The Monroe Doctrine and the Foreign Policy of the United States in the Western Hemisphere

Abstract

The scope of this article does not admit of a detailed analysis of the varied phases of the Monroe Doctrine as originally enunciated and subsequently developed into a permanent feature of our foreign policy. It is only necessary to remind students of the subject that the predominant motive actuating President Monroe and contemporary statesmen in promulgating this doctrine was one of selfishness-if anxiety for self-preservation may be called selfish. The dangers which the United States sought to avert by this means were two-fold: First, the acquisition of territory in the western hemisphere by European powers and the consequent peril to the supremacy of the United States in the western world; and second, the overthrow of newly established republics in South America and the resulting loss of prestige to democratic forms of government, of which this country was the champion and which were on trial before the world at large. Naturally enough, altruistic motives were even at that time suggested as explanatory of this nation's newly expounded policy, but a careful study of the literature of the question convinces that any such motive was subordinate to the conviction that the cause of our own democracy would suffer from any further encroachment of Europe on this hemisphere. The thesis which the writer has chosen to defend may be stated at the outset and is simply this: The Monroe Doctrine should be maintained by the United States substantially in the form in which it was conceived by its originators. In one particular, only, should this be qualified. In view of the unquestioned supremacy now attained by this country and the impossibility of any successful aggression by any foreign power, the spirit of the Monroe Doctrine can best be expressed in negative rather than positive terms. Instead of the assertion that no European power shall be per-