JAMES MONROE Fifth President of the US Last President to have the status of Founding Father. Held the roles of Secretary of War and Secretary of State as well as Governor of Virginia. Helped negotiate the Louisiana Purchase.
PRESIDENT Elected President March 4th 1817, Monroe won the election with over 80 percent of the electoral college vote. In 1821 he was unanimously re- elected which is reflected by the term “Era of Good Feelings” that is attached to his presidency.
ERA OF GOOD FEELINGS During the First Party system there was a bitter division betweenthe Democratic-Republican and the Federalist Parties. One of Monroe’s main goals was to get rid of the infighting byconsolidating the parties with the hope of eliminating the partysystem all together. In fact the Federalist party was going the way of the dinosaursafter the Hartford Convention which made Monroe’s job much easier.
DE-FEDERALIZATION Monroe’s plan had three main steps:1. He restated his conviction that the Federalist party would install a monarch at the first opportunity.2. He refused to allow a token Federalist in his cabinet.3. Tried to merge former Federalists with the Republican party.
Monroe exploited the fact that the NEGLECTING THEFederalist party had been dealt a fatal blow PLANTSand consistently neglected it until it died like Monroe used a carefully planned approach toa house plant. The Federalist Party simply the process of de-Federalization. He was very sure to never make any comment that could beceased to exist to Monroe; he did not so considered partisan.much as reference them or publicly Despite the obvious systematic removal ofacknowledge them in any speech or Federalists, when face to face Monroe remainedcomment. likeable and reassuring promising nothing at all but leaving them with quiet good feelings. A He never attacked the party publicly or name that tags his administration as the generalprivately but made sure no Federalist held an feeling of the public due to the surging feelingoffice of any power or acquired any of nationalism after the war of 1812, but is also meant ironically due to the bitter feelings ofgovernment funding. Federalists and resentments building under the surface.
A B R I E F I N T RO D U C T I O N T O T H E M O N RO E D O C T R I N E
MONROE DOCTRINEThe Monroe doctrine is one of the greatlandmarks of US foreign policy. It has remainlargely unchanged for two hundred years.Monroe first stated the idea during his seventhstate of the union address after economicconditions in Spain allowed most SouthAmerican countries to declare theirindependence.The Monroe Doctrine was actually written byJohn Adams and heavily influenced by BritishForeign Minister George Canning. The Britishinterest was commercial in nature wanting tokeep lines of trade open in South America.
HISTORYThe Monroe Doctrine is said to be the result of the NapoleonicWars and the fear that certain European countries would onceagain turn to monarchies as a system of government.One such cause for concern was the Holy Alliance; composedof Prussia, Austria and Russia it’s goal was the defense ofmonarchial systems from revolution (particularly the FrenchRevolution). This defense included military support of Spain inre-establishing rule over its South American colonies who werein the process of declaring independence.
THE HOLY ALLIANCEFormed in Paris in 1815 and signed byTsar Alexander I of Russia, Francis I ofAustria and Fredrick William III ofPrussia while negotiating the secondPeace of Paris.The alliance wished to promoteChristian values throughout Europe anduphold the monarchies instated in each.Eventually signed by nearly all Europeanpowers except Britain, the OttomanEmperor and the Pope; it had little effecton European politics.
PROVOCATIONThe main act provoking Monroe’s statement of doctrinewas the Russian Ukase of 1821.The Russian Ukase (proclamation) was declared September4th 1821, and was an attempt by Russia to claim Alaska as aterritory. The proclamation stated that landing on anyterritory of Russia in the North West was prohibited andsailing within 100 miles as well."all foreign vessels not only to land on the coasts and islands belonging to Russia, [...] but also to approach them within less than one hundred miles.“The Ukase was only enforced on one occasion in 1822when American ship “The Pearl” was taken on a trip fromBoston to Sitka.The entire matter was cleared up, including a similarincident with British Columbia with the Russo-AmericanTreaty if 1824 and the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1825.
STATEMENTThe key concepts of the Monroe doctrine can be summarized by thefirst statement introducing the intent as follows. “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 thefree and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers.”
INTERPRETATIONThis introduction to the Monroe doctrinesimply states that the US deems it anappropriate time to declare that North andSouth America are off limits tocolonization.The justification is that the US declarationof independence had been maintained andwas relatively stable. Since many SouthAmerican nations were also declaringindependence the US determined the timewas right to declare the Western hemisphereoff limits to European powers.
SECOND STATEMENTThe intent of the doctrine and it’s relationship to US foreign policy isexpanded on in the following statement:“We owe it, therefore, to candor and to the amicable relations existing between the United States andthose 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.”
E X PA N D E D I N T E R P R E TAT I O NThe second statement of the Monroe doctrine expands on how theprevious statement should be interpreted.“We owe it, therefore, to candor and to the amicable relations existing between the United States andthose 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.”This statement is simply a friendly notice that any attempt byEuropean powers to colonize in the Western Hemisphere would beinterpreted as a threat to US interests and sovereignty.
“With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we have not interfered and shall not interfere.”The above statement is an appeal to European powers to remember that(technically) the US had not intervened in European politics and toconsider affording the US that same consideration. This statement is alsoto be interpreted as a promise that US will not intervene in Europeanpolitics. “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, […] “The doctrine goes on to state it will not interfere in the politics of SouthAmerica. The statement also acts as a public acknowledgement of thevalidity of those countries declarations for independence.
I M M E D I AT E E F F E C T O F T H E M O N RO E D O C T R I N EAt the time of Monroe’s declaration the US did not have an army or navycapable of enforcing the doctrine. However, the doctrine was in the bestinterests of Britain; and although written by Adams was largely influencedby the British Foreign Minister Canning.The British were in the process of developing laissez-faire trade inopposition to Spanish mercantilism. Britain absorbed the Monroe doctrineinto the Pax Britannica and enforced the policy with the Royal Navy.This action is viewed as the beginning of the Special Relationship betweenthe US and Britain. A relationship maintained over one hundred years andwhose success is reflected in the UK proposal to the US of the creationof the League of Nations.
S O U T H A M E R I C A N R E AC T I O NThe effect of the Monroe doctrine on South Americangovernments was met with gratitude by countries declaringindependence.However, these countries were aware that without Britishintervention US efforts were sentimental at best.It was Britain that protected the independence and sovereigntyof these new nations not the Monroe doctrine.
EXTENDING THE MONROE DOCTRINE December 2nd, 1845 Polk used the Monroe doctrine to support his case for manifest destiny. 1842, Tyler applies the doctrine to Hawaii in what would later be viewed a bad move. 1852, the Monroe doctrine was used in an attempt to force Spain out of Cuba. 1862, Napoleon III invades Mexico the US sees this as a violation of the doctrine but due to involvement in the Civil War can do nothing about it. In the 1870’s Grant attempts to replace European influence with the US in Latin America.
U S I N T E RV E N T I O N I N L AT I N AMERICA
T H E RO O S E V E LT C O RO L L A RY The Roosevelt corollary was added to the Monroe doctrine in 1904. This corollary gave the US justification to act in cases where a LatinAmerican country was unable to pay debts or was deemed “unruly”. The corollary states that the US has the right to interfere indisagreements between Latin America and European powers as anarbitrator. The corollary is considered now a step back from the intent of theMonroe doctrine.
CRITICISMThe Roosevelt corollary meant that theUS had the right to use military force inLatin America. This was cited asjustification for intervention inCuba, Haiti and the Dominican Republicand speaks to American Imperialistsentiment at the time. The corollary waslater reversed by the ClarkeMemorandum stating that the US needno such justification in order tointervene in Latin American politics.
CRITICISMThe Monroe doctrine on its own is innocent enough merely statingthat the US has the right to protect the sovereignty of independentnations in the Western Hemisphere.The Corollary is marked by the intention of replacing Europeaninterests in Latin America with American which a huge step back inUS diplomatic policy.
COYNE & DAVIESWhile the Monroe doctrine was civil and well mannered theRoosevelt doctrine still cause problems to this day. Remarked uponin Christopher Coyne and Stephen Davies article on nationbuilding argues that “[…] a foreign policy modeled on the Roosevelt Corollary leads to negative consequences both in national security terms and in terms of its effect on domestic politics.”
NOAM CHOMSKYArgues that the Roosevelt Corollary embodies the threat ofAmerican Imperialism to Latin America.He states that the Corollary indicates that the US would notonly defend Latin America but would use its influence toobtain concessions for US industry and corporations. This isreflected in the exportation of Coca extract to only one UScompany and illegal to everyone else including natives.
CONCLUSIONIn Latin America the attitude towards the Roosevelt Corollary and the Monroe doctrinecame to be known by the phrase“America for Americans” indicating the growing resentment in the lower WesternHemisphere with North American involvement.There have been recent rumors that the US has not scaled back its efforts withinvolvement and could be involved in a US Embassy attempt in Venezuela to fund anti-Chavez groups in the area.In my opinion this indicates the entitled attitudes of US politicians to consistentlyundermine the sovereignty and efforts at democracy in Latin American countries,particularly Peru, Bolivia and Venezuela. In fact it is my further opinion that since thepresidency of Monroe every attempt has been made to undermine the original intent ofthe doctrine including the Clark Memorandum.
THE ENDThis has been Kristi Short LAST Power Point Presentation at Santa Fe College!In case you are wondering about certain biases expressed inthe contents of this power point I would like it known thatmy opinions are based on my living experiences as a child in Bolivia.I have absolutely no problem with the original intent of theMonroe doctrine. But I think overall it was a bad move and perhaps unnecessary.