The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1895-03-23
MEANING OF THE MONROE Doc
TRINE.

Considering the frequency with which
the so-called Monroe doctrine has
been mysteriously limited at or openly
cited as a controlling factor in the for
eign relations of the United States, it is
somewhat singular that it has never
been positively asserted or practically
applied. Nearly th~ree-quarters of a
century have passed since the doctrine
was first promulgated in one of Presi-
dent Monroe's messages, yet in all that
period 1t has never had a practical APP
plication or clear Interpretation. And
yet, Notwithstanding it's uncertainty
and the fact that it has never been en-
forced in n instance, it has had a
powerful influence in shaping American
ideas, nj is still a potential factor in
the molding of public opinion.
In trying to arrive at a clear under
standing of the doctrine, the object of
it's original PRONUNCIATION should be re-
membered. In 1923 the United States
were comparatively a weak power. The
revolutionary spirit still survived, and
there was great distrIst of European
influence. The South American states
had all thrown off the Spanish yoke and
their independence had been recognized
by the United States. Through repre-
sensations made by England this gov
ernment was led to believe that there
was to be a combined effort by certain
European powers to re-establish the
authority of Spain in South America.
and the result was the promulga alton of
the Monroe doctrine. Really, therefore,
A. -zx:-z e -
can be called a doctrine, owed it's origin
to a desire for self-protection rather
than a purpose to protect the South
American states. 1t was expressly on
strued as not meaning that the United
States would oppose Spain trying to re-
conquer n or all of her former posses
sions in South America, but only that
they would regard a movement in that
direction by any other European power
as unfriendly. But even that was not
construed as meaning that the United
States woul go to war to protect the
South American states against any and
all European intervention. Each case
was still to be judged on its merits.
John C. Calhoun, who was in Monroe's
Cabinet ms supported the doctrine. said
in a debate in the Senate some years
afterward that 1.-The United States was
under no pledge to intervene against in
t~ervention, but was to act in each case
as justice and policy required" MIR.
Benton, in his "Abridgment of the De-
bates of Congress- speaks of the Mon
roe doctrine as one 1.-The extent and ma
ture of which have been so greatly mis-
understood and adds:
1t has been generally regarded as prom
Using a sort of political protection or guar
| dianship of the two Americas-the United
| States to stand guard over the new world
and repulse all intrusive colonists from its
shores. Nothing could be more erroneous
| or more at war with our established prin-
| ciples OF noninterference with other ma
tions. The declaration itself did not i'm
pose any such high mission and responsible
| attitude for the United States; it went no
further than to declare that any European
| interference TO control the destinies of the
| new American states would be construed
as the manifestation of an unfriendly spir-
1t toward the United States. This was
very far from being a pledge TO take Ut
arms in defense of the invaded American
| states.
John Quincy Adams, q member OF
! Monroe's Cabinet, was his successor as