Even more complicated than Russia and even more influential in persuading Monroe and Adams that the Monroe Doctrine was necessary was the nation who had the most presence in the New World-- Spain. The Spanish colonies and territorial claims were massive spanning from Florida out to the West coast, including the Oregon territory, down through Central America and spanning almost all of the South American continent. After the wars in Europe ended, the previous King of Spain was replaced by King Ferdinand VII. Though a series of rebellions threatened his hold on the Spanish crown, the Congress of Vienna agreed to aid King Ferdinand in securing his throne and in 1822 the reinstallation of absolute monarchy in Spain was successful (Robertson). This caused concern for Monroe because King Ferdinand was adamant on restoring balance and control in the Spanish colonies (McDougall). There was also concern, as aforementioned, that Russia would intervene to
Britain, like Spain, had permanent colonies, settlements, and claims in the new world. The one prized colony to their colonial chest was Canada, supplying fur, trade, and money to the British people. In regards to Britain’s currently existing colony, the Monroe doctrine professed no disavowal of the right of the British to manage their respective colony (Yale Law School). Yet, the British territorial claims in Oregon, supported by the notion of preexisting settlements by their fur trading company, was naturally at direct odds with the United States’ belief in Manifest Destiny. This issue already provided a reason for Monroe and Adam’s to be uneasy over British presence in the new world. It was in the national interest of the United States to put an end to the prospect of colonization of the Oregon
Many Americans packed few belongings and headed west during the middle to the late nineteenth century. It was during this time period that the idea of manifest destiny became rooted in American customs and ideals. Manifest Destiny is the idea that supported and justified expansionist policies, it declared that expansion was both necessary and right. America’s expansionist attitudes were prominent during the debate over the territorial rights of the Oregon territory. America wanted to claim the Oregon territory as its own, but Great Britain would not allow that. Eventually the two nations came to an agreement and a compromise was reached, as seen in document B. The first major party of settlers that traveled to the west settled in Oregon.
The relationship between these two nations was highly strained following the Revolutionary War. The War of 1812 also added to the strain. Both nations, however, collaborated in the doctrine’s formulation, hence bettering their relations. For the US, the formulation was crucial, considering that in comparison to Great Britain (which was already a superpower then), the US was vulnerable. As the US grew in strength, the Doctrine confirmed its “entitlement” to exert its influence over North and Latin America, hence allowing it to threaten an intervention in Mexico when the French refused to remove Maximilian from power. The Doctrine is what allowed the US at the beginning of the 20th century to justify its occupation of countries like the Dominican Republic and Haiti. Essentially, the doctrine gave the United States a basis that allowed it to exercise extensive control over several Latin-American
On December 2, 1823, President James Monroe articulated his seventh annual message to Congress. This message presented Americans with a statement that changed the way the Western Hemisphere would be view and how international affairs toward the new Latin colonies would be handle from this point forward. It addressed European nations in particular and stated that “the United States would not tolerate further colonization or puppet nations” The Monroe Doctrine was initially designed to protect the Latin colonies but later President Theodore Roosevelt extended the Doctrine to include the United States would be the policing powers of the Western Hemisphere, this became known as the Roosevelt Corollary. Roosevelt stated that the United States had a “morale mandate” to ensure that other nations used appropriate attitudes toward Latin America. Roosevelt felt strongly in about the conduct of other nations and further stated: “It is not that the United States feels and land hunger or entertains any projects as regards the other nations of the Western Hemisphere save such as are for their welfare. All that this country desires is to see the neighboring countries stable, orderly, and prosperous. Any country whose people conduct themselves well can count upon our hearty friendship. If a nation shows that it knows how to act with reasonable efficiency and decency in social and political matters, if it keeps order and pays its obligations, it need fear no interference from the United States. Chronic wrongdoing, or an impotence which results in a general loosening of the ties of civilized society, may in America, as elsewhere, ultimately require intervention by some civilized nation, and in the Western Hemisphere the adherence of the U...
The relations between England and the British North American colonies could always be considered precarious. Prior to 1750 British essentially followed a policy of benign neglect and political autonomy in the American colonies. (Davidson p.97) The colonies were for the most part content with benign neglect policy, relishing in a “greater equality and representative government”(Davidson p.95) within the colonies. Competition among European Imperial nations began to effect British policy toward North America colonies causing rapid shifts from 1750 to 1776. During this period, the British Empire made a series of policy decision that sealed the fate of the British North American colonies and lead to the American Revolution.
The Monroe Doctrine played a vital role in forming United States foreign policy. It was implemented at a time in the United States when Manifest Destiny was aggressively in effect. The US was freshly out from the control Europe had over them. The forming of Latin America in 1822 sparked interest in the US. The Latin America was experiencing similar problems in trying to gain independence from European control. The Holy Alliance, a coalition formed by Russia, Austria and Prussia, were attempting to interfere with this progress. The British took a stance against the Alliance to preserve trade and commercial interest. With Britain on his side, President Monroe took this opportunity to present the Monr...
Terms-Second BUS/Tariff of 1816/The AMERICAN SYSTEM/Virginia Dynasty/Era of Good Feelings/Treaty of 1818/ Panic of 1819/Florida Purchase Treaty/Tallmadge Amendment/Russo-American Treaty of 1824/
Reid, John G. "Pax Britannica or Pax Indigena? Planter Nova Scotia (1760--1782) and Competing Strategies of Pacification." Canadian Historical Review 85, no. 4 (December 2004): 669-692. America: History and Life with Full Text.
Although most of the inhabitants of Nova Scotia were New Englanders, they refused to join the Thirteen Colonies in 1775 and 1776 in an attempt to break connections with the British. They did not want to break the precedence the British left; they would instead trail a policy of neutrality. Ironically, it was the same neutrality in which the Acadians believed in; the same one the New Englanders looked down upon in the first place. With the settlement of the New Englanders in Nova Scotia, one question was meant to be answered: Why did Nova Scotia not join the Thirteen Colonies in attempt to break ties with the British in 1775 and 1776? The article discusses three theories that were created to answer the question.
After the signing of the Treaty of Paris in 1763, England held the lion’s share of land on the eastern side of America. Unfortunately, English authorities were struggling to control the settlers, as they continued to press westward. In an effort to not only better-manage the colonies, but also pacify the grumblings of the Native Americans, King George III announced the Proclamation of 1763. This decree was intended to restrict white settlers from venturing beyond the peak of the Appalachian Mountains; but the frontier spirit of the settlers was strong and they continued to press on, the long hunters paving the way.
The “Manifest Destiny,” was the belief that the United States was destined to take occupation and possession of the entire continent. Its intention was to promote further territorial expansion spreading a common system of principles across every area between the Atlantic and Pacific coasts of the early United States. The concept of American expansion was not a new thought. Years ago, many Europeans had also shared a similar understanding, claiming a divine right to obtain new lands as their own to tame. “A Plea for Compromise” Robert C. Winthrop recalls, “Spain and Portugal, we all know, in the early part of the sixteenth century, laid claim to the jurisdiction of this whole northern continent of America” (Winthrop). However, Journalist John
Before Thomas Jefferson ever entered the presidency, he believed in the “Empire of Liberty.” He wrote in a letter to a friend that “Our confederacy must be viewed as the nest from which all America, North or South, is to be peopled.” His motives for the intense eye on American expansion were greatness for his country, as well as for himself. He was disgusted with the idea of North America being divided into nation-states like Europe. His goal was for the ideals of the American Revolution to spread over the whole continent. He passed and helped pass some of the legislation that helped early America expand. He co-authored the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, which allowed for states to be made from the territory east of the Mississippi and north of the Ohio River. Jefferson’s desire for exploring the lands west of the Mississippi had been around for fifty years. Jefferson’s father was a member of the Loyal Land Company. After American Independence, there were four plans to explore the west; Jefferson was behind three of those plans. The Louisiana Purchase divided the political country, before and after the actual purchase. I intend to show these sides by examining documents from Jefferson, his colleagues, and the opposition to the Purchase, as well as international deterrents to the Purchase.
In year 1845, journalist John L. O’Sullivan used the phrase “manifest destiny” in an article to support the U.S. right to occupy new territories, saying: “[that claim is by the right of] our manifest destiny to overspread and to possess the whole of the continent which Providence has given us for the development of the great experiment of liberty and federated self-government entrusted to us” (Boyer 388). O’Sullivan proposed the idea that the expansion of the United States wouldn’t happen if it was not supposed to. The topic created a big controversy whether the Manifest Destiny confers the United States the destiny to expand or it is an excuse to take other people’s land (Allard par. 1).
The beginning of 1763 marked one of the major events that would contribute to the end of British colonial relations. On February 3, 1763 the French and Indian War finally ended in British victory, but while the British celebrated the French’s defeat, colonists feared the oncoming reverberations the war would have on them. The main motive behind the war was for possession over the French fur trade territory in North America. To the colonists, the war was being fought by and for Britain not the colonies. The benefits of the victory only pertained to Britain. The after effect of the war for the colonies was the trampling on their need for expansion. During the war, Native Americans had fought with the French because of how well they treated them. Britain was notorious for abusing the Native Americans, therefore once the French were defeated; they began attacking western settlements of colonists. To avoid confrontation, the Proclamation of 1763 was passed by Parliament. The Proclamation established a limit to the greatly needed colonial expansion. Specifically, the Proclamation forbid settlement beyond the Appalachian Mountains. The passing of the Proclamation of 1763 infuriated colonists ...
President James Monroe declared “In the discussions to which this interest has given rise and in the arrangements by which they may terminate 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, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers,” on December 2, 1823 in the Monroe Doctrine. It was the first United States of America foreign policy statement that declared the settlement of the Western Hemisphere off-limits of the European nations. Though reiterated a myriad of times afterwards, it was the first document to state that the United States of America would view any attempt of any European power or allied powers to control any nation in the Western Hemisphere as hostile. The Monroe Doctrine was the United States of America’s first response to the fear that Spain would attempt to restore their former colonies in the Americas, especially Florida. Therefore, the Monroe Doctrine holds great importance to the United States of America history because it solidly produced evidence regarding how the United States would view European nations attempting to attain land in the Americas and that the United States would act upon it in order to protect its people and its land
Monroe wrote that Spain and Portugal’s efforts "to improve the condition of the people of [colonized countries in the Americas]” yielded disappointing results, and suggests that the United States was better positioned to take on the role of colonial overseer given the nation’s unique geographical, social, and political connection to the Americas. Monroe justified this right to benevolent imperialism largely around the idea that America’s government, “has been achieved by the loss of so much blood and treasure, and matured by the wisdom of their most enlightened citizens, [which has produced] unexampled felicity [throughout America].” Yet contained within this utopian treatment of the American political system is the inherent suggestion that the American definition of “unexampled felicity” was universally applicable throughout the Americas. Here, the issue of textuality is raised; while politically, the protection of American countries by the United States suggests a benevolent intention, the idea that America had indirect authority over its neighbors indicates an impe...