The Monroe Doctrine declared that European nations no longer had the right to colonize or interfere with affairs of the nations in the New World. It is a defining moment in the history of the U.S. and the Western Hemisphere. It was announced by President Monroe in his State of the Union address on Dec. 2, 1823. The U.S. planned to stay neutral in European affairs unless Europe interfered in the Western Hemisphere. In that event, the interference would be viewed as a hostile action. Napoleon tried to install Emperor Maximilian as ruler of Mexico and the U.S. supported the Mexican independence movement. President Teddy Roosevelt added the 3rd component, that colonization was always a hostile act, and exemplified the U.S reaction to European interference with the phrase "speak softly and carry a big stick."
2007-11-23 10:09:22
·
answer #1
·
answered by David M 7
·
3⤊
0⤋
You bet. It was certainly invoked in the Spanish-American war over Cuba (starring Teddy Roosevelt). Indeed, if you read the text of Monroe's address, you can see the intent of the doctrine was probably pretty anti-Spanish to begin with. Even as late as World War II, one reason for US's escalation of anti-German operations was [justly] suspected "meddling" of the Nazis in Mexico. American government seemed implicitly to understand that only one country could have military relations with Mexico...
2007-11-23 16:55:28
·
answer #2
·
answered by periwinkle 2
·
2⤊
0⤋
The Monroe Doctrine was aimed at European powers to warn them away from their meddling in the Americas. "Don't you play in our backyard, and thereby endanger our freedom."
US intervention in Latin America results from various causes and yields different results, but the Monroe Doctrine is not a cause.
2007-11-23 18:05:52
·
answer #3
·
answered by fallenaway 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
At its inception, it helped the UK. However, when the US was ready to take a more active role in South America, they did. By then, the US claimed several factors, including the desire to spread democracy, to "justify" their involvement in South American matters.
2007-11-23 17:50:16
·
answer #4
·
answered by Mr. W 1
·
0⤊
1⤋
I don't believe looking after the security of a continent and minding our interests in the region qualifies as interference.
2007-11-23 16:45:17
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
It was for Latin America
2007-11-23 16:43:31
·
answer #6
·
answered by Stargazer 2
·
0⤊
0⤋