II. Monroe's Original Doctrine (1823– 1826).— This feeling of confidence in the con tinuance of the new governments received a severe shock when the combination of central European powers, commonly called the Holy Alliance (q.v.), after crushing several attempts at liberal government in Europe, turned its attention to Spain and to the Spanish colonies. A French army, with the mandate of the Holy Alliance, in 1823 overran Spain and restored the royal despot to power. The Bourbon mon arch naturally asked for the application to these revolted colonies of this principle of sup porting• the legitimate sovereign. Metternich, the grand master of the Alliance, thought well of the idea, and it was discussed at the Con gress of Verona of 1822. The United States feared that France would undertake this com mission also, and would claim Cuba as the price of the service to Spain, thereby securing a broader foothold in America and a rich island almost overlooking the American coast. The tension was increased by the atti tude of Russia on the northwest Pacific Coast, where the tsar claimed exclusive ownership of the mainland and islands as far south as the 51st parallel by an imperial ukase dated 4 Sept 1821. The Russians also asserted the right to keep the vessels of other powers out of the north Pacific Ocean.
The United States was thus pressed in two directions by what looked like an attempt of several European powers to come in and occupy the territories wrested from Spain and the un settled part of North America. For many years the government had been practising the 'Policy of Isolation," which was early laid, down by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, John Adams and other statesmen. Its purport was that the United States had no share in European political combinations, was not a party to European wars and would pursue the policy of developing itself as an American state. From this policy it was an easy transition to the complementary doctrine that European powers ought not to interfere in American affairs.
The time seemed to have come in 1823 for some sort of action that would head off the threatened invasion of Latin America by third parties in behalf of Spain. Something was also needed to check the Russian advance into North America; and the opportunity was convenient for expressing the undying love of Americans for the popular government that they had chosen. At this moment George Canning, For eign Minister of Great Britain, stepped into the controversy. England was interested in unrestricted trade with the Spanish-American countries and was extremely opposed to the constricting policy of the Holy Alliance, both in Europe and America. Hence, in August and September 1823, Canning four times proposed to Richard Rush, our Minister in London, that the United States join England in a declaration against intervention, and Monroe was inclined to accept the pro osal. After long Cabinet discussions John uincy Adams, Secretary of State, convinced t e President that it would be better to make an independent declaration.
— Adams' papers show that he not only suggested but formulated most of the important presi dential message of 2 Dec. 1823, several sages in which, construed together, constitute the original and genuine Monroe Doctrine.
The principal points in this declaration, which is the original form of the Monroe Doc trine, are substantially as follows: (1) The two spheres. The whole statement is based upon the theory that there were two natural spheres of world influence, separated by a meridian drawn through the Atlantic Ocean; and that the European and the American re gions had two different sets of political and commercial interests. Since the United States took no part in the affairs of the European sphere it was common sense that European powers should keep out of American affairs. (2) Intervention. The message assumed that the Latin-American states were permanently independent and capable of conducting civilized governments; and it explicitly and strongly protested against "any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them,. or controlling in any other manner their destiny, by any Euro pean power.° (3) Colonization. The Ameri can continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and main tain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any Euro pean powers.° This was directed against Rus sia but had a general bearing and has often been cited as applying to all European powers. (4) Political system. Monroe held that it would be hostile and dangerous to the United States if "the allied powers should extend their political system to any portion of either con tinent.° This clause plainly refers to the mu tual assistance given by members of the Holy Alliance; but history shows that Adams and Monroe both meant to protest against the prin ciples of absolutism in government — and were replying to a reference to the European 'po litical system° in a recent Russian state paper. (5) Protection of the United States. The fundamental reason for setting forth the prin ciples just stated was not America's interest in the Latin Americans but in the United States. Many statesmen then felt an apprehension that, after having subdued the Latin Americans in the South, the Holy Alliance might move its forces northward. (6) Geographical extent. The doctrine in terms excepts from its appli cation the then existing European colonies, which meant Canada, Cuba, Porto Rico, the English and French West India islands and the three South American plantations. From that day to about the time of the Spanish War of 1898 there was little objection to the con tinuance of the old colonies. c7) Peace. Clearly the Monroe Doctrine was intended to keep the peace — to prevent wars from break ing out in other parts of America and to avoid dangers to our own republic. In that respect the doctrine has been an eminent success. With the exception of the French invasion of Mexico in 1861, no serious or devastating wars have taken place between Latin-American and European countries.