The Monroe Doctrine, often perceived as a founding policy of American diplomacy, influenced not only international relations but also internal domestic politics throughout the 19th century, complicating America's relationship with the notion of "empire," Oxford University history professor Jay Sexton said to a crowd of students and professors on Thursday in Carson. An ongoing struggle against the British Empire, the centralization of the union and American imperial expansion which included "the continental empire and the way that American power was projected informally outside the nation's borders" defined America during the 1800s, Sexton said. The Monroe Doctrine, "an elastic, elusive and shape-shifting creature," can be used as a vehicle for exploring the ways in which American statecraft was a product of internal pressure to keep the nation unified in addition to external processes, he said. "It's misleading to refer to [the Doctrine] in the singular," as conflicting pro-slavery, anti-slavery, expansionist and anti-expansionist movements interpreted it in different ways, according to Sexton.
"It was a symbol that rival groups sought to call their own," he said. The Monroe Doctrine is best described as a national security policy that grew out of American anxiety, rather than as strong imperial dogma, Sexton said. "We tend to think about the Monroe Doctrine in relation to American expansion and the rising American empire, but it actually grew out of anxiety of foreign threats," he said. When former President James Monroe initially laid out the policy of the Doctrine in the 1823 State of the Union Address, he was concerned about the insecurity of the union and was focused on solving domestic issues before foreign relations, according to Sexton. "The government feared that the presence of European monarchies in South America would inflame domestic conflict," he said. The U.S. was relatively weak compared to the European powers that dominated international affairs at the time and was internally vulnerable, according to Sexton. A merging of the two weaknesses was the American government's "greatest single fear," he said. The U.S. only attempted to address these combined issues in a proposed alliance with Britain during the Civil War. The implementation of the Doctrine created a source of contention domestically and was "negatively framed," Sexton said. Instead of prescribing American foreign policy, the Doctrine focused on prohibiting European intervention. The Doctrine was more frequently used as a political tool between rivals during elections rather than being used as a platform for international relations, he said.
"Domestic politicking" of the Doctrine was extensive as politicians attempted to prove their commitment to national security through campaign strategies like pamphlets publicizing their support for the Doctrine, according to Sexton.
"It drew just as much from the internal dynamics of the Union as from some grand notion of global politics," he said.
Despite perceived ideological differences, Britain and the U.S. pursued similar policies in Latin America, and their relationship was critical to American growth, he said.
For example, the U.S. used Britain's Suez Policy in Egypt as a template for its relations with Cuba and Panama. Latin America also played an important role in the development of the Doctrine, as it often appealed to the U.S. for aid when the Doctrine was violated, he said. The global recognition of the Doctrine increased significantly in the late 19th century, and "foreign critics began condemning the U.S. for not living up to the true Monroe Doctrine," Sexton said.
Recently, former presidential candidate and governor Rick Perry, R-Texas, referred to the Doctrine in a similar attempt to appeal to American voters, according to Sexton. In a speech outlining his plans for foreign policy, he called for a 21st-century version of the Monroe Doctrine,
Chris Whitehead '12, who is reading Sexton's book in one of his classes, said he was previously unaware of the wide-ranging effects of the Monroe Doctrine.
"It is by definition an international policy, but what is interesting is the level to which it was used domestically as a sort of way of earning domestic credibility in a contest of who could take a harder line on national security," Whitehead said. History professor Leslie Butler said she was impressed by Sexton's ability to keep the "big picture" in view even when he was discussing specific incidents. "I think it's important how well he holds in tension the different registers on which the Monroe Doctrine was operating the postcolonial, the national and the imperial," Butler said in an email to The Dartmouth. The lecture, "Empire and Nation in 19th Century America: Reconsidering the Monroe Doctrine," was sponsored by the Dickey Center for International Understanding and the history department.
