Monroe Doctrine In Practice
The Monroe Doctrine has been described as a "hands off" warning to Europe. How did the U.S interpret the doctrine in practice?
On December second, 1823, President Monroe declared to the public his concerns on domestic and foreign affairs in his annual speech. In his words one could find ideas that did not matter only the U.S, but it interested Europe and the Americas as a whole. Such concerns would turn out to be a basis of a set principles that the U.S would implement in the future years, Monroe's words would soon be the Monroe Doctrine. However what Monroe said were bold ideas of support and pacific intervention, too altruistic for people to put into practice. Therefore those after him made tangents to such ideas, diversions so great …show more content…
Europe saw this as a mere warning since the U.S was just developing and had no hardcore military or political influence to back any of its statements. The only help the U.S had was from the strong British navy which supported the U.S just to insure its commercial ties with America. These were the years in which the first interpretation to the Monroe Doctrine was made. James Polk, in 1845, was the first U.S president to announce to Congress that the principle of the Monroe Doctrine had to be enforced aggressively. This was the first contradiction to Monroe's statements which asserted problems pacifically and by retaining neutral stances. Polk lead the U.S to expand westwards bringing the U.S into many confrontations such as a war with Mexico, the annexation of Texas which the British and French tried to prevent and the close buying of Cuba from …show more content…
This interpretation would be so impacting that it would shift U.S intervention of that time. In the year 1895, President Cleveland with the advice of Richard Olney Secretary of State would issue an amendment to the doctrine whigh stated that the Monroe Doctrine gave the United States authority to mediate border disputes in the Western Hemisphere. Even this quote from the interpretation "Today the United States is practically sovereign on this continent and its fiat is law" shows the ideology change the U.S was undergoing. This amendment was as a direct response to the problems Venezuela had with Great Britain over the boundaries of British Guiana. The Monroe Doctrine stated the U.S would remain neutral to affairs concerning Europe and already existing colonies but as this problem rose, Olney declared that the U.S would openly intervene against the British. Was it really "protecting" Venezuela's and other American interests? Or was it searching a way to monopolize influence in the new Hemisphere? What ever might be the case, Britain retired from the confrontation giving the U.S higher spirits to stand against
On December second, 1823, President Monroe declared to the public his concerns on domestic and foreign affairs in his annual speech. In his words one could find ideas that did not matter only the U.S, but it interested Europe and the Americas as a whole. Such concerns would turn out to be a basis of a set principles that the U.S would implement in the future years, Monroe's words would soon be the Monroe Doctrine. However what Monroe said were bold ideas of support and pacific intervention, too altruistic for people to put into practice. Therefore those after him made tangents to such ideas, diversions so great …show more content…
Europe saw this as a mere warning since the U.S was just developing and had no hardcore military or political influence to back any of its statements. The only help the U.S had was from the strong British navy which supported the U.S just to insure its commercial ties with America. These were the years in which the first interpretation to the Monroe Doctrine was made. James Polk, in 1845, was the first U.S president to announce to Congress that the principle of the Monroe Doctrine had to be enforced aggressively. This was the first contradiction to Monroe's statements which asserted problems pacifically and by retaining neutral stances. Polk lead the U.S to expand westwards bringing the U.S into many confrontations such as a war with Mexico, the annexation of Texas which the British and French tried to prevent and the close buying of Cuba from …show more content…
This interpretation would be so impacting that it would shift U.S intervention of that time. In the year 1895, President Cleveland with the advice of Richard Olney Secretary of State would issue an amendment to the doctrine whigh stated that the Monroe Doctrine gave the United States authority to mediate border disputes in the Western Hemisphere. Even this quote from the interpretation "Today the United States is practically sovereign on this continent and its fiat is law" shows the ideology change the U.S was undergoing. This amendment was as a direct response to the problems Venezuela had with Great Britain over the boundaries of British Guiana. The Monroe Doctrine stated the U.S would remain neutral to affairs concerning Europe and already existing colonies but as this problem rose, Olney declared that the U.S would openly intervene against the British. Was it really "protecting" Venezuela's and other American interests? Or was it searching a way to monopolize influence in the new Hemisphere? What ever might be the case, Britain retired from the confrontation giving the U.S higher spirits to stand against