The Post-Napoleonic Power Struggle Over Latin America

In the wake of Napoleon’s defeat in 1815, Europe’s great powers turned their attention to preserving conservative monarchies against revolutionary tides. This geopolitical landscape directly impacted Spain and Portugal’s crumbling American empires. Tsar Alexander I of Russia advocated for collective European intervention to suppress independence movements in Central and South America, while France’s Villèle government sought to install Bourbon rulers over Spain’s former colonies.

Britain, however, pursued a radically different course. As the world’s foremost industrial power, it viewed Latin America as a vital market for manufactured goods. Foreign Secretary George Canning—a Liverpool MP representing commercial interests—championed non-intervention, recognizing this stance effectively aided revolutionaries. His boldest proposal involved an unprecedented alliance with the United States, despite recent hostilities in the War of 1812. American motivations aligned pragmatically: newly independent Latin American states offered lucrative trade opportunities. By 1822, Washington had recognized Gran Colombia, Chile, Peru, the United Provinces of the Río de la Plata, and Mexico.

The Polignac Memorandum and Britain’s Strategic Gambit

Failing to secure American cooperation, Canning executed a diplomatic masterstroke in October 1822. Through French ambassador Prince Polignac, he delivered an ultimatum: Britain would tolerate no European interference in Latin America. The resulting Polignac Memorandum shattered Bourbon ambitions and isolated Alexander’s interventionist coalition. This established Britain as the de facto guarantor of Latin American independence—a role that conveniently served its commercial interests.

The Monroe Doctrine: America’s Continental Declaration

On December 2, 1823, President James Monroe transformed geopolitical calculus with his doctrine’s twin pillars:
1. The Western Hemisphere was closed to future European colonization
2. Any attempt to extend monarchical systems to the Americas would be viewed as hostile

Crafted by Secretary of State John Quincy Adams, the doctrine cleverly appropriated Enlightenment rhetoric to serve expansionist aims. While couched in defensive terms—protecting “our southern brethren”—it asserted U.S. hegemony over two continents. European powers privately seethed; Metternich condemned it as “a new act of revolt” comparable to 1776, while Tsar Alexander begrudgingly acquiesced during sensitive Alaska border negotiations.

Economic Undercurrents and Anglo-American Rivalry

Beneath ideological posturing lay stark economic realities:
– The U.S. sought captive markets for its growing industrial output
– Britain’s manufacturing sector demanded access to Latin American consumers
– Both nations eyed the region’s raw materials and investment potential

This competition birthed the “informal empire” phenomenon—economic dominance without formal colonization. The 1824 Russo-American Treaty (setting Alaska’s southern boundary at 54°40’N) demonstrated how the Doctrine served practical interests, as did the 1867 Alaska Purchase for $7.2 million.

Jacksonian Democracy and Continental Expansion

Andrew Jackson’s presidency (1829-1837) operationalized Monroe’s vision through:
– The 1830 Indian Removal Act, clearing indigenous nations for westward expansion
– The “Trail of Tears” forced migrations (1838-39)
– Confrontation with South Carolina during the 1832 Nullification Crisis

His brand of populist nationalism—combining white male suffrage expansion with brutal ethnic cleansing—cemented America’s transformation from republic to regional hegemon. The 1846 Oregon Treaty partitioning the Pacific Northwest with Britain marked another milestone in continental domination.

Legacy: From Regional Policy to Global Paradigm

The Monroe Doctrine’s evolution mirrors America’s rise:
– 1840s: Justification for Mexican-American War territorial gains
– 1904: Roosevelt Corollary asserts U.S. policing rights
– Cold War: Framework for opposing communism in the Americas

Its original contradictions endure—championing self-determination while denying true sovereignty to weaker nations. As Latin American leaders from Simón Bolívar to Hugo Chávez have noted, the Doctrine ultimately served not hemispheric liberation, but the consolidation of Anglo-American power. The 19th century’s great irony remains: anti-colonial revolutions birthed a new imperial project cloaked in republican virtue.

This 1823 declaration, born from Europe’s dynastic struggles, became the cornerstone of American exceptionalism—a doctrine that continues shaping international relations two centuries later. Its most enduring lesson? That geopolitical vacuums are always filled, whether by crumbling empires or rising ones.