The Monroe Doctrine... a Positive

The Monroe Doctrine expressed the idea that new countries should be allowed to develop without interference from any stronger nations. The Monroe Doctrine is a doctrine that European nations should not interfere with American nations or try to acquire more territory in the Western Hemisphere. The Monroe Doctrine was derived from President James Monroe's message in Congress on December 2, 1823 and became a part of the United States foreign policy. Earlier in the Unit they asked me to give the 4 key points made in the Monroe Doctrine. And these are the points President James Monroe made. One that America never took apart of the European power struggles, neither did it agree with the policy they had to do so. Two they had not interfered with the other European colonization. Three that the American continents had not nor would they interfere with the other European power. Four, finally they would consider any attempt by any European power dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States of America.

The United States has influenced many nations in the world throughout history. Some of the ways the U.S. has been able to dominate poor countries are with military action and corporate activities that allowed the United States to influence their governments. Since the United States extends its power with the previously mentioned methods, it is recognized as an imperialist nation. The United States has specifically demonstrated imperialistic forces in Latin America. The effects that the United States’ imperialism had on Latin American economies and politics were negative since it brought violence and caused the poor to struggle even more. When the United Sates government did not like policies that Latin American presidents were creating, they would take military actions to force American ideologies into Latin American countries’ governments by installing puppets into their governments. Generally, these countries would have flourished economically without the United States, but since the U.S. became involved with the countries’ policies, their economies have weakened because the U.S. wants the benefits of controlling countries’ resources without being responsible for the people who reside there. This pattern of the United States’ imperialistic behavior has been demonstrated many times in Latin America.

With European conquest spreading throughout the world, the US as a growing nation needed political influence and military influence to protect themselves from imperialism. In the early 1800s, Latin America had been establishing their freedom from the Spanish empire, and the US decided to strengthen its power in the region. After acknowledging some of the first Latin American countries, President James Monroe announced the foreign policy, the Monroe Doctrine. President Monroe’s new policy followed three main ideas: no European colonization in the American continents, the US would not meddle with European affairs, and if the Europe did intervene in American matters then it would be considered as an act of war. Despite the lack of US military

Howard Jones who is the author of, Crucible of Power, argues that the U.S. followed a foreign policy of independent internationalism to secure foreign markets through peaceful means and this can be seen in Latin America. Woodrow Wilson promised not to seek territorial acquisitions to the South, but would not renounce the spread of U.S. influence through economic means and this lead to the U.S. having influence in 75 percent of Latin American during the 1920s. To spread economic influence throughout Latin America the U.S. insisted it would be through peaceful policies, but continued the use of military interventionism in countries like the Dominican Republic, Haiti, and Nicaragua until the middle of the 1920 's. This is also an example which shows that the U.S. did not pursue an isolationist foreign policy and wanted to go out in the world and expand its markets.

Also, Social Darwinism had been a huge influence to many Americans, which led them to believe that the United States had a responsiblity to bring industrialization and democracy to less developed nations. Many American leaders, such as Theodore Roosevelt, thought that the ticket and key tool for imperialism would be a powerful naval presence, his, “big stick” that would rival any great European power. Through necessity of resources and war with Spain, the United States would free Cuba, annex Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines. Annexation had a pronounced affect on the citizens of those countries, more so in the Philippines. As we know the United States engaged in imperialism to promote their influence of democracy to new parts of the world. The United States believed they had a responsible to police the Western Hemisphere, but the United States’ decision to engage in imperialism was much more than

The United States has been an important part in the history of all of Latin America. Many times, the United States influenced Latin American countries with its economic, political, and military power. The United States looked down at Latin America as its backyard, constantly using its influence to benefit from the land and supporting dictators in the region. The United States used this power to effectively influence Latin America for decades, even when the U.S. faced communism as a new threat during the Cold War. The United States feared the communist influence of the Soviet Union in countries like El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Guatemala, because the “evil empire’s” plan for world domination included infiltrating Latin America. Even though these

US interventionism in Latin America started a long time ago with the Monroe Doctrine, in 1823. A policy which stated that any intervention by external power for example from Europe is the Americas is a hostile act against the US. In simpler words, America is for the Americas. From the 1900’s till the beginning of the Cold War, the United States started the military intervention mostly in the Caribbean and Central American regions. This has started a long history of the United States intervening on Latin America issues.

American attitudes towards Latin America can be summed up as an extension of larger global directives, and the exclusion of foreign powers in the region. This was highlighted especially during the Cold War as US involvement was essentially in competition with the USSR. Latin America was therefore a mere pawn in the larger context of US-Soviet competition for global dominance. The actions and methods used are also characterized by the lack of an international authority, or an atmosphere of inter-state anarchy, which shaped their calculations in the endeavor to increase their influence over Latin America. When one analyzes the situation, it seems only rational that the United States treated its southern neighbors so, due to the geographical

During the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, the United States was the most dominant power in the Western Hemisphere. European nations conceded to the United States their right of any intervention in the Western Hemisphere and allowed the United States to do whatever they wanted. The United States took this newly bestowed power and abused it. The United States intervened in many Latin American countries and imposed their policies on to these countries against their will. A perfect example of this aggression is what occurred in the Dominican Republic in 1904. The United States intervened in this sovereign nation and took control of their economy and custom houses. A memorandum from Francis B. Loomis, the United States Assistant

When looking at the history between the United States and Latin America, you see many interactions between them, all that aided the relationship that they have today. Despite that the United States and Latin America are in the same part of the world, the beliefs in which they govern may differ. This difference has often been seen playing a major role in the disputes that have occurred in past. The United States and Latin America have faced many social, economical and governing barriers in forming a strong and positive relationship in the early twentieth century, this is due to the differences that the two had between cultures and the constant demand for power. However, the two countries have found ways to meet in the middle of their cultural differences, to form an equally fair relationship.

Generally, the US foreign policy concerning Latin America was of course for the US' own benefit. If the person in power was trying to nationalize their country's economy, the US accused them of communism and proceeded to push them out, unofficially, under the pretext of national security.

expanding it boarders in the early and mid 1800’s. Throughout the world in the 1880’s there was a large need for countries to gain places where they could get natural resources. Almost every Western European Nation was in need to imperialize. Examples of this were the scramble for Africa, and the spheres of influence. The cartoonist Thomas Nast depicts this in his cartoon “The worlds plunder” which appeared in Harper’s weekly in 1885. America’s need to I imperialize was similar to that of Europe. The way the U.S. went about gaining markets was no different then what they had done before to gain land. The U.S. looked to fighting to gain land and when they saw the Cubans wanted independence from Spain the U.S. looked to help Cuba to get land in return. Throughout the war there was yellow journalism to gain support from the American population. Also when the USS Maine got bombed the American immediately blamed it on Spain. Years later it was found the explosion happened internally and Spain couldn’t have bombed it. The U.S. easily defeats Spain and in return for helping Cuba the U.S. gained Puerto Rico, The Philippines, and Guam. After Cuba Got there independence the U.S. wanted to keep their influence in Cuba so they passed the Platt amendment which made Cuba a protectorate and gave the U.S. a naval Base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. It also would not let Cuba Make a treaty Without The U.S. The U.S. Justifies their actions for helping Cuba and gaining

The French Revolution directly affected the nineteenth century through the creation of many ideologies, one important one being nationalism. Nationalism is a very controversial ideology because of the many diverse approaches towards its true definition. A broad definition of nationalism could be perceived as a strong devotion towards the culture and identity of a nation. As well as the idea that nations will benefit more from acting as an independent nation opposed to multiple states working together as a collective. Its emergence completely changed the political map of Europe and resulted in the birth of many new nations. There are many different views towards the true reason for the emergence of Nationalism in Europe. Many historians believe the emergence can be credited to the French Revolution and later the continuation of ideas under Napoleon Bonaparte. While others believe the Industrial Revolution held more importance for the widespread arrival of nationalism. It seems better to encompass both and argue that the emergence of nationalism in Europe was caused by the French Revolution, Napoleon Bonaparte’s rule, and the Industrial Revolution.

The political and social conditions of Europe before the onset of the World War I were extremely unstable and undergoing a rapid transition that was driven by national interests of different nations living in the region. Nationalism was endorsed to promote patriotism among masses and to achieve political objectives that were in alignment with the national or political interests of countries. As the time passed, the growing influence of imperialism and the ideology of nationalism manifested multifaceted

Nationalism is the idea that a people who have much in common, such as language, culture and geographic proximity ought to organize in such a way that it creates a stable and enduring state. Nationalism is tied to patriotism, and it is the driving force behind the identity of a culture. Nationalism had many effects in Europe from 1815, The Congress of Vienna and beyond. In the following essay I will describe many of the consequences of nationalism on European identity, as well as some of the conflicts that it created.