Talk:Monroe Doctrine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Neutrality of this article can be severely questioned. The article is written only from a narrow point of view of the United States foreign policy. For most part, the doctrine is explained from the point of view that it served to ensure "independence" of the Central and South American countries from the European monarchy. I don't think this is consistent view taken through out the globe, particularly with the non-aligned countries. This doctrine for most part is only considered as the USA enforcing it's sphere of influence over the European powers.--Rakesh 16:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course it's written from the US perspective, it's a US doctrine. If you want to insert another point of view, you have that right, I guess, but it will probably just confuse the 97% of the adolescent students who view this article for a US history project. (talk) 00:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

old comments[edit]

Someone vandalized this page so I reverted it to an earlier time TehNomad 00:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

is the monroe doctrine still in effect today?

Although the Monroe Doctrine was invoked on occasion during the 1930s, World War II, and the Cold War, it effectively became an anachronism after World War I when the United States became so powerful that it could no longer even attempt to confine its influence to the Western Hemisphere. [1] --Ed Poor

How well accepted is the claim about Aristide? I know Aristide was claiming this was the case, but my understanding is that this was not generally accepted to be true. I haven't removed it since I certainly wouldn't put it past the current administration, but Wikipedia really isn't the place for conspiracy theories, particularly when they are passed off as fact. hello good mornig

"This in turn led to some domestic controversy within the United States, especially among some members of the radical left who argued that the Communist threat and Soviet influence in Latin America was greatly exaggerated." Real radical left-wingers would not object to 'Communist threat', although they might still see Soviet influence as a bad thing, because it would not represent there sort of revolution. Renke 20:44, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

yeah, i know my edit comment is wrong. i was thinking of vandalism. Bonus Onus 02:31, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

Of course the Monroe Doctrine is still in effect today; if judson barrett tommy rooney loves major...... Americans, Latin Americans...). It's just that those Americans can also be described by their nations (i.e. Bolivians, Venezuelans, Mexicans, Canadians...). There's simply nothing else to call us. We would not be called United Statians. The closest (and most strictly correct) thing to that is describing these peoples by State (i.e. Virginians, New Yorkers, Montanans, Floridians...). But that hardly serves those who would like to call US by name. (talk) 18:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Second World War[edit]

There is no mention at all of WW II, which is a bit odd. Effectively, the US involvement in that war violated the Doctrine (although the US certainly had a good excuse considering both Germany and Japan attacked and declared war on the US). Or is there a mention in the Doctrine about this sort of eventuality. I assume there will be. Anyway, an explanation is asked for since this is a rather obvious omission to a reader who thinks things through. DirkvdM 10:23, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Nazi Germany did not attack the USA; they declared war on the USA after the Japanese attack on Hawaii. DMorpheus 15:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
That's not entirely correct: German submarine attacks on transport vessels took place earlier (eg. in the Atlantic and the Carribean Sea). As an answer to DirkvdM: There is no corollary to the doctrine that "justified" the war in Europe, the only enhancement in this time was the Act of Havana (--> no transfer of colonies in the Americas to Nazi Germany). Kind regards from Germany... 17:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I think you're thinking of the First World War. Because of the precedent set by the First of the World Wars, the violation of the Monroe Doctrine by American involvement in Europe during the Second World War was pretty much a moot point. (Though people still mooted it anyways.)
This is like how Gametrailers keeps calling WW Two "The War to End All Wars". People didn't call WWII that. That's what they called World War One. I know that doesn't make any sense. That's the point. It's a historical irony.
DMorpheus makes a good point. And, so does User:, although Submarines attacking American transports was neither considered a casus belli (though maybe it should have been), nor was it a declaration of war. Besides my Grandpa was shooting down Luftwaffe dive bombers over the English Channel from the deck of the USS Philadelphia (CL-41) before Pearl Harbor. As far as I know that hasn't been declassified. It was a False Flag operation. Officially they were on "neutrality patrol". (5x3 six inch guns primary, and five inch secondary armament all of which could super-elevate? Churchill must've begged us for the Philadelphia.) (talk) 18:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I should add that our involvement in the affairs of Europe was considered a violation of the Monroe Doctrine because the Doctrine was intended to mean you mind your business, and we'll mind ours. I think the intent there was not so much an entire rejection of colonialism as it was supposing that nations should not meddle in the affairs of other nations across the Atlantic Ocean. There's lots of arguments to support that line of thinking even without saying that conquest is wrong. (talk) 21:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Liberation from Colonization Section[edit]

This section seems somewhat out of place and the language isn't very clear. Perhaps this sentence could be cleaned up/improved or maybe just deleted? What do yall think? Fightindaman 15:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

--- I tried to improve this section. I'm not entirely unbiased but after reading Eduardo Galeano I don't know how you could be.

I also added a bit about how the term is used at the end of the legacy section. I found it hard to not write this in a totally subjective voice. I was merely tyring to point out what I think is may be lost on the uninformed reader (one coming to wikipedia to find out what Monroe Doctrine means) that the term is often a kind of blanket term nowadays. When it is used it rarely means in the original sense as Adams is reported to have intended it. Anyways, please reformulate that part if you can think of a good way to. It's hard not to just write 'proof of the malice from washington' but that is essentially what many use the term for.

Regarding talk of the term "American" to refer to persons of the US and the colonial perspective that implies: My wifes father is a teacher who has worked irregularly across the border in small towns in Washington near the border. He has noticed that more recently [say, since the 28th anniversary of Allende being overthrown] students have really taken to the term 'America' to refer to that country: even correcting him when he used the term 'US' or 'States'. I find it deeply meaningful. The term United States of America implies a certain kind of utopian federalist universalism, the State is subject to this Unity on principle. Whereas the term America by itself, originally a Spanish term for the new world promised land (something like that anyway) implies empire right there in the word itself.

--unsigned up user rusl in vancouver the govenor of the people

Will remove this section as the it is just untrue. The Monroe Doctrine was a statement of US policy. Most Europeans just ignored it as at the time the US didn't have the power to enforce it. Elephant53 05/04/06

America[s] for the Americans[edit]

I find certain similarity between this US claim and the Taiwanese claim that they were the real and legitimate governmet of China. When main land China became powerful, the island decide they were not longer the government of China but a separate country. Similar in some way with the Americas, Mexicans are not longer Americans when they travel to the land of their self-proclaimed owners, the ones that empoverished them.--tequendamia 21:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the phrase "America for the Americans" in any version of the Monroe Doctrine. It's not here,[2] for example. Please provide a link to a version which contains the text you are asserting is included. -Will Beback 01:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Your reference is an article that starts by "..." and ends by "...", obviously something was supressed. Most web sites that talke about James Monroe mention the sentences. You just cannot find them. Like this one JAMES MONROE THE FIFTH PRESIDENT. "AMERICA FOR THE AMERICANS.". Regards.--tequendamia 01:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
That isn't a quote from Monroe, it's a statement by the author. If you'd like to write, "Monroe's thesis has often been summarizes as 'America for the Americans'" then that'd be accurate. -Will Beback 01:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
We need a secction in the article quoting those who say he meant it and those who say he did not and how Americans and other presidents at the end interpreted it and put it into practice.--tequendamia 01:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Most of the article is devoted to how the doctrine has been interpreted and put into practice. IS there something in particular that isn't in there? -Will Beback 01:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
The real and practical interpretation has been "The Americas are for the Americans", but this point wasn't carified in ther article. Wherever you read about the Monroe doctrine this interpretation is given. Very few articles deny it, and even fewer claim it was missinterpreted.--tequendamia 01:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
That's nice. But unless you want to state who said and why we shouldn't just include random text. -Will Beback 02:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
The link that I brought is actually an example. Source: "The Lives of the Presidents and How They Reached the White House" by Charles Morris, LL.D., 1903..--tequendamia 05:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
So then we can write, "The doctrine has been summarized by historian Charles Morris as 'America for the Americans'". -Will Beback 05:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I just read the article and found it doesn't adere to wikipedia's standard for a NPOV, I flag it so. The story of Britain not trying to follow France and Russians lead to help Spain it's colonies is just crap, considering that in 1821, Spain had just liberated from Napoleon, and due to the Cadiz Courts have converted into a republic. I put this statement here, because I think that the reason that the frase 'America for the Americans' is excluded from this article is because it has a U.S. bias, using a technicality to avoid placing it in the main article. For me I put a NPOV flag, so this can be better addressed.--Cosuna (talk) 20:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

American neutrality[edit]

"Others contend that by acknowledging the wars and declaring neutrality, they were recognizing the legitimacy of the new nations. This assertion is backed up by U.S. sales of naval vessels to the rebel armies."

If the U.S. were selling instruments of war to rebel armies and not the Spaniards, then they weren't really neutral. I think this behavior better supports the contention that the U.S. saw these revolts as a way to exclude the European powers from what would become the U.S. sphere of influence.

British North America and the Monroe Doctrine?[edit]


It strikes me that of the many countries in the Americas which may have had reason during the nineteenth century to be concerned of the implications of the Monroe Doctrine, the colonies of BNA were in a unique position.

Technically, the continuation of Crown sovereignty in British North America - which remained with the formation of the Dominion of Canada, and the sale of Rupert's Land to Ottawa instead of Washington - could have been construed as in violation of the Doctrine, yet the US mostly refrained from applying any overt pressure on the northern colonies (with the likes of the Fenian raids and the battle of Ridgeway the closest thing to actual conflict since the days of the War of 1812).

Could, or should, a piece be added to this article which would deal with why Canada was conspicuously spared the same kind of 'efforts' which the US expended in the rest of the hemisphere? Given that the general British consent to the Doctrine as it applied elsewhere in the Americas was considered an important aspect of its implementation, it would seem that being part of that same Empire was the only thing sparing the northern colonies from direct intervention.

And given the development of NORAD and NATO, can the continuation of the principle of the Doctrine be squared with the increased level of hemispheric co-operation between modern Canada and the United States in the article - or indeed should it be?

--Nerroth 22:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, sounds about right to me. It seems as though the (British) Canadians always were a special case. They saw their close association with the UK as a defense against US hegemony and therefore gladly accepted quasi-colonial status much longer than elsewhere in the Americas. Applying the Monroe Doctrine to Canada would likely have led directly to armed conflict between the US and the UK. Ronnotel 01:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Disagree. See my point at the bottom. Funnyhat 06:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Canada, the only exception?[edit]

Was Canada the only exception? Even if it was, it was a pretty big (9,970,610km²) exception. The United States government pretty much offered the British a free hand to colonise up to the Pacific beyond the Province of Canada with the Oregon Treaty. As well as this the British Empire established the colonies of British Honduras and British Guiana after 1823. Niall Ferguson in Colossus: the Rise and Fall of the American Empire, (Allen Lane, 2004). ISBN 0-7139-9770-2, states that the Monroe Doctrine "for decades was little more than a Yankee bluff". He also points out that the failure of the Maximilian Affair was mostly down to the Mexican Republicans, rather than American sabre-rattling. Ferguson draws the conclusion that the United States could not enforce its claim to a hemispheric exclusion zone without a world-class navy, citing Max Boot, The Savage Wars of Peace: Small Wars and the Rise of American Power, (Basic Books, 2002) ISBN 0465007201 that the American fleet, even by the 1880s, was smaller than the Swedish fleet. Robert Freeman Smith in Latin America, the United States and the European powers 1830-1930" in The Cambridge History of Latin America, vol. 4 (Cambridge, 1986) ISBN 0521232252 points out that European powers made multiple interventions in Latin America, often on debt-collecting missions before, during and after the American Civil War. This may well be subjective, but is it fair to call the Monroe Doctrine a "defining moment" as it clearly wasn't enforced until the United States had a naval capability of doing so. Benson85 22:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Canada was not the only exception, IMHO. The eviction of the argentinian governor Vernet at the Falklands shows that this doctrine was not evenly applied. DPdH 13:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
"The United States government pretty much offered the British a free hand to colonise up to the Pacific beyond the Province of Canada with the Oregon Treaty. " I really don't know what you think you are saying by that; the British already had the rights to colonize the area before the Americans were even at the table. And at the time of the Oregon Treaty, the Province of Canada had no connections overland, with the one proviso being that HBC employees in the Columbia Department and New Caledonia (Canada) were governed by the laws of t he Province of Canada. The Monroe Doctrine did not exist when the British claim was already in place, and IIRC British colonies were not covered by the Doctrine. British Honduras/Belize, British Guinea/Guyana, Jamaica, The Bahamas etc were unaffected by it, no?Skookum1 (talk) 04:11, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Disagree on Canada being an "exception"[edit]

I don't really buy the argument about Canada being an "exception." Part of the doctrine was that the United States would not interfere in the affairs of those territories that were still under European rule in 1823. Under the 1818 border agreement, the U.S. government recognized British control of the lands north of the 49th parallel up to the Oregon Country (and in 1846 the 49th parallel line was extended there, too). Whether or not the lands that became western Canada actually were ruled by the British, in the eyes of Washington they were the whole time. I'd delete that section. Funnyhat 06:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It is clear that the doctrine applies only to new incursions into the hemisphere by colonial powers and to attemts to re-establish old colonies. This much is plainly stated in Monroe's address as well as in implementation. The doctrine as Monroe initially articulated makes it perfectly clear: "With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we have not interfered and shall not interfere." Further, the U.S. fashioned a pretext for involvement whenever they did move directly against a colonial power over an extant colony (the Seminole raiding parties, for example, with regards to Spanish Florida). Considering that Britain was one of the principle originators of the policy (not to mention the power actually enforcing it for the first seventy years or so), and that Britain had already pledged not to acquire new territories, Canada is not an exception to the rule but rather the singular holding around which the doctrine had been tailored. As for Rupert's Land, it was already controlled by a British company under a royal charter as a royal grant. Hardly a new acquisition. I'm removing the section. Sarcen1174 (talk) 11:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Are You Smarter Than A 5th Grader?[edit]

I was just watching that show on the FOX network and they had a question about this very thing. Should it be mentioned in this article? JoeMonkeyPotato (talk) 01:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not really a notable mention. Quiz shows mention as many as dozens of topics in a show. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Quincy Adams[edit]

John Quincy Adams is sort of let off the hook in this article, but I don't think his position was radically different from how the Monroe Doctrine would later be interpreted for expansionist reasons.

From the first chapter of "The War of 1898" by Louis A. Pérez Jr., Quincy Adams refers to Cuba as "an objective of transcendent importance to the political and commercial interests of our Union" and "indispensable to the continuance and integrity of the Union itself."

It would seem that Adams is right in phase with the expansionist framework that politicians would later invoke from the Monroe Doctrine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Accused of vandalism for correcting an evident error: The possession of an existing European power, Britain (1833), DID NOT PREDATE the Doctrine[edit]

I edited the following text, which contained an obviously false information:

Critics of the Reagan administration's support for Britain in the Falklands War charge that the U.S. ignored the Monroe Doctrine in that instance (even though an American nation, Argentina, attacked the possession of an existing European power, Britain, that predated the Doctrine).

The real fact is that the doctrine was formulated in December 1823, and the eviction of Argentine governor Luis Vernet happened in January 1833. Therefore the possession of an existing European power, Britain, DID NOT PREDATE the Doctrine.

I changed the old text for the following one:

Critics of the Reagan administration's support for Britain in the Falklands War charge that the U.S. ignored the Monroe Doctrine in that instance (in any case, it was ignored for the second time: the eviction of the Argentinian governor Luis Vernet happened in 1833, more than nine years after the Doctrine was formulated).

And then I was surprised because user Justin A Kuntz, who strongly supports the British point of wiew in subjects related to Falkland Islands sovereignity, not only reverted my edit, but also sent me this personal message:

Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. [...] This kind of behaviour is unnecessarily confrontational. Talking things through on the talk page is a far more productive expenditure of your energy. Strong feelings do not triumph over wikipedia policies.

I insist: The assertion that British occupation of the Falkland Islands predate the Doctrine is OBVIOUSLY false, therefore the accusation that I am doing vandalism is OBVIOUSLY false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smackyrod (talkcontribs) 07:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC) Smackyrod (talk) 08:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The case here isn't whether if its true or false. Your information may be misinformation. It all depends on the three-edits-you-have-made-to-an-article-within-a-24-hour-period. Prowikipedians (talk) 08:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I strongly suggest that you read this article. Prowikipedians (talk) 08:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I think I can be confident I'm close to a NPOV when I'm accused of a pro-British POV by Argentine editors, whilst at the some time being accused of a pro-Argentine bias by British editors. You were asked numerous times to discuss this on the talk page.
You're also clearly quoting an Argentine POV, the British occupation of the Falkland Islands predates the Argentine one by some margin; the first landing was in 1690. Argentina also claims a British absence for some 60 years, despite Spanish Governors of Puerto Soledad complaining of an inability to stop the British using the islands and the British explorer Weddel assisting Jewett into harbour in 1820. All of which I can support with accurate, neutral and reliable sources from the 18th and 19th century.
I also recognise the "style" if you will. I'm pretty certain we've crossed swords before, how are you Alex? Justin talk 09:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Justin, as a way of acquiring sovereignty, occupation has to be done by means of a permanent settlement where land is improved and some kind of authority exercises acts of government. This is a basic principle of international law, which can be verified in textbooks on the subject. Britain didn't perform effective occupation of the islands during those nearly-60 years, as Spain and then Argentina did at Puerto Soledad (a.k.a. Port Louis). Neither did the US and other nations whose vessels occasionally landed on the coasts. Moreover, the British short-lived prior occupation was on Saunders Island, which is a small island next to West Falkland/Gran Malvina, which is 'the other' large island and not the one where Stanley is located and Puerto Soledad was. Besides, it was contested by the settlement at Port Louis, which had been already founded by the French when the British built theirs. Inchoate rights earned by that first landing in 1690 had expired by the time of these settlements. Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 19:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


Anyway, there is no point disrupting this article so I've simply removed the contentious phrase. I presume no-one disputes that Reagan's critics over support for the UK cited the Monroe Doctrine. Justin talk 10:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

This appears to be pretty well resolved here. I just wanted to point out that anything written in this article on the Falklands should serve the question what would James Monroe have thought of this? (It was his doctrine.) Since he was a contemporary of events of the early part of the Falklands dispute we should know what he was thinking then. As I understand it the Monroe Doctrine reflected co-operation between America and Britain to strategically isolate the American continents. The Falklands had a place in these interests as the British were using it as a toe-hold in the South Atlantic. (talk) 19:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Mmm, speculation about what James Monroe would have thought of it, is definitely WP:OR territory and should not be in a Wikipedia article. Justin talk 19:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
On the contrary we would not have to go back in time and read his mind. Like I wrote the events related to Britain's initial annexation of the Falklands occurred while he was still alive. It seems very possible to me he commented on it in a speech, or in a letter. It would just be a matter of finding it, if it's there to be found. Having just done a search ("James Monroe" +Falklands) not surprisingly I didn't find anything especially remarkable (just people citing Cold War Era conflict). Still that doesn't mean it isn't out there. (talk) 22:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
What you'll find is some fairly bullish rhetoric relating to the events of 1831, the US Government endorsed Duncan's actions and supported the British claim at the time. Justin talk 20:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
That's not true. The US Government sent a representative who firstly defended Duncan and was responded with the Argentine case for the islands. He then left, arguing that he was not entitled to discuss those kinds of issues. The US administration researched a bit and concluded that Britain and Argentina had to solve the dispute before Duncan's actions could be evaluated, taking no position in regards of who is right. That has been the US stance ever since. When Reagan supported Thatcher, it was not from endorsing the British case in the sovereignty dispute, but because of condemning the use of force as a means to solve it. Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
By the way, there is a related remark by the principal author of the Monroe doctrine, who was not James Monroe but John Quincy Adams. Adams said that 'Jackson, to appease him, gave [the representative sent to discuss Duncan's actions] as a second sop the office of Chargé d’Affaires at Buenos Ayres. He went there; stayed there not three months —just long enough to embroil his country in a senseless and wicked quarrel with the Government; and, without waiting for orders from his Government, demanded his passports and came home. Nothing but the imbecility of that South American abortion of a state saved him from indelible disgrace and this country from humiliation in that concern.' As I understand it, besides attacking Jackson's Spoils System, Adams is condemning Duncan here. I mention it just as a curiosity. Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 20:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The word obvious is not to be used when missing a point. If the Doctrine is obvious, then only for the sake of thinning it out, like what Roosevelt Sr did in relation to some crisis with Venezuela. The Monroe Doctrine predates all attempts to either (ab)use or just to devalue it, but we are still going to see it happen. Roosevelt Senior cared deaply for the existence of the Monroe Doctrine.

Others who cared for the doctrine, were also "some" politicians back in 1842. The main division line within the doctrine was to do with what does and does not predate what. But the "some" politicians would evict the Spaniards from Cuba, even though they were there for the past 3 centuries.

Now it begins to be reminiscent of a dodgem. Take a ride, and do not assume responsibility for the product. -- (talk) 23:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Falkland/Malvinas 1833 deserves a place in an article about the Monroe doctrine, but I think that dispute has proven impossible to treat decently on Wikipedia. I would rather focus on other defects of the article. For example, as I understand it, Canning's involvement in the making of the doctrine is greatly misrepresented, as well as the Tory administration's opinion of it. A good account can be read from Herring's book referenced in the article, and better still from the Cambridge History of British Foreign Relations, which can be read online at archive dot org (excuse me if the title is not accurate). Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 20:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Allende and Pinochet[edit]

Shouldn't the Cold War section of this article discuss something about Allende and Pinochet? --arkuat (talk) 03:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

(You mean Salvador Allende. Right? Your link led to a disambiguation page.) I suppose some things can be written in the Monroe Doctrine article, though it probably wouldn't be relevant unless it can be shown that Chilean Communism was an example of foreign interference in (latin) american affairs. The real question here is, what would James Monroe have thought of such events? (talk) 19:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
fixed Allende link76.102.227.227 (talk) 14:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

"though it probably wouldn't be relevant unless it can be shown that Chilean Communism was an example of foreign interference in (latin) american affairs."

The recently declassified KGB documents about Allende and his relation with the USSR and Cuba, which proved that Allende was a KGB puppet, certainly made it a good example. (talk) 03:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Soviet involvement on the Americas? I don't believe that one ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The Monroe Doctrine Was Not the December 2, 1823 State of the Union Address[edit]

James Monroe's State of the Union Address laid out some of the most important parts of his doctrine. However it was not the doctrine; nor was the content of his doctrine limited to the content of that Address. I'd appreciate it if people stopped misidentifying the Address as such.

Let me emphasize any foreign policy initiated by James Monroe falls under the "Monroe Doctrine". That includes the Monroe administration's relations with the "younger sister republics" (former colonies of Spain and Portugal in the Americas), Spain, Portugal, France, Britain, and Russia. Especially the Wikipedia article on the Monroe Doctrine should have at least a paragraph on the Adams-Onís Treaty, although it might be noted that since the treaty was actually negotiated by then Secretary of State John Quincy Adams it might be more appropriately included in the Adams Doctrine. (talk) 18:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Why What James Monroe Thought Is Important[edit]

Let me explain that a "doctrine" in this context is a presidential foreign policy doctrine. That is historians have attached such a doctrine to every presidential administration (although I don't think Wikipedia has an article for every president's doctrine) as a broad description of his particular foreign policy management style. Secretaries of State (or for that matter Foreign Ministers, national executives of other nations, and even ambassadors) have also had "doctrines". See this link on Foreign policy doctrine.

That's why what James Monroe would have thought is important. The Monroe Doctrine was not a paper or a speech; nor was it some sort of law to be enacted, enforced, or repealed. It was Monroe's personal doctrine on how he would guide the affairs of the United States in relations with other nations. It is up to us to determine what that doctrine was from letters, speeches, and documents of state. (talk) 18:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Sentence Fragment in Lead Paragraph[edit]

The first paragraph of the article ends with this sentence fragment, which contains no verb:

"Most recently, the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine."

Would someone care to complete this sentence? What is it meant to say? zadignose (talk) 00:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Good catch. This article gets a lot of vandalism, presumably from bored American History students. I've restored the old text:
  • Most recently, the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine (added during the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt) was invoked as a reason to intervene militarily in Latin America to stop the spread of European influence.
I see that at another point it used to say:
  • Most recently, during the Cold War, the doctrine was invoked as a reason to intervene militarily in Latin America to stop the spread of Soviet Communism.
However that assertion appears to be a bit controversial, so we should probably leave it out. I haven't reviewed the history to see why it was added or removed. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Source text[edit]

Someone added the text of the declaration. That may seem like a good idea, butWikipedia has a sister project especially for handling source texts, Wikisource. The Doctrine can be found there.[3] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Bad citation format in intro P[edit]

In the intro paragraph the (assumed) citation "(Britannica 269)" appears a few times. It should probably be moved to the citations and only referenced once or twice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC) All the Brittanica 269 ref have been updated to the correct format and with ISBN reference to WP's ref search page. Ssoulakiotis (talk) 11:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Criticism Section - Chomsky on Walter Walker[edit]

I think there's a confusion here. While Chomsky has written extensively on sybjects regarding Latin America and interventions therein, I believe in this case he's referring to Walter Walker the diplomat stationed in in El Salvador. In Chomsky's book "The New Military Humanism: Lessons from Kosovo" (ISBN 0745316336) and in particular in page 41 [4] Chomsky accuses him of several activities of an illegal nature and of blatant interference. Chomsky also cites his sources but the preview in the website is limited so I couldn't get the 'end-sources'. However, I believe that Chomsky's main object of attention is Walter Walker the diplomat and not the earlier Walter Walker Fillibuster/mercenary. Hence we may have to adapt the text and update the sources. Ssoulakiotis (talk) 01:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The same Walter Walker that was born the same year that Lord Byron died...and also lived to be 36? -- (talk) 21:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

First Section: Defining Moment(?)[edit]

In the first section of the page there's a 'citation needed' challenge on the sentence: "President James Monroe first stated the doctrine during his seventh annual State of the Union Address to Congress, a defining moment in the foreign policy of the United States". I believe this is not necessary bcause: the importance and gravites of the doctrine can be proven by the fact that it was referenced and quoted by many subsequent presidents reaching all the way Kennedy in 1962. Hence we could phrase the sentence like this: President James Monroe first stated the doctrine during his seventh annual State of the Union Address to Congress, a defining moment in the foreign policy of the United States, as shown by its quotation by several subsequent presidents like Theodore Roosevelt, Herbert Hoover, Calvin Coolidge and even John F. KennedySsoulakiotis (talk) 14:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Falklands War[edit]

I have always wondered why the Monroe Doctrine was not evoked by the US when England tried to retake their colony during the Falklands War, why did they have the right to come into the US hemisphere???

Have you read the section of the article that covers the Falkland War? It's under "Cold War". Like too many Wikipedia articles, it needs sources but the assertions appear reasonable.   Will Beback  talk  19:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
The book by Gaddis Smith, The Last Years of the Monroe Doctrine, 1945-1993. covers this. It's available on Google.[5]   Will Beback  talk  19:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The Monroe Doctorine does not apply to possessions already held when it was drafted. As for the Falklands, the UK owned them before and after and thus when Argentina when tried to "reclaim" them, the Doctorine did not apply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

No, the UK did not own the islands before the (1923) Monroe Doctrine, because the Falklands were under Argentine rule when in 1833 they were invaded by the British.

The retaking of the Falklands was in no way simillar to how spain retook it's collonies for which the doctorine came about. I don't know how that could be put in without it being very wordy. The Islands were invaded and then retaken immediatly (In relative terms) and more importantly the population identified themselves as British. TBH though I don't actually think the Falklands war is relevent to the article.(Morcus (talk) 03:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC))

Venezuela crisis[edit]

In 1895, Britain's colony of British Guiana was encroaching on Venezuelan land. The US threatened to go to war with Britain if they didn't agree to an international territory arbitration. (Inventing America: A History of the United States, second edition, pages 603 and 604) dude1818 (talk) 00:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

dude stop ur complaining if u dont like this info then dont use effin-a —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

We have to realise that the successor for the Vice-Kingdom of New Grenada would be Grand-Colombia. Grand Colombia may have ruled over an area someone calls Zona en Reclamación. Strangely enough, Grand-Colombia does not rule the Zona en Reclamación. -- (talk) 23:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
The one thing that makes the Venezuela Crisis unique in the relation to the Doctrine....Grover Cleveland was the President of the United States. He had a liberal interpretation on the Doctrine. It was liberal to that extent, he would play a game of divide and conquer until the British accepted an arbitration case. This one truly says: America for the Americans. The Venezuelans got 10 percent of what they claimed, so the Doctrine works. So much has the USA done for Venezuela, and they give back anti-americanism. -- (talk) 15:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request from Southernrose, 2 February 2011[edit]

Please change the erroneus information provided at the end of the paragraph named Criticism in this article, where it states that there are sovereign rights of the UK over the Malvinas (Falklands) Islands. There is a dispute of sovereignty over these Islands, peacefully recognised for decades at the United Nations level. Correct name of the Islands should also include both names according to UN. See Resolution 2065 of the UN General Assembly (1965)

Southernrose (talk) 15:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

That text does seem to advance a particular POV about the islands' history, one which is not entirely consistent with the history at Falkland Islands#First settlers. I looked into it and found it was added by user:Putapedia, in his one and only edit. I've deleted it as unsourced POV.   Will Beback  talk  23:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
How can it be explained the following: Putapedia made one edit. Putapedia is blocked indefinately. -- (talk) 15:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


U.S. Capitol

-- AnonMoos (talk) 05:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Unended sentence?[edit]

Hi All At the end of the first paragraph of the Background section is the following sentence, 'The United States resisted a joint statement because of the recent memory of The War of 1812, leading to the unilateral statement' Is it possible that this sentence is not terminated?

Capbat — Preceding unsigned comment added by Capbat (talkcontribs) 14:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Violation of the Monroe Doctrine not mentioned in this article and not acted upon by the USA, needs mentioning?[edit]

The Monroe Doctrine was signed on December 2, 1823. Great Britain colonized and annexed the Falkland Islands in 1833 then South Georgia in 1908. Although the British may have had claims on the islands before their colonization, they officially didn't ever have sovereignty over the islands until 10 years after the Monroe Doctrine. Saying they had claims on American land before the ratification gives them right over those lands is like saying Britain has a claim to places like Florida, Maine, Oregon etc. I think there should be a mention of this. (talk)

Well there are a couple of things. Firstly the Monroe Doctrine was implemented with the help of the British themselves hence the Americans (who had just fought a war with the British a couple decades earlier) tended to ignore Britain's activities in the Americas. The other reason is specific to the Falkland Islands. The pirate the Argentinians hired to establish their outpost, Louis Vernet, though it was a good idea to harass Americans hunting seals in the region (why? he wanted to hunt the seals for himself of course!). In conclusion, the British were the ones who back the Monroe doctrine giving them more say over how it was implemented, the guy who the Argentinians hired to Govern the islands botched an attempt to get American support for their claim by restricting all sealing activity to himself and his buddies, and since then Argentina's claim has never been recognized by the USA nor will it ever be, for that and other reasons. In any case, Vernet told the British after the Argentinians pronounced him to be ruler of those rocks that his interests were commercial rather than political (and hence they too gave him permission to do what he wanted). So when he made a move the British regarded as political (regulating seal hunting on the Islands) the British took the Islands and got rid of him. In any case it seams to infuriate Argentina that its claim to the Falklands Islands are not taken seriously outside of Latin America. The reason for that is because of the particular circumstances of this one claim: refusing Britain's offers to go to the ICJ to settle the dispute, quoting the Treaty of Tordesillas despite the fact that that treaty is recognized by no one outside of Spain, Portugal and Latin America, accusing Britain of ethnic cleansing and genocide for getting rid of settlement that existed for literally two years, claiming nearby islands with even less legal standing to back up their claims-- these are not activities that garner support in the world at large. It is for all of these reasons that Americans and the US government tend to ignore Argentina's claim in this dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

What about the history of the second half of the doctrine?[edit]

That is, the "non-interference in European [read 'Eastern Hemisphere'] affairs" part, especially pre-WWI, during the interwar period, and post-Cold War. There *have* to be American libertarians, at the least, who over the course of the 20th and now the 21st centuries have objected to U.S. foreign policy as an intrusion into the Eastern Hemisphere that is prohibited by the Doctrine. And what about efforts to revive that portion of the doctrine in the wake of 9/11 (an event triggered by precisely the kind of interference in the Eastern Hemisphere the doctrine disavows)? - (talk) 17:22, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

that is not a good reading, The Monroe Doctrine states: Of events in that quarter of the globe, with which we have so much intercourse and from which we derive our origin, we have always been anxious and interested spectators. The citizens of the United States cherish sentiments the most friendly in favor of the liberty and happiness of their fellowmen on that side of the Atlantic. In the wars of the European powers in matters relating to themselves we have never taken any part, nor does it comport with our policy so to do. It is only when our rights are invaded or seriously menaced that we resent injuries or make preparation for our defense. In 1917 Germany started sinking all American merchant ships in the eastern part of the North Atlantic, which may well qualify as an "injury." In 1941 the US went to war with Germany after it declared war on the US. Rjensen (talk) 17:50, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
The Monroe Doctrine is not a law. John Kerry mentioned it dead. The next president could have his secretary of state make it a Zombie. This is a Tenant of foreign policy. The President in office has the Ultimate authority of foreign policy. What you fail to note IP is that a sitting president invoked the Monroe doctrine each time it was used. What you call prohibited isn't in Libertarian power to prohibit. It's in the sitting presidents power to prohibit.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Exact Date of Declaration?[edit]

Unbelievably, there is no explicit mention anywhere here of the precise date of the Doctrine's implementation. It should have been recorded in the first sentence of the article! Orthotox (talk) 18:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Is this a sentence?[edit]

The first part of the section on "The Kerry Doctrine" reads:

"President Barack Obama's Secretary of State John Kerry told the Organization of American States in November 2013 that the Monroe Doctrine was dead declared the expiration of the nearly 200-year old lodestar of U.S. diplomacy in the Americas."

I am not an expert in American History, but I think I know the English language well enough to say authoritatively that this is not a sentence. I hope that whoever wrote it will correct it to say whatever it was intended to mean. ---Dagme (talk) 14:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I didn't write it, but it is fixed. Carlstak (talk) 15:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

USA bias[edit]

«Its primary objective was to free the newly independent colonies», seriously? The Monroe doctrine is generally considered the start of the USA foreign "influence". Essentially it envisioned the entire American continent as a USA protectorate. --Nemo 08:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I just moved[edit]

actually, removed, this section because it does need a citation to stay, it does not really sound correct and it is very poorly written. Yes, grammar DOES count.

"American isolationism[edit]

The Monroe Doctrine is opposed to the idea of American isolationism – the idea that America keeps to itself and does not get involved with other countries."[citation needed]
Carptrash (talk) 09:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Monroe Doctrine[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Monroe Doctrine's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Schoenrich":

  • From Guayana Esequiba: Schoenrich, Otto, "The Venezuela-British Guiana Boundary Dispute", July 1949, American Journal of International Law. Vol. 43, No. 3. p. 523. Washington, DC. (USA).
  • From Venezuelan crisis of 1895: Otto Schoenrich, "The Venezuela-British Guiana Boundary Dispute", July 1949, American Journal of International Law. Vol. 43, No. 3. p. 523. Washington, DC. (USA).

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 14:27, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

the correct cite = Schoenrich, Otto. "The Venezuela-British Guiana Boundary Dispute." American Journal of International Law (1949) 43#3: 523-530. for proof see this link. Rjensen (talk) 16:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Monroeville doctrine?[edit]

Seriously pagewatchers? That stayed up almost 24 hours? ;0)~ OK OK OK I didn't notice it either.Shajure (talk) 03:58, 25 April 2017 (UTC)