Do you think that the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine fundamentally altered the nature of the doctrine and the intentions of its origianl authors (Monroe and JQ Adams)? If so explain how. If not, explain how the doctrine and the corollary are comparable.
Since this question asks for your opinion, I'll post this website so that you can decide. If you post your answer, we'll be glad to comment on it.
http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=56
could i take a test
first of all the govt purchase wheat is high price and sale the market in lower price so that the farmer invest more money in croup and more growing wheat.when the wheat are growing more then the govt stock and it use for the bed time .
To determine whether the Roosevelt Corollary fundamentally altered the nature of the Monroe Doctrine and the intentions of its original authors (James Monroe and John Quincy Adams), we need to understand the context of both and compare their key elements.
The Monroe Doctrine, proclaimed by President James Monroe in 1823, was initially a statement of U.S. foreign policy and a response to European colonial ambitions in the Americas. It essentially stated that the Americas were closed to further colonization by any European powers and that any attempt to colonize or intervene in the region would be seen as hostile.
The Roosevelt Corollary, introduced by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1904, was an extension of the Monroe Doctrine that aimed to justify U.S. intervention in Latin America. It asserted the right of the United States to intervene in the internal affairs of Latin American countries to maintain stability and protect its economic interests.
Now, let's compare the two:
1. Nature and Intentions:
The Monroe Doctrine was primarily a defensive policy intended to protect the newly independent nations of the Americas from European intervention. It aimed to uphold their sovereignty and prevent European colonization. Its intent was to establish the United States as the dominant power in the Western Hemisphere.
The Roosevelt Corollary, on the other hand, shifted the nature of the doctrine from defensive to proactive. It sought to justify U.S. intervention in Latin America as a means to maintain stability and protect American economic interests. The corollary expanded the original doctrine's scope, enabling the United States to take a more active role in the affairs of Latin American nations.
2. Application and Effect:
The Monroe Doctrine was largely regarded as a symbolic policy during its early years, given that the United States did not possess the military capacity to enforce it effectively. Nevertheless, it set a precedent for American involvement in the region and served as a warning to European powers.
The Roosevelt Corollary, by contrast, was a more assertive policy that resulted in actual interventions in Latin American countries. It justified U.S. military interventions in countries like the Dominican Republic, Haiti, and Nicaragua, often in situations where American economic interests were threatened or internal instability hindered those interests. This marked a significant departure from the original defensive intent of the doctrine.
In summary, the Roosevelt Corollary did fundamentally alter the nature of the Monroe Doctrine and the intentions of its original authors. While the Monroe Doctrine focused on preventing European colonization, the Roosevelt Corollary enabled the United States to intervene militarily in Latin America for reasons beyond mere defense. By expanding the scope and justifications for intervention, the corollary shifted the doctrine from a warning to a tool used to extend American influence in the region.