the-monroe-doctrine/ |title= The US Renounces the Monroe Doctrine? |last1= Keck |first1= Zachary |date= November 21, 2013 |work= The Diplomat |access-date= November 28, 2013}}

{{See|American expansionism under Donald Trump}}

President Donald Trump implied potential use of the doctrine in August 2017 when he mentioned the possibility of military intervention in Venezuela,{{cite web|title=Trump Says He Is Considering Military Action in Venezuela|url=https://www.voanews.com/a/trump-military-action-venezuela/3982464.html|website=VOA News|date=August 11, 2017 }} after CIA director Mike Pompeo declared that the nation's deterioration was the result of interference from Iranian- and Russian-backed groups.{{cite web|title=CIA Director Pompeo: Venezuela's Situation Continues to Deteriorate|url=https://www.voanews.com/a/cia-director-mike-pompeo-says-venezuela-situation-continues-to-deteriorate/3983978.html|website=VOA News|date=August 13, 2017 }} In February 2018, Secretary of State Rex 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.{{cite web|last1=Gramer|first1=Robbie|title=Tillerson Praises Monroe Doctrine, Warns Latin America of 'Imperial' Chinese Ambitions|url=https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/02/02/tillerson-praises-monroe-doctrine-warns-latin-america-off-imperial-chinese-ambitions-mexico-south-america-nafta-diplomacy-trump-trade-venezuela-maduro/|website=Foreign Policy|date=February 2, 2018 |publisher=The Slate Group}} 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.{{cite web|date=September 25, 2018 |url=https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-73rd-session-united-nations-general-assembly-new-york-ny/|via=National Archives |work=whitehouse.gov |title=Remarks by President Trump to the 73rd Session of the United Nations General Assembly, New York, NY}} Russian permanent representative to the United Nations Vasily Nebenzya criticized the U.S. for what Russia perceived as an implementation of the Monroe Doctrine at the 8,452nd emergency meeting of the UN 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..."{{cite web|date=January 26, 2019| url=https://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/PV.8452 |publisher=United Nations| title=S/PV.8452 Security Council: Seventy-fourth year: 8452nd meeting|page=12}}

On March 3, 2019, National Security Advisor John 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 President Ronald Reagan to have a completely democratic hemisphere."{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/john-bolton-were-not-afraid-to-use-the-word-monroe-doctrine|title=John Bolton: 'We're not afraid to use the word Monroe Doctrine'|date=March 3, 2019|access-date=March 4, 2019}}{{cite news|newspaper=The Washington Post|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2019/03/04/what-is-monroe-doctrine-john-boltons-justification-trumps-push-against-maduro/|title=What is the Monroe Doctrine? John Bolton's justification for Trump's push against Maduro|date=March 4, 2019}}

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.{{cite news |title=Trump, Greenland and the rebirth of the Monroe Doctrine |url=https://www.ft.com/content/9bbba76a-6b12-4e31-b93e-89cfc3b2e06a |work=Financial Times |date=January 10, 2025}}{{cite news |title=Trump revives Monroe Doctrine in U.S. relations with Western Hemisphere |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/02/28/trump-latin-america-monroe-doctrine/ |work=The Washington Post |date=February 28, 2025}}

File:The Pull of the Monroe Magnet.jpg and paternalistic practices of the United States in Latin America; cartoon in Puck by Udo 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.{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=tmp4DQAAQBAJ&q=Modeled+after+British+imperialists&pg=PT35|title=Outside In: The Transnational Circuitry of US History|last1=Preston|first1=Andrew|last2=Rossinow|first2=Doug|date=November 15, 2016|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=9780190459871|language=en}} American historian William Appleman Williams, seeing the doctrine as a form of American imperialism, described it as a form of "imperial anti-colonialism".{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=u4GVKXN8SWYC&q=imperial+anti-colonialism|title=The Monroe Doctrine: Empire and Nation in Nineteenth-Century America|last=Sexton|first=Jay|date=March 15, 2011|publisher=Farrar, Straus and Giroux|isbn=9781429929288|pages=2–9|language=en}} Noam Chomsky argues that in practice the Monroe Doctrine has been used by the U.S. government as a declaration of hegemony and a right of unilateral intervention over the Americas.{{cite book |first= Noam |last= Chomsky |title= Hegemony Or Survival |pages= 63–64 |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=tzAC75P9sscC&q=noam+chomsky+hegemony+or+survival+doctrine+declaration+of+hegemony&pg=PA64 |access-date= December 20, 2008 | isbn= 978-0-8050-7688-2 |year= 2004 |publisher= Henry Holt}}

• {{annotated link|America's Backyard}}
• {{annotated link|Banana Wars}}
• {{annotated link|Brezhnev Doctrine}}
• {{annotated link|Foreign policy of the United States}}
• {{annotated link|Gunboat diplomacy}}
• {{annotated link|History of Latin America–United States relations}}
• {{annotated link|Foreign interventions by the United States}}
• {{annotated link|Monroe Doctrine Centennial half dollar}}

{{Reflist|30em}}

• "Forum: The Monroe Doctrine at 200,” Diplomatic History, 47#5 (November 2023): 731-870. [https://issforum.org/reviews/PDF/AR1207.pdf online review of group of scholarly articles]

• {{cite journal |title= Present Status of the Monroe Doctrine |journal= Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science |volume= 54 |year= 1914 |pages= 1–129 |jstor= i242639 |issn= 0002-7162 }} 14 articles by experts
• Bemis, Samuel Flagg. John Quincy Adams and the Foundations of American Foreign Policy (1949) [https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.54886 online]
• Bingham, Hiram. The Monroe Doctrine: An Obsolete Shibboleth (Yale University Press, 1913); a strong attack; [https://books.google.com/books?id=Tf1NAAAAMAAJ&dq=%22Monroe+doctrine%22++hiram+bingham&pg=PA3 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. [https://www.jstor.org/stable/20613228 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. [http://maihold.org/mediapool/113/1132142/data/Gilderhus.pdf Online] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220925024450/http://maihold.org/mediapool/113/1132142/data/Gilderhus.pdf |date=September 25, 2022 }}
• {{cite book |last= May |first= Ernest R. |title= The Making of the Monroe Doctrine |url= https://archive.org/details/makingofmonroe00maye |url-access= registration |publisher= Harvard UP |year= 1975|isbn= 9780674543409 }}
• 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. [https://muse.jhu.edu/article/647290/summary excerpt]
• {{cite book |last= Meiertöns |first= Heiko |title= The Doctrines of US Security Policy: An Evaluation under International Law |publisher= Cambridge University Press |year= 2010 |isbn= 978-0-521-76648-7}}
• {{cite book |last= Merk |first= Frederick |title= The Monroe Doctrine and American Expansionism, 1843–1849 |url= https://archive.org/details/monroedoctrineam00merk |url-access= registration |year= 1966 |publisher= New York, Knopf }}
• Morison, S. E. (1924). "[https://www.jstor.org/stable/2547870 The Origin of the Monroe Doctrine, 1775-1823]". Economica (10): 27–51.
• {{cite book |last= Murphy |first= Gretchen |title= Hemispheric Imaginings: The Monroe Doctrine and Narratives of U.S. Empire |publisher= Duke University Press |year= 2005}} Examines the cultural context of the doctrine. [https://www.amazon.com/Hemispheric-Imaginings-Doctrine-Narratives-Americanists/dp/0822334844/ 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.
• {{cite book |last= Perkins |first= Dexter |title= The Monroe Doctrine, 1823–1826 |url= https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.187613 |year= 1927}} 3 vols.
• 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. [https://www.jstor.org/stable/26322616 online]
• Rossi, Christopher R. (2019) "The Monroe Doctrine and the Standard of Civilization." Whiggish International Law (Brill Nijhoff, 2019) pp. 123–152.
• {{cite book |last= Sexton |first= Jay |title= The Monroe Doctrine: Empire and Nation in 19th-Century America |publisher= Hill & Wang |year= 2011}} 290 pages; competing and evolving conceptions of the doctrine after 1823. [https://www.amazon.com/Monroe-Doctrine-Empire-Nineteenth-Century-America/dp/0809069997/ excerpt]

• 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 countries [https://books.google.com/books?id=ItdaAAAAIAAJ&dq=%22Monroe+doctrine%22++Alvarez&pg=PA3 online].

{{Spoken Wikipedia|Monroe_Doctrine.ogg|date=August 29, 2019}}

{{sister project links|d=Q181026|c=Category:Monroe Doctrine|n=no|v=no|voy=no|m=no|mw=no|species=no|q=no|b=no|wikt=Monroeism}}

• [https://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/Monroe.html Monroe Doctrine and related resources at the Library of Congress]
• [https://web.archive.org/web/20041109025344/http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/monrodoc.html Selected text from Monroe's December 2, 1823 speech]
• [http://www.tnr.com/print/article/world/adios-monroe-doctrine Adios, Monroe Doctrine: When the Yanquis Go Home] by Jorge G. Castañeda, The New Republic, December 28, 2009
• [http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83030214/1904-08-14/ed-1/seq-55/ As illustrated in a 1904 cartoon]

{{James Monroe}}

{{Foreign relations of the United States |expanded=DPC}}

{{United States intervention in Latin America}}

{{State of the Union}}

{{John Quincy Adams}}

{{Authority control}}

*

Category:1823 introductions

Category:1823 in American politics

Category:1823 in international relations

Category:Banana Wars

Category:December 1823

Category:Foreign policy doctrines of the United States

Category:History of the foreign relations of the United States

Category:History of United States expansionism

Category:History of United States isolationism

Category:Latin American history

Category:Presidency of James Monroe

Category:Spanish–American War

Category:Spheres of influence

Category:State of the Union addresses

Category:United States documents

Category:United States–Caribbean relations

Category:United States–European relations

Category:United States–South American relations