Monroe Doctrine Proclaimed, Establishing Imperial Paradox of Anti-Colonial Rhetoric Masking U.S. Expansion

President James Monroe articulates the Monroe Doctrine during his seventh annual State of the Union Address to Congress, declaring that any European intervention in the political affairs of the Americas constitutes a potentially hostile act against the United States. The doctrine establishes three main principles—separate spheres of influence for the Americas and Europe, non-colonization, and non-intervention—designed to signify a clear break between the New World and the autocratic realm of Europe. The policy emerges as nearly all Spanish colonies in the Americas have either achieved or approach independence, with Americans fearing that Spain and France might reassert colonialism over Latin American peoples who have just overthrown European rule, and concerns that Russia is expanding its presence southward from Alaska toward Oregon Territory.

However, the doctrine embodies what historians identify as an imperial paradox: anti-colonial rhetoric intertwined with imperial ambitions. Secretary of State John Quincy Adams vigorously opposes cooperation with Great Britain on the policy, contending that a bilateral statement could limit future United States expansion. He argues that the British are not committed to recognizing Latin American republics and must have imperial motivations themselves. American historian William Appleman Williams characterizes the doctrine as “imperial anti-colonialism”—ostensibly preventing European colonization while actually establishing American hemispheric dominance. The doctrine initially asserts only that the Western Hemisphere is no longer open to European colonialism, but later interpretations expand it to justify unilateral U.S. intervention and territorial acquisition.

The Monroe Doctrine’s greatest extension comes with Theodore Roosevelt’s Corollary in 1904, which inverts the original meaning and comes to justify unilateral U.S. intervention in Latin America. While the original doctrine concerns global powers staying out of Latin American affairs, Roosevelt’s interpretation proclaims Washington’s right to intervene throughout the hemisphere. Over subsequent decades, American troops land in the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Nicaragua, and numerous other countries under Monroe Doctrine justifications. The doctrine demonstrates how anti-colonial rhetoric can mask imperial expansion, establishing patterns where the United States opposes European imperialism not from principled anti-colonialism but to clear the field for American dominance—dynamics recurring from the Spanish-American War through Cold War interventions in Latin America, revealing how proclaimed opposition to empire can serve as cover for building one’s own sphere of control and economic extraction.