THE MONROE DOCTRINE 1

Unsuccessful American Affairs: The Monroe Doctrine

Author Note

No changes of author affiliation

I have no known conflict of interest to disclose.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to _______ ________,

________________. Email: _________________

THE MONROE DOCTRINE 2

Abstract

Famously, the Monroe Doctrine represented the cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy; the policy

formally separated the affairs and colonization of the Eastern and Western Hemispheres which,

therefore, forced future policies to be made in accordance with a lack of connection with the

European empires. The idea, introduced by President James Monroe in 1823, was seen as a

revolutionary but necessary principle instated by the somewhat newly formed American

government. After the violent events of the Revolutionary War, the American population was,

naturally, against the idea of colonization, the likes of which were then considered an oppressive

act. This subsequently resulted in federal officials creating and passing legislation that applied

this principle; namely, Monroe focused on creating a doctrine of separation between the two

hemispheres. This paper will focus on the basic points of the doctrine, the effects and response

of countries in the Eastern Hemisphere, how the Monroe Doctrine was enforced, and the

advantages and disadvantages this proposed for the Americas.

Keywords: doctrine, colonization, Americas, Monroe Doctrine

THE MONROE DOCTRINE 3

Unsuccessful American Affairs: The Monroe Doctrine

Past presidents have always influenced the decisions and principles of future legislators

as each statute, historically, has served as an outline for the policies of later administrations.

These outlines are critical guides for parliamentarians facing crises unknown to their respective

era, aiding such people of power by giving them examples of what the best way to approach the

issue might be (National Archives and Records Administration, n.d.). The policies presidents

issue using past governmental doctrines as an aid, nevertheless, are not always perceived with

kindness from the perspective of the populace.

Perhaps the most famous example of this is President James Monroe, the fifth president

of the United States of America. The two-term president authored a doctrine of which was later

referred to as the Monroe Doctrine1. This doctrine was very important in later years, as the

central idea to many future foreign policies originated from the likes of past principles.

In the time period leading up to and passing the creation of independent America, the

world economy and power was emphasized on certain empires in Europe, specifically England,

and different nations relied on their relationship with English Empire for the financial and social

wellbeing of the country. However, after the bloody results of the Revolutionary War, the United

States and England were adversaries (“The history of the Monroe Doctrine”, 1970), which

proposed the greatest threat to the newborn nation. This is due to the fact that, in 1820, many

revolutions broke out in Europe against minor empires. They threatened to replace the

traditional parliamentary monarchy with suffrage-based democracy (Ali, 2019). The only empire

that was not threatened was the English Empire due to its mammoth ability to demolish any

whisper of revolution. As a former colony that exhausted what little military power they had in

one of the most violent battles America has seen, armed forces were sparse: Local militias were
THE MONROE DOCTRINE 4

depleted and the Continental Army had few forces to begin with (U.S. History, 2008).

Strategically, the United States needed to become allies with Britain lest their vulnerability

become exploited and their country fall to the power-hungry wars breaking out across the globe.

In response to these revolutions, the three eastern empires of Russia, Austria, and Prussia

formed a confederacy titled the Holy Alliance. The original purpose of this trinity was to

institute new policies for Europe following the Napoleonic Wars. However, as these insurgencies

broke out across Europe in haste fashion, the alliance evolved into simply providing assistance

for one another should a revolution be initiated within the borders of one of the empires in the

Holy Alliance (McDonald, 2021). The agreement between the empires of the Holy Alliance

stated that if there was any sort of revolt, all other empires were obligated to send in warcraft and

military personnel to assist the empire under domestic attack (“Post-Napoleonic Europe”, n.d.).

The Holy Alliance stopped several revolutions around Europe and even meddled in political

affairs, such as returning King Ferdinand VII to the throne by delegating France to interfere with

military power (Farlex Incorporated, n.d.).

The ability of the Holy Alliance to disrupt Spanish happenings was disturbing to

American politicians as it is a reasonable assumption that they would be able to aid Spain in

keeping its New World Colonies which were rebelling for independence. If these Spanish

colonies did not gain independence, the United States of America would be more vulnerable to

foreign attacks as Colonial Mexico would still be run by Spain (“North America in 1800”, 2020).

The Holy Alliance was also a threat to the English Empire. The collaboration of the

minor empires was powerful enough to parallel the strength to that of the English Empire. Prior

to the partnership, the empires of the Holy Alliance were quite susceptible to the arguably cruel

ways of the British Empire. The Holy Alliance allowed for the conjunction of military forces in
THE MONROE DOCTRINE 5

such a way that retaliation would be made possible. Among other things, they conquered some

of British Canada and other, primarily North American, British lands. This unified the United

States of America and the English Empire through a common enemy; America did not want to

succumb to the looming threat of colonization once again at the hands of the Holy Alliance and

the English Empire refused to allow more land to be taken from them.

Creating an alliance was in the best interest of both nations to prevent such things from

happening. Furthermore, an increased amount of control by other European empires in the

Western world would result in more powerful enemies for the British Empire; specifically, they

were concerned that Spain would attempt to recolonize the Latin American nations, further

escalating their power. Accordingly, both American and British politicians were desperate to

make this alliance as they would both obtain a mutual benefit. However, certain politicians

calculated a possible negative outcome arising from the offer, causing them to form a rather

pessimistic view.

George Canning, the British foreign minister, was the first to propose this alliance. The

proposition was relatively simple: Both nations would unite, issuing a warning against other

European forces interfering with Western affairs. Any empire(s) that tries to go against this will

face the military wrath of both political territories.

The proposition was viewed differently among the political parties of the time. The

beliefs of the Democratic-Republican party were in line with the proposition of the alliance;

however, the Federalists were opposed to the long-term consequences of the alliance as it could

have negative repercussions. Ultimately, the opinions of the different politicians on this matter

came down to the beliefs of the respective parties each major politician belonged to.

(“Democratic-Republican Party”, n.d.).

THE MONROE DOCTRINE 6

Genesis of the Monroe Doctrine

The main difference in principles between the Democratic-Republicans and Federalists

are how the economic status of the United States should be increased and used, as well as the

attitudes towards foreign nations. Democratic-Republicans generally believed that foreign

policy should favour French interests; Federalists generally believed that foreign policy should

favour British interests. Likewise, Democratic-Republicans typically wanted to protect the rights

of the working class; Federalists typically favoured doing what is best for the country’s economy

and financial state over the people directly. These differing principles of the parties were the

ultimate dictator of whether certain politicians were willing to accept Canning’s offer.

Democratic-Republicans

One of the fundamentals of the Democratic-Republican party is their propensity to favour

France on the topic of foreign attitudes. It was, therefore, unexpected that they would want to

accept an offer that assists the agenda of British politicians, and not that of French politicians.

Nevertheless, the alliance would promote American interests as well because it would disallow

Eastern countries from recolonizing the United States.

At the time of the prevalence of these two parties, the main politicians in the

Democratic-Republican party were James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and Aaron Burr.

However, many less significant members of this party were vital for the genesis of the Monroe

Doctrine such as John Calhoun and James Monroe.

Federalists

Federalists were considered more governmental than Democratic-Republicans when

viewed from the perspective of modern-day government - in the era of the Monroe Doctrine,

such a heavy emphasis on economics was considered normal. They passed laws that acted to
THE MONROE DOCTRINE 7

benefit what was best for the country itself, not the people directly and they favoured the

economic health of the motherland rather than foreign allies. The latter was the primary

determining factor for their decision on the matter. Taking Canning’s offer would aid English

competitors, such as France or the empires of the Holy Alliance, for the Latin American market.

Since Federalists typically favour England in foreign policy, they were unwilling to give up

competitive advantage in trade for England.

Quite like the Democratic-Republican Party, the main members of the Federalist party,

primarily Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and John Marshall, differ from the vital members that

contributed to the creation of the Monroe Doctrine. During the time of Canning’s offer, the only

major Federalist that helped determine the course of action taken was John Q. Adams.

Specifics of the Monroe Doctrine

Monroe, the president of the time of the offer, decided to create a joint declaration. The

statements involved were nearly identical to that of Canning’s offer with one major exception:

the English Empire would be left out. By creating a policy that had the same benefits for

America without meddling in the dispute between whether or not to favour Britain, they refused

to engage in a major political battle while simultaneously developing American interests.

The exception would be to allow the English Empire into North and South American markets

and trading canals as English Naval support would be needed to enforce such an unorthodox

policy. This, however, requires Britain to be in support of the doctrine.

These principles served the fundamental foundations that Monroe used for his policy.

Collectively, they were later named the Monroe Doctrine.

The doctrine, when delivered, was quite long and somewhat convoluted. However, the

two key passages that capture the essence of the doctrine are as follows:
THE MONROE DOCTRINE 8

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 (sic), are henceforth not to

be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers. (vol. II, part

1: James Monroe)

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. (vol. II, part 1: James Monroe)

Points Stated in the Monroe Doctrine

The Monroe Doctrine served four main objectives (Augustyn et al., 2020) that came

together to form the policy. Individually, each of these points aim to enhance American interests

in some form.

The U.S. Will Not Intervene With European Affairs

The main declaration of the Monroe Doctrine states that the Old and New World must run

independently of each other. As this would affect the European empires, it would additionally

affect the United States, likely in a negative manner. Separating themselves from a very
THE MONROE DOCTRINE 9

important part of the world with respect to economic development would result in a complete

lack of control of any affairs or activities of the Eastern hemisphere. As such, the United States

would lose quite a bit of what little influence it already has over major happenings of the world.

Consequently, America would not be able to affect wars or internal politics, which would, in

turn, negatively affect America. Theoretically, if the Holy Alliance dethroned the English

Empire of world power, America would be powerless to protect themselves from foreign attack

as they would no longer have any authority over that part of the world. America decided to take

this risk as taking it is the only way to achieve their goal of separating the Eastern and Western

Hemispheres.

The United States would not Intervene with the Existing Colonies in the Western Half of the

Globe

Of course, attempting to separate two parts of the world has many challenges; namely,

deciding how to deal with existing colonies in the Western Hemisphere would be a prominent

issue that must be addressed. The ultimate goal was to break apart the bonds between the

Americas and Europe, but that might be impossible for certain areas. By doing or even

attempting to get independence for certain colonies, America could possibly start wars they were

not equipped to handle. Furthermore, America had virtually no control over the independence of

these nations to begin with, so gaining independence for these nations would be further

unattainable. For example, Columbia was, at the time, a Spanish colony (“The colonization of

Colombia”, n.d.). If America attempted to break off this relationship to separate the two

hemispheres, they would face the force of the Spanish empire, and America would be unable to

break off this bond. Therefore, even though Monroe wanted the hemispheres separate, he had to

make an exception when it came to existing colonies in the Eastern Hemisphere.

THE MONROE DOCTRINE 10

The Western Hemisphere was not to be Colonized

The main statement in the Monroe Doctrine was that all independent nations in the

Western Hemisphere would remain as such. After they obtained the long-fought freedom at the

price of many men, they were simply very opposed to the idea of recolonizing America. While

the United States was an English colony, they were taxed relentlessly, at the mercy of the British

foreign power for all their necessary products, and abused (Robinson, 2017). The entirety of the

Revolutionary and all of its bloody results would become a complete waste if they were to be

recolonized by any foreign power, England or otherwise. Developing this doctrine was

Monroe’s way of ensuring this.

Any Controlling or Oppressing Power from the Eastern Hemisphere Would be Conceived as

an Act of Hostility

This was the concept that concluded the Monroe Doctrine, as well as, arguably, the most

important point in the doctrine. All of the different elements of the Monroe Doctrine seen above

must be enforced by either a threat or an agreement lest the European powers just ignore it.

After all, if there was no consequence to violating the Monroe Doctrine, European powers would

have no reason not to recolonize America. There were two solutions to this: (1) create an

alliance with the European threats or (2) use any sort of power they have over European empires

to threaten retaliation if they violated the doctrine. If they created an alliance, the European

empires would be unwilling to violate the Monroe Doctrine as it would end the mutual

relationship and any military benefits that accompanied it. If they implemented a threat, the

European empires would be unwilling to violate the Monroe Doctrine because whatever the

threat entailed would be put in motion. Monroe understood this and chose the latter, which is

clearly shown when he stated, “...we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their
THE MONROE DOCTRINE 11

system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety”. Monroe and his

administration are threatening war unto the English empire should they interfere with existing

independent nations in the Western Hemisphere, especially the United States. Such a threat

secures the Monroe Doctrine from being disregarded and America from being recolonized.

Delivery of the Monroe Doctrine

The Monroe Doctrine, at the time of its creation, was not delivered to forign empires and

other states through formal legislation; it was conveyed by the president in a speech in a

communication to Congress. However, the term “Monroe Doctrine” was not coined until 1850,

as at the time, it was simply considered one of Monroe’s speeches. Consequently, it was

formerly known as Monroe’s Policy Statement up until the aforementioned date of its coinage as

the “Monroe Doctrine”.

The original purpose of the Monroe Doctrine, as was displayed in its tone and wording,

was to be part of Monroe’s Seventh Annual Message to Congress. Although it is not considered

a law by its very nature, the general idea and governing principles became the policy Monroe

based his decisions on, especially in decisions pertaining to foreign affairs.

Monroe took much care in his work, as evidenced by numerous mentions of this policy in

his personal journal. The subject was one Monroe was passionate about, which translated into an

attempted persuasion by him to get Congress to agree with such an eccentric policy.

Congressional approval would be the decisive factor in maintaining the doctrine, thereby

creating permanent change could be made regarding colonization. However, many members

were hesitant about this due to uncertain variables that had the potential to negatively affect

American military power or overall global influence. Eventually, they agreed with the doctrine

and all of its statements, even if there were uncertain consequences for the future.
THE MONROE DOCTRINE 12

Negative Aspects of the Monroe Doctrine

Although the Monroe Doctrine was made with good intentions, it has certain negative

qualities that could have brought allied nations to the brink of war, peaceful citizens to the door

of insurgency, and harmonious global economies to division (Dole, 1905).

One of the main problems with the Monroe Doctrine was the added responsibility it put

on the United States of America. As the most prominent independent nation in the Western

Hemisphere, America had the burden of being an authoritative figure, keeping policies and laws

that apply internationally - including the Monroe Doctrine - enforced. If the powerful European

empires of the time were unable to control the conflicts and other problems that arise from the

Monroe Doctrine, America would be forced to do this. Unfortunately, America was a newly

formed nation, with neither the experience nor the military power to take over such important

and demanding roles. This would result in the solution to the hypothetical situation of a North

American country (or countries) needing allied military power or reinforcement due to Britain

being unable to do so would be the U.S. providing aid. Putting added strain on the American

government and the American people is not conducive to America achieving its goal of

becoming equally as powerful as the empires which once colonized it as it would decelerate the

process of growing their military efficacy. The primary concern involving this issue was South

America: At the time, South American nations were not trusted to do the socially-accepted duties

associated with being a nation, including paying off foreign debts, keeping alliances with allies,

and refraining from threatening remarks and actions toward neighbouring nations. The resulting

isolation from the Monroe Doctrine, therefore, put added pressure on America (which they were

not equipped to withstand), specifically from South America.

THE MONROE DOCTRINE 13

If analyzed closely, the Monroe Doctrine can be seen as a somewhat selfish and possibly

tyrannical principle when the advantages that the United States could exploit are put in light.

Monroe created the Monroe Doctrine simply to keep the English Empire from recolonizing

America, but he failed to recognize the possible opportunities America could abuse for personal

gain in the hands of someone unwilling to acknowledge the suffering of foreign people. If a

future president cared only for the health of the American people and not that of foreign people,

the succeeding president could use this doctrine to justify any number of immoral acts against

other nations in the Western Hemisphere. Especially when considering the fact that European

empires would be unable to control the affairs of independent nations in the Western

Hemisphere, the collective principles of the Monroe Doctrine could tempt American politicians

with the possibility of increased power and wealth for America. Seizing control and claiming

sovereignty of Western nations would be something of little repercussions should the moral

implications not be considered by someone in a place of power. The Monroe Doctrine offered a

simple solution with great expedition to the aspiration of becoming as powerful as Britain and

other European empires: Colonization, specifically in South American regions as most North

American land was already colonized by European empires. If the Monroe Doctrine was to be

followed, South American nations would be almost completely defenceless against American

attack as there would be no help from European forces. Colonizing multiple South American

nations, in so doing gaining increased military power, goods, and resources (National

Geographic Society, 2020), would be something favourable for American interests and of no

consequence, however immoral. Even if the United States had no intention of doing this, the

Monroe Doctrine would be an unnecessary (and unethical) risk for the safety of South American

nations.
THE MONROE DOCTRINE 14

The Monroe Doctrine was also a threat to the middle class. To keep the policy Monroe’s

presidency was largely based on, large sums of money would be needed. This involved

increased taxes that would primarily target and affect the middle class for two central reasons:

Keeping Only England Open to Western Markets

As the Monroe Doctrine licensed England to do, the English Empire was the only

European empire that still had access to the Western market. The repercussions of this were

somewhat costly and possibly unforeseen. By blocking other European countries from the

market, there were much fewer suppliers and consumers in the Western economy, resulting in a

decrease in Eastern products and in the overall wealth of the nations. To counter this, America

opened up factories to manufacture products that were previously only made in Eastern nations.

However, this ended up consuming even more money as relief must be provided to these

factories who now had to take on considerable debt, straining the financial situation of the nation

even further. This resulted in the American people’s taxes being raised drastically 3 to

compensate for the dramatic financial deficit the markets created.

Creating an Economy for Only Western Trade

The transition between relying on the economy of an empire to attempting to start an

independent economy is very costly as well. Previously, many nations in the Western

Hemisphere were a colony of either the British Empire or the Spanish Empire, so the welfare of

the colony was dependent upon the welfare of the motherland. Any import of goods that went to

the parent empire also went to the colony. Likewise, some income from the parent empire also

went directly to the colony. Distancing themselves from this reliancy added financial strain to

the already stressed system. Unexpected expenses such as manufacturing facilities and creating
THE MONROE DOCTRINE 15

trading partners to the South needed to be seen to, the only source of which was the American

people, constituting even higher taxes on the American people directly.

Discussion

The doctrine, however, was almost completely ignored outside of American borders

(“Monroe Doctrine”, 2019). The threat America presented to the abundant forces of European

empires was lacking as it was a newly formed nation with little military strength. They

effectively disregarded the principles of the doctrine, mitigating the overall influence it caused.

Furthermore, continental powers had no real intention of recolonizing America nor Latin

America, the two prime areas that lead to the creation of the Monroe Doctrine, thus meaning

that, even if it could be enforced, it was of little interest to them. Consequently, European

powers had almost no reaction to the Monroe Doctrine.

As a result, any consequences that could have come into play had the Monroe Doctrine

been enforced never existed, such as the excess taxes, colonization, or pressure on South

American countries.

The only way the Monroe Doctrine could have been enforced was through the use of

foreign forces, such as the English Empire. Monroe himself knew that the Doctrine would have

to be approved by the British empire in order to use the force of the Royal Navy to its full extent.

This was the most likely solution, as the English Empire was concerned about the possibility of

Spain gaining more military might by recolonizing Latin America, which had recently just

become independent nations. The British Empire was, therefore, willing to send naval support to

keep Spain from invading North America. However, once they realized Spain had no intention

of doing this, they refused to have British naval support in the Atlantic because it is a liability,
THE MONROE DOCTRINE 16

especially if it is not necessary. Ultimately, the Monroe Doctrine was not enforced because the

United States of America did not have the strength to do it themselves.

The Monroe Doctrine was seen as a large part of the American government and

American history, even though it never actually gained any recognition or acknowledgement

among foreign countries. It is, to this day, considered a crucial speech that formed the

foundation of modern-day America. From the perspective of a former colony, the words on the

script’s pages were justified by the darkness and abuse of colonialism. During the time that all of

the New World was colonized, Americans suffered extreme oppression, discrimination, and

injustice at the hands of the English Empire (Mitra, 1997). This, however, in the context of

modern day beliefs and values, could be seen as a policy that was only meant to benefit the

United States and could have possibly hurt other countries of the world.

The Demise of the Monroe Doctrine

Due to the fact that the Monroe Doctrine was completely disregarded outside of the

United States, Monroe could not maintain this policy. Attempting to divide the world in two

when no other country officially recognizes it only serves as a policy of isolation and

unnecessary financial strain. If America kept exercising this policy, they would be unable to

trade with the most influential and powerful nations in the world and they would be forced to

increase taxes on the American people. As a result, Monroe also had to disregard his beloved

policy that he worked so very hard on. This was demonstrated by Monroe when he permitted the

trading with Eastern empires, allowing the hemispheres to consolidate into a single, undivided

world. These collective actions represented the death of the Monroe Doctrine and its underlying

principles. However, even after its demise, legislators use the Monroe Doctrine as an example

and outline for how to create laws relating to foreign policy.

THE MONROE DOCTRINE 17

Conclusion

Ultimately, the Monroe Doctrine is seen as a historic speech that represents the

foundation of progressive thinking and modern America. Separating the two hemispheres,

ensuring that the system of colonialism that was ravaging through Europe quickly would never

be forced onto Americans again (Sartre, 2001), was both courageous and problematic. From a

certain perspective, Monroe established a safeguard against colonization, freeing his people from

the fear of being oppressed or victimized through the British government. On the contrary, the

Monroe Doctrine separated the world in two, dividing people based on their nationality and

values. This put strain on socioeconomics, governments, populations, and systems that

represented the free world. As a result of this, the Monroe Doctrine was believed to be

something that could not be supported by both other world leaders and, eventually, Monroe

himself.

Nevertheless, this doctrine is still used as a template for many presidents and other

lawmakers when foreign policy must be revised. Although using the exact policy would be

retrograde, they modify it to fit the needs of their people at the time. As a consequence of this,

the Monroe Doctrine is likely the most famous and influential policy in America.

Conclusively, the Monroe Doctrine proposes many advantages and disadvantages,

depending on the context from which it is looked at, despite President Monroe’s intentions being

good. It was ultimately unsuccessful, but the Monroe Doctrine remains a perfect outline for

foreign policy for lawmakers of the past and present.

THE MONROE DOCTRINE 18

References

Ali, S. S. (2019 May 11). Democracy vs. monarchy. Group Discussion Ideas. Retrieved

November 17, 2020. https://www.groupdiscussionideas.com/democracy-vs-monarchy/

Augustyn A., Zeidan A., Zelazko A., Eldridge A., McKenna A., Tikkanen A., Gadzikowski A.,

Schreiber B., Duignan B., Mahajan D., Promeet D., Goldstein E., Rodriguez E.,

Gregersen E., Shukla G., Liesangthem G., Lotha G., Young G., Bolzon H., ... Setia V.

(2020, November 25). Monroe Doctrine: American history. Britannica. Retrieved

November 15, 2020. https://www.britannica.com/event/Monroe-Doctrine

Democratic-Republican Party. (n.d.). Web Solutions. Retrieved November 25, 2020.

https://law.jrank.org/pages/6058/Democratic-Republican-Party.html#:~:text=

The%20Federalists%20believed%20that%20American,after%20the%20revolution

%20of%201789

Dole, C. F. (1905, April). The right and wrong of the Monroe Doctrine. The Atlantic.

Retrieved November 25, 2020. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/

1905/04/the-right-and-wrong-of-the-monroe-doctrine/530856/

Farlex Incorporated. (n.d.). Ferdinand VII. The Free Dictionary. Retrieved November 24,

2020. https://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Ferdinand+VII.

History of the Federal Reserve. (n.d.). FederalReserveEducation. Retrieved December 19,

2020. https://www.federalreserveeducation.org/about-the-fed/history#:~:

text=1913%3A%20The%20Federal%20Reserve%20System%20is%20Born&text=B

y%20December%2023%2C%201913%2C%20when,private%20banks%20and%20populi

st%20sentiment
THE MONROE DOCTRINE 19

History of Western civilization: Post-Napoleonic Europe. (n.d.). Lumen Candela. Retrieved

November 26, 2020. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-hccc-worldhistory2/?s=

Napoleon

McDonald, D. (2021, February 27). Treaties and alliances; the Holy Alliance.

Encyclopedia.com. https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/modern-europe/treaties-and

-alliances/holy-alliance#:~:text=Holy%20Alliance%20(1815)%20Agreement%20signed,

wake%20of%20the%20French%20Revolution

Mitra, J. (1997, June 30). Colonialism's dark side. The New York Times. Retrieved December

01, 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/1997/07/05/opinion/l-colonialism-s-dark-side

-994880.html

Monroe Doctrine. (2009, November 09). History. Retrieved November 15, 2020.

https://www.history.com/topics/westward-expansion/monroe-doctrine

National Archives and Records Administration. (n.d.). Monroe Doctrine (1823). Our

Documents. Retrieved November 17, 2020. https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?

flash=false&doc=23#top

National Geographic Society. (2019, December 12). Motivations for Colonization. National

Geographic Society. https://www.nationalgeographic.org/article/motivations-

colonization/.

North America in 1800. (n.d.). National Geographic. Retrieved November 28, 2020.

https://www.nationalgeographic.org/photo/northamerica-colonization-1800/#:~:text=

In%201800%2C%20the%20newly%20independent,Spain%2C%20France%2

C%20and%20Britain.

Richardson, J.D., contrib. Monroe, J. (n.d.). A compilation of the messages and papers of the

presidents (volume II, part 1: James Monroe). Project Gutenberg. Retrieved November

29, 2020. https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/gutbook/lookup?num=10919

THE MONROE DOCTRINE 20

Robinson, N. J. (2017, September 14). A quick reminder of why colonialism was bad. Current

Affairs. Retrieved November 19, 2020. https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/09/a-quick

-reminder-of-why-colonialism-was-bad

Sartre, J. (2001, January). Colonialism is a system. ResearchGate. Retrieved December 03,

2020. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233432881_COLONIALISM_IS_A_

SYSTEM#:~:text=Sartre's%20'Colonialism%20is%20a%20System,in%20naked%20for

m%2C%20 stripped%20of

The colonization of Colombia. (n.d.). Don Quijote. Retrieved November 22, 2020.

https://www.donquijote.org/colombian-culture/history/colonization-of-colombia/

The history of the Monroe Doctrine: History essay. (1970, January 01). UKEssays. Retrieved

November 15, 2020. https://www.ukessays.com/essays/history/the-history-of-the-monroe

-doctrine-history-essay.php

U. S. History. (2008). The war experience: soldiers, officers, and civilians. U.S. History.

Retrieved November 27, 2020. https://www.ushistory.org/us/13b.asp.

THE MONROE DOCTRINE 21

Footnotes
1
Although the owner of the Monroe Doctrine was Pres. Monroe, he was not the author.

The Secretary of State at the time, John Quincy Adams, wrote the speech. As a result of this, the

first draft of the doctrine was somewhat biased. As stated in pp. 6-8 of this paper, Federalists

and Democratic-Republicans did not agree on the Monroe Doctrine or how to handle Canning’s

offer. Adams, a Federalist, slightly altered what was agreed upon, which was edited to fit the

agreed points by other legislators.

2
See Monroe (1823), for the whole document's wording. Note: The paper used the

pages found at Richardson (n.d.).

3
American national reserves were not in existence yet as President Woodrow Wilson did

not sign the Federal Reserve Act into law until 1913 (“Federal Reserves”, n.d.). As a result, few

policies were already put in place to minimize the damages of this debt to the American

government and people, worsening the effects of the taxes.