The Monroe Doctrine and Manifest Destiny

[Foxfyre]

Given the current proposal to significantly downsize our military to pre WWII levels, it might be wise to consider the following concepts of our history and what we expect our military to do.

On December 2, 1823, in his seventh State of the Union address to Congress, President James Monroe proclaimed his so-called Monroe Doctrine that European powers would no longer colonize or interfere with the newly independent nations in North and South America and hat we would view such action as hostile. That concept has been supported by every Administration since that time.

In the 1840's, Jackson Democrats promoted a concept of Manifest Destiny that promoted U.S. annexation of the Oregon Territory, Texas, etc. Many believe this was divinely inspired and most believed it was our righteous right to expand liberty and opportunity. That concept has been supported by most, Democrat and Republican alike, for most of the time since then.

By the mid Nineteenth Century, the Monroe Doctrine and Manifest Destiny merged to provide precedent and support for U.S. expansion throughout North America, and by the late Nineteenth Century was the justification for U.S. influence outside of North America, initially via Teddy Roosevelt's dealings in Latin America, and subsequently elsewhere.

These concepts are sometimes pointed to now as precedent and justification for American intervention in various politics and situations around the world whether to protect American interests or for humanitarian reasons. And they would certainly be evoked if anybody should attack Canada or Mexico and many other nations.
Still others grow weary of the USA being the world's policeman and the world's backup army.

Basically the topic and the poll questions are focused on the primary question: Do we need a new doctrine and a new destiny?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

We need to stay home, fix ourselves, and get the fuck out of way of everyone else who has the right to their destiny without us trying to control or make a buck from it.

 

[occupied]

We need a new doctrine, quit being the stereotype of what our enemies like to think we are, sneaky imperialist busybodies bent on occupation and domination for the sake of heartless multinational corporations.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Generally, Manifest Destiny should be called The White Man's Destiny in North America. "Citizens of the
States were led to believe that the United States was destined to take over the continent of North America. Some felt that such was white America's destiny due to the appeal of freedom and democracy. Many of the white Americans felt that it was up to them to further develop the lifestyles of the Hispanics and Native Americans. They believed that these other simple living races were incapable of technologically and spiritually advancing into the future. The entire concept that the United States was destined to rule was termed "manifest destiny" by John O' Sullivan in 1845. In the process of Manifest Destiny, many societies were displaced or killed by white settlers moving west." http://www.saylor.org/site/wp-conte...1-Westward-Expansion-and-Manifest-Destiny.pdf

The geo-economic factor of the Mississippi River required the removal of the French then the Spanish and the Mexicans to secure the underbelly of the country all the way to the Rio Grande. The desire for California, New Mexico, and Oregon led to compromise with the Briths and war against Mexico. After 1890, Manifest Destiny morphed into a expansion into the Caribbean and across the Pacific to gain influence and bases for protection of the USA's growing global economy. Both WWI and WWII are rooted in those imperialistic and colonial attitudes.

The 21st century globalziation of the economy fostered by technology and social media now allows the American hegemony to retreat to our shores once again, protected by an air and naval shield that is almost impenetrable and protective of the homeland. With that "hard" power secured, time has come to work on "soft" power, economic joint investments with other countries and cooperative diplomacy to smooth the way.

 

[Foxfyre]

I also think we need a new doctrine--I think we have way overstepped original Constitutional concepts as well as the original intent of the Monroe Doctrine and/or Manifest Destiny to the point that much/most of what we do is no longer in our interests nor can it be justified as virtuous.

But I'll admit that I am at a loss as to how to write a new one. I am sick of being the world's policeman and giving so much of our blood and treasure on the behalf of others who do not say so much as a thank you, much less reciprocate. Still, would I want us to sit by and let another nation attack Canada? Or Mexico? Or the UK? Or. . . . .

And do I want us to turn a blind eye and sit on our hands in the face of horrendous genocide and worse atrocities?

These are not easy answers in a very complicated world full of dangers for just about everybody. But I think as a people we have to know the answers before we can be competent in approving or objecting to a severe downsizing of our military.

 

[Moonglow]

The doctrines allowed the US to do what every other human group has done through our history, push people off their land and claim it for themselves...

 

[Moonglow]

Involvement in Central America/South America started in the early 1800's when Americans were going to other countries and trying to take them over...Look at Texas/California/ as an example.

 

[Victory67]

I am a Fiscal Conservative and want to slash unneeded spending, like our very bloated military.

 

[Pheonixops]

Given the current proposal to significantly downsize our military to pre WWII levels, it might be wise to consider the following concepts of our history and what we expect our military to do.

On December 2, 1823, in his seventh State of the Union address to Congress, President James Monroe proclaimed his so-called Monroe Doctrine that European powers would no longer colonize or interfere with the newly independent nations in North and South America and hat we would view such action as hostile. That concept has been supported by every Administration since that time.

In the 1840's, Jackson Democrats promoted a concept of Manifest Destiny that promoted U.S. annexation of the Oregon Territory, Texas, etc. Many believe this was divinely inspired and most believed it was our righteous right to expand liberty and opportunity. That concept has been supported by most, Democrat and Republican alike, for most of the time since then.

By the mid Nineteenth Century, the Monroe Doctrine and Manifest Destiny merged to provide precedent and support for U.S. expansion throughout North America, and by the late Nineteenth Century was the justification for U.S. influence outside of North America, initially via Teddy Roosevelt's dealings in Latin America, and subsequently elsewhere.

These concepts are sometimes pointed to now as precedent and justification for American intervention in various politics and situations around the world whether to protect American interests or for humanitarian reasons. And they would certainly be evoked if anybody should attack Canada or Mexico and many other nations.
Still others grow weary of the USA being the world's policeman and the world's backup army.

Basically the topic and the poll questions are focused on the primary question: Do we need a new doctrine and a new destiny?

I have no problem with the Monroe Doctrine as long as the other countries that it affects consents to it in the form of a treaty.

Manifest Destiny in this era I reject, I think that we need to start looking out for our interests here more than the interests of other nations abroad. Basically very few "entangling alliances".

 

[Moonglow]

The Ostend Manifiesto. was a document written in 1854 that described the rationale for the United States to purchase Cuba from Spain while implying that the U.S. should declare war if Spain refused. Cuba's annexation had long been a goal of U.S. expansionists, particularly as the U.S. set its sights southward following the admission of California to the Union. However, diplomatically, the country had been content to see the island remain in Spanish hands so long as it did not pass to a stronger power such as Britain or France. Buchanan was easily elected President in 1856. Although he remained committed to Cuban annexation, he was hindered by popular opposition and the growing sectional conflict; not until thirty years after the Civil War did the so-called Cuban Question again come to national prominence.

Latin America?United States relations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[JakeStarkey]

We can begin with that a DOD half its size in ten years of what it is now will be enough to burn the whole world.

What is our priority then? Realistically, I think, we require an energy demand that requires protection from Venezuela to Canada (from northern South America to the Arctic) coupled to wise expansion of petroleum sources and encouragement of wind and solar power.

But what if Russia, in conjunction with a cowed Belarus and Ukraine, decides to attack West? Should we once again protect Europe as we have twice before in the last 100 years?

 

[Foxfyre]

Given the current proposal to significantly downsize our military to pre WWII levels, it might be wise to consider the following concepts of our history and what we expect our military to do.

On December 2, 1823, in his seventh State of the Union address to Congress, President James Monroe proclaimed his so-called Monroe Doctrine that European powers would no longer colonize or interfere with the newly independent nations in North and South America and hat we would view such action as hostile. That concept has been supported by every Administration since that time.

In the 1840's, Jackson Democrats promoted a concept of Manifest Destiny that promoted U.S. annexation of the Oregon Territory, Texas, etc. Many believe this was divinely inspired and most believed it was our righteous right to expand liberty and opportunity. That concept has been supported by most, Democrat and Republican alike, for most of the time since then.

By the mid Nineteenth Century, the Monroe Doctrine and Manifest Destiny merged to provide precedent and support for U.S. expansion throughout North America, and by the late Nineteenth Century was the justification for U.S. influence outside of North America, initially via Teddy Roosevelt's dealings in Latin America, and subsequently elsewhere.

These concepts are sometimes pointed to now as precedent and justification for American intervention in various politics and situations around the world whether to protect American interests or for humanitarian reasons. And they would certainly be evoked if anybody should attack Canada or Mexico and many other nations.
Still others grow weary of the USA being the world's policeman and the world's backup army.

Basically the topic and the poll questions are focused on the primary question: Do we need a new doctrine and a new destiny?

I have no problem with the Monroe Doctrine as long as the other countries that it affects consents to it in the form of a treaty.

Manifest Destiny in this era I reject, I think that we need to start looking out for our interests here more than the interests of other nations abroad. Basically very few "entangling alliances".

I think most probably agree with you re Manifest Destiny, but would you want us to do nothing if Israel was under attack by Iran? If the UK needed help to stave off Islamic extremists intent on taking over Parliament? Or if a country was systematically exterminating all the Jews it could find?

As for countries agreeing to the Monroe Doctrine, I think you might have missed the point of the Monroe Doctrine. It was intended to prevent invasion or outside interference with countries on the North and South American continents and to interpret any such action as a hostile act. I don't know what sort of treaty would deal with that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Monroe Doctrine was also intended to secure trade from Spain's former colonies in South America, American vessels carrying the trade and the UK's navy protecting them.

The examples about Israel's security, terrorism, or genocide are well taken.

 

[Pheonixops]

Given the current proposal to significantly downsize our military to pre WWII levels, it might be wise to consider the following concepts of our history and what we expect our military to do.

On December 2, 1823, in his seventh State of the Union address to Congress, President James Monroe proclaimed his so-called Monroe Doctrine that European powers would no longer colonize or interfere with the newly independent nations in North and South America and hat we would view such action as hostile. That concept has been supported by every Administration since that time.

In the 1840's, Jackson Democrats promoted a concept of Manifest Destiny that promoted U.S. annexation of the Oregon Territory, Texas, etc. Many believe this was divinely inspired and most believed it was our righteous right to expand liberty and opportunity. That concept has been supported by most, Democrat and Republican alike, for most of the time since then.

By the mid Nineteenth Century, the Monroe Doctrine and Manifest Destiny merged to provide precedent and support for U.S. expansion throughout North America, and by the late Nineteenth Century was the justification for U.S. influence outside of North America, initially via Teddy Roosevelt's dealings in Latin America, and subsequently elsewhere.

These concepts are sometimes pointed to now as precedent and justification for American intervention in various politics and situations around the world whether to protect American interests or for humanitarian reasons. And they would certainly be evoked if anybody should attack Canada or Mexico and many other nations.
Still others grow weary of the USA being the world's policeman and the world's backup army.

Basically the topic and the poll questions are focused on the primary question: Do we need a new doctrine and a new destiny?

I have no problem with the Monroe Doctrine as long as the other countries that it affects consents to it in the form of a treaty.

Manifest Destiny in this era I reject, I think that we need to start looking out for our interests here more than the interests of other nations abroad. Basically very few "entangling alliances".

I think most probably agree with you re Manifest Destiny, but would you want us to do nothing if Israel was under attack by Iran? If the UK needed help to stave off Islamic extremists intent on taking over Parliament? Or if a country was systematically exterminating all the Jews it could find?

As for countries agreeing to the Monroe Doctrine, I think you might have missed the point of the Monroe Doctrine. It was intended to prevent invasion or outside interference with countries on the North and South American continents and to interpret any such action as a hostile act. I don't know what sort of treaty would deal with that.

I think that the "attack" would tend to be the other way around. I think that we should let the UN handle the other items with the exception of Great Britain, we have a sort of brotherhood with them. My point is that if the UN or NATO wants to handle a situation, our military should always be overly represented in the actions. Let the other countries pull their own weight as well. I'm a realist, that's why I stated that would should have few entangling alliances.



I guess I was pretty much thinking of this which Canada is also part of:
Organization of American States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Pheonixops]

Here's something funny:


“The relationship that we seek and that we have worked hard to foster is not about a United States declaration about how and when it will intervene in the affairs of other American states. It’s about all of our countries viewing one another as equals, sharing responsibilities, cooperating on security issues, and adhering not to doctrine, but to the decisions that we make as partners to advance the values and the interests that we share,” he said.

Kerry Makes It Official: ?Era of Monroe Doctrine Is Over? - Washington Wire - WSJ

 

[Foxfyre]

Here's something funny:


“The relationship that we seek and that we have worked hard to foster is not about a United States declaration about how and when it will intervene in the affairs of other American states. It’s about all of our countries viewing one another as equals, sharing responsibilities, cooperating on security issues, and adhering not to doctrine, but to the decisions that we make as partners to advance the values and the interests that we share,” he said.

Kerry Makes It Official: ?Era of Monroe Doctrine Is Over? - Washington Wire - WSJ

Would that we could do that. But the way it is going, I think it might require a dose of Manfest Destiny and military conquer of Mexico and installing a new government there who would see it as their responsibility to deal with the drug cartels and help prevent illegal emigration to the USA in return to being treated as equals with the USA. It isn't conducive to equality when one party gets all the benefits and the other gets all the burden.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Would that we could do that. But the way it is going, I think it might require a dose of Manfest Destiny and military conquer of Mexico and installing a new government there who would see it as their responsibility to deal with the drug cartels and help prevent illegal emigration to the USA in return to being treated as equals with the USA. It isn't conducive to equality when one party gets all the benefits and the other gets all the burden.

I don't see dealing with Mexico's drug problem which affects our oil imports as Manifest Destiny. I did not know you had the heart of a filibuster, in the original sense. Yes, I agree such might be necessary.

 

[Borillar]

We have the right to defend our own borders. We have the responsibility to uphold treaties with other countries, including coming to their defense. We don't have the right to intervene or otherwise dictate how other countries in our hemisphere should function ala the "Monroe doctrine". We have no right to take over and occupy another nation's sovereign territory as was done under the "Manifest Destiny" of the 19th century.

 

[Foxfyre]

We have the right to defend our own borders. We have the responsibility to uphold treaties with other countries, including coming to their defense. We don't have the right to intervene or otherwise dictate how other countries in our hemisphere should function ala the "Monroe doctrine". We have no right to take over and occupy another nation's sovereign territory as was done under the "Manifest Destiny" of the 19th century.

I'm not saying I necessarily disagree with you, but why?

 

[Borillar]

We have the right to defend our own borders. We have the responsibility to uphold treaties with other countries, including coming to their defense. We don't have the right to intervene or otherwise dictate how other countries in our hemisphere should function ala the "Monroe doctrine". We have no right to take over and occupy another nation's sovereign territory as was done under the "Manifest Destiny" of the 19th century.

I'm not saying I necessarily disagree with you, but why?

I proclaim these truths to be self evident.