The expansion of the Monroe Doctrine has kept pace with Latin-American progress and the development of the foreign relations of the United States. Under Jackson the doctrine was not developed because it was associated in its origins with John Quincy Adams, all of whose works were anathema with Jackson. Polk introduced a novel and aggressive interpretation —a sort of precau tionary or preventive policy— to the effect that the United States should annex all American territory which might eventually fall into Euro pean hands. This view was strengthened by Seward's warning to Napoleon III to leave Mexico in 1865 and by President Grant and Secretary Fish, who announced that no Euro pean power might annex any American terri tory. irrespective of whether the annexation was voluntary or forced, and proclaimed the United States the leader in American policy. In 1889 Blaine further contended that the United States would not sanction the conquest of American territory either by Latin-American states or by foreign powers. The Cla•ton Buhver Treaty of 1850 originated the half-cen tury discussion as to the bearing of the Mon roe Doctrine on the isthmian canal project. When the French company was formed in 1878-79 to build the Panama Canal Secretary Fvarts and President Hayes declared that any isthmian canal must inevitably become a coast line of the United States. In 1881 Blaine warned that a European canal would be equiva lent to the extension of the European political system to the American continent. Finally, in 1903 President Roosevelt allowed the United States to sanction violent changes in Latin American governments in order to secure our dominance in the canal scheme, and the com pletion of the Panama Canal by the United States and our option on the Nicaragua route has settled that problem. In 189S, as a phase of the Anglo-American dispute over Vene zuela. President Cleveland and Secretary Olney a startling extension of the Mon roe Doctrine when they declared it to be an accepted and integral part of American public law and that the law of the United States was sovereign on the western hemisphere in such matters as this country saw fit to act upon. President Roosevelt's administration witnessed two notable developments of the doctrine. By allowing the German fleet to bombard ports of Venezuela he refused to accept the 'Drano Doctrine' and gave warning that perversely delinquent Latin-American states could not skulk behind the Monroe Doctrine, while at the same time he stood firmly against territorial aggression by Europeans. His second contri bution. probably the most important positive moral and political extension of the policy. as well as the most dangerous when dishonestly or unscrupulously applied, amounted to a decla ration that when any American state was un able to discharge the duties normally devolving on a civilized state or when it used force on representatives of foreign countries it was the duty of the United States to intervene to maintain order and keep the peace. Following out this policy President Roosevelt took over the financial administration of San Domingo in 1905, President Taft took similar action with regard to Nicaragua in 1912 and President W'ilson did the same with Haiti in 1915. Had a Republican administration been continued after 1912 it is probable that intervention in Mexico would have come ere this. In his fa mous Mobile speech of 1913 President Wilson declared that the United States would never intervene in any country on this continent for territorial aggrandizement, but only to restore order and promote progress, but this cannot be taken as any guaranty of the future. The question of territorial aggrandizement will be decided by the nature of a future President's advisers and class affiliations. (See MONROIC THE). The World War has pro duced a fundamental revolution in the Monroe Doctrine. The participation of the United States in the Algeciras Congress of 1906 proved that the initial doctrine of the isolation and distinct separation of the two hemispheres was fast giving way before the growth of world commerce and international relations. What remained of this conception after 1906 was completely destroyed by the entry of the United States into the World War. Far more significant than the military intervention in Europe were the repeated public declarations of President Wilson that the chief aim of the United States in entering the war was to trans form and improve the internal political or ganization of the German Empire, a complete reversal of President Monroe's statement that the United States would never concern itself with or intervene in the domestic politics of Europe. The United States having destroyed the Isolation policy of the western hemi sphere and intervened in European politics, the vigorous reassertion of the sanctity of the Monroe Doctrine by the jingoistic senators in the United States can rest only upon two foundations, the fact that we are strong enough to maintain it and the oft-asserted contention that our leadership ensures a higher type of international morality on this continent. Of the former there is no doubt; the latter must await the test of future events.
The most important and interesting phases of international relations in Latin America are the problem of the relations of the United States to Mexico and the distinct difference between the position of the United States north of the equator and south of that line. From
1884 to 1911 Mexico was under the dictator ship of Porfirio Diaz, who has been called 'one of the most able and talented administra tors of modern times' His rule brought to Mexico peace and prosperity but little progress toward democracy, and when he was forced to resign in 1911 there was a natural relapse into civil war. After a season of murder and treachery Victoriano Huerta, a military leader of Indian blood, emerged as provisional Presi dent in February 1913. On account of the vio Isnce attending his rise to power President \Vilsoti refused to recognize linens, but also refused to intervene. and pursued his famous policy of 'watchful waiting" until the local fac tions would be united and organized by con stitutional methods under a Mexican leader. This proved a tedious process. Huerta was forced to resign in August 1914 and was suc ceeded by Venustiano Carranza, but a number of the military leaders dominated by Francesco Villa, a half-breed bandit. declared their oppo sition to Carranza and the civil war continued, though he succeeded in getting the upper has in the greater part of his country. The forces of Villa conducted border raids and a considerable number of American citizens on the Texan border were killed or wounded. Early in 1916 a detachment of the regular army was sent into Mexico under General Pershing to capture Villa. but the force dispatched was inadequate and not effectively supported by Washington diplomacy. and intervention ended ingloriously. In the middle of the summer the national guard was called out to police the Mexican border, the only result being a dem onstration of the ineffectiveness of the militia organization, whatever the bravery of individual guardsmen. In January 1917 the Carranza government revised the constitution and put in force the amended document in May of that year. It was a notably liberal and progressive constitution, providing, among other things, for advanced social legislation, anti-trust legisla tion and the confiscation of churches, schools and hospitals belonging to religious associa tions. A new tax schedule was created for foreign oil and mining interests and Article 27 of the new constitution looked forward to the nationalizing of the natural resources of Mex ico. These liberal measures aroused against Carranza all the vested interests at home and abroad. Capitalists at home were alarmed at the industrial legislation. The reactionary re ligious bodies opposed the liberal religious pol icy of the government. Above all, the foreign mining and oil interests, especially in the United States, were rendered hysterical by the new restrictions placed upon them and the plans for a future confiscation of their hold ings. As soon as it began to appear that the Carranza government would remain in com mand of the Mexican situation and put its pro gram into effect the foreign investors began a systematic propaganda urging every conceiv able cause for the intervention of the United States in Mexico. At the close of the year 1919 the situation seemed to justly the belief that they were likely to be success ul in bring ing intervention to pass. Whatever the advan tages of such action might be to investors in Mexico it could not but be disastrous for the country which is to-day nearer to some prospect of developing a stable democracy than ever be fore in its history. See Mexico (Vol. XVIII, pp. 757-758; 793-800).
The commercial, and for practical purposes, the political domination of the United States over the Caribbean region and Central Amer i( a appears to be assured This proceeds from the lack of internal stability in this region. re quiring. according to the Roosevelt interpreta tion of the Monroe Doctrine, the intervention of the United States to preserve order; the great increase of the trade of the United States with this area, now exceeding that of the re.t of the u odd combined; and the neces sity of nasal domination to afford proper pro tection for the Panama Canal. In line with the establishment of this dominating position the United States has retained control of Porto Rico, exercises a general supervision over Cuba, administers the finances of Haiti. San Domingo and Nigra., has purchased the Virgin Islands from Denmark, has intervened in several Central American states and in Venezuela in the interest of promoting political stability and peace, and connived at the disrup tion of Colombia in order to secure the Panama route for the isthmian canal. While the Mon roe Doctrine is formally held to apply to all of Latin America it ends in practice with the equator. There are two chief reasons for this. The first is that in this region European com mercial and financial interests dominate as completely as do those of the United States north of this line; therefore, the United States has less practical reason for desiring to control the foreign policy of this region. In the sec ond place, the A B C powers have rightfully claimed the authority for determining the gen eral policies of the area south of the crust and resent the intrusion of the United tares.