The reaction of London newspapers to the proclamation of the Monroe doctrine

Evloeva Rada Dzaurievna ORCID: 0000-0002-6287-0744 Postgraduate student; Faculty of History; Lomonosov Moscow State University 119234, Russia, Moscow, Lomonosovsky ave., 27k4 evrada@yandex.ru

On December 2, 1823, President James Monroe promulgated the now well-known doctrine bearing his name, which included two important principles of United States foreign policy. It is believed that "neocolonization" and "non-interference" contribute to strengthening US national security ^[1]; ^[5]; ^[3]; ^[7]; ^[8]. The content of this document and its significance for the further evolution of the US foreign policy strategy have been well studied in the historical literature. The question of what international resonance his appearance caused attracted much less attention from historians. Perhaps at this time, the appearance of the Monroe doctrine caused the greatest response in England. The ruling circles of this country followed the developments in the Spanish colonies in the New World with great attention and made far-reaching plans in this regard. However, while the British were thinking about what prospects open up to them in connection with the collapse of the Spanish colonial empire, the US leadership made a public declaration of its views on this problem.

Such activity of the young republic could not but cause a rather violent reaction on the shores of the "foggy Albion". This article will be devoted to the study of the reaction of leading periodicals to Washington's demarche. It will focus on the views of the capital's media, because they were the ones who most covered foreign policy stories.

The reaction of the British public to the new doctrine was mixed, from enthusiasm to antagonism. On December 26, 1823-just 24 days after she was presented in Washington-the American president's message reached London. Journalists provided the public with information about this document based mainly on their own political views. In this article, we will consider both the positive and negative reactions of the British public, thus dividing the article into two blocks. A lightning response to the doctrine was published by the London newspaper The Examiner ^[21], which adhered to the views of the Whigs, which stated that the Monroe doctrine contained interesting views and thoughts. However, he expressed concern about monarchical tendencies in England and sarcastically commented on the fact that this doctrine clearly reflects the difference between democratic and monarchical approaches to the development of US foreign policy strategy. Monroe proceeded from the fact that American citizens have every right to receive full information about their government's foreign policy strategy. In the UK, on the contrary, the main principle was that all behind-the-scenes state policy should be hidden from the public, which was only acquainted with the general results of the foreign policy activities of the leadership and it had no way to control them. The Examiner welcomed the liberal approach to the development of a foreign policy that allegedly prevailed in the United States, noting that such a policy would lead monarchical principles to the final collapse.

The Examiner was not the only publication that supported the foreign policy plans outlined in the Monroe Doctrine. In January 1824, the text of the doctrine was published in The Monthly Magazine. A popular newspaper among English readers, which promoted liberal values with the loud motto "in the name of intellectual freedom against the forces of frightened conservatism." The author argued that "humanity as a whole should be so amazed by the example of the practical wisdom of the presidents of a free republic that despots, feeling ashamed, should follow their example or be content to stand on a par with the most vile creatures that can only crawl on earth ^[17]."

Both periodicals defended Republican approaches to the development of a foreign policy strategy, which opposed the monarchical plans of the "architects" of the Holy Alliance. They advocated the preservation of Latin American independence. British opposition to a possible invasion by the troops of the Holy Alliance was given equal, if not more, attention than the American declaration itself.

The London Magazine described the Monroe doctrine as "a clear, bold and decisive document." The doctrine, according to the publication, was an explicit declaration of war against any European power that would decide to help Spain regain its rebellious colonies. Of course, this was too loudly said in relation to the real possibilities of the young American republic to resist the invasion of the European powers in the New World. The newspaper wrote: “Considering the distance... the need to import large military reinforcements there [to South America], the comparative proximity of the United States and its rapidly growing naval superiority, and the threat of war from the United States will probably not be in vain ^[22]."

Referring to a rumor spread at the time that the United States was allegedly considering a military alliance with Great Britain to protect South America, the newspaper hailed this situation as capable of leading to a new era of political cooperation between Great Britain and the United States.

The newspaper hoped and believed that this mutual recognition and agreement in views on the situation in South America would eventually lead to a rapprochement and the formation of a confederation of constitutional governments around the world. The same opinion was expressed in the Morning Post, which added that "relations between the two countries have never been so friendly, and their prospects are so favorable for cooperation, as at present ^[19]." Paradoxically, the Monroe doctrine was thus supposed to give rise in England to the hope of an alliance between two English-speaking states.

Other periodicals, however, reacted differently to the doctrine. The Edinburgh Review^[3] was enthusiastic about the possibility of keeping Spaniards out of South America. Despite the fact that the magazine was not published in London, it seems appropriate to mention it due to the fact that their article was the first reaction of the former colony to the Monroe doctrine. The Edinburgh Review reminded its readers that England allowed France to help the monarchists in Spain and that, according to the same principles, it is ethically impossible to interfere in the promotion of the same policy in Latin America. On the other hand: "The Government of the United States intervened in the conflict in an attempt to resolve this issue, and earned genuine admiration and gratitude from both sides, setting a framework for the spread of despotism on the mainland and ensuring effective protection of freedom in all vast and fertile regions of the Western world ^[11]."

The defense of U.S. policy was largely based, it seems to us, on the appeal of the Monroe doctrine to the British concept of freedom, combined with countering those real or mythical threats that emanated from the Holy Alliance to the state of affairs in Spanish America.

However, Britain's interest in developing trade with the New World has led to a more critical understanding of the essence of US policy in this region. First of all, London was concerned about the principle of non-colonization, as a result of which disagreements over the situation in Canada intensified in Anglo-American relations.

British trade could suffer not only because of the actions of the Americans, but also if the Spaniards were able to restore their hegemonic position in the New World ^[16].

Spain acknowledged that British opposition to Madrid's hegemony in South America was motivated by fear of trade restrictions. In an effort to settle Anglo-Spanish relations, King Ferdinand VII offered Britain free trade in South America. The London newspaper The Sun, however, commented negatively on this proposal, noting that it is meaningless, since the continent already enjoys free trade with Europe and Brazil ^[20]. The Sun stressed that such a deal is unprofitable for London.

The return of the colonies in the New World to Spanish control would obviously be contrary to British economic interests. But the replacement of Spain by the new owner of these territories, that is, the United States, also did not suit England.

The London Times wrote in the issue dated March 26, 1824. "We proceed from the fact that, since the United Kingdom would not allow the transfer of any Spanish transatlantic assets to a third power, it would also not agree to the granting of any exclusive commercial privileges ... in favor of this third party ^[15]."

These representatives of the British press probably had no idea that the same principles would underlie the foreign policy of the United States.

Years later, in 1829, the London Times pointed out that British trade required its government to use its diplomatic influence to force Spain to liberate the colonies and end the constant naval interruptions in world trade by the Spanish navy^[14].

So, we see that the range of assessments of the Monroe doctrine and its consequences for the New World, British interests in this area and Anglo-American relations proper is relatively wide. As for the assessment of the doctrine itself, the London newspapers for the most part spoke positively about the principles that were fixed in it, because they believed that they indicated the offensive of liberal norms on monarchical approaches to solving foreign policy problems, and that England, as a stronghold of liberalism, should have only welcomed such a document.

However, as soon as it came to specifying how the Monroe doctrine could affect London's trade and economic interests in a New Light, the tone of assessments of the American demarche, or rather its consequences for British interests, changed. Most London publications had nothing against the displacement of Europeans from the economic life of the Spanish possessions in the New World and the creation of new independent states there. However, the British were very jealous of any attempts to restrict their rights in the field of trade and economic relations with the new states. As soon as it came to the fact that England might have a rival in this matter, the attitude of the British press became different – from rigidly irreconcilable to critical.

Of course, it took time to make a balanced assessment of the long-term consequences of the Monroe doctrine for Britain's foreign policy interests. The press, as a rule, reflects a spontaneous reaction to current events. However, despite the inevitable costs of such an approach, in our opinion, it can be stated that the leading London periodicals gave a fairly balanced, albeit somewhat emotional assessment of the event of interest to us.

The history of the Monroe Doctrine is perhaps the most significant example of how national prejudice has become an international principle and has almost become international law. This particular principle is now definitively established and will probably never be changed. His main goal was to guide American foreign policy. In addition, it also served as a means of promoting certain American political figures and ideologies. These include, first of all, the exclusion of European countries from American activities; and, secondly, the spread of American principles of self-government, whether through conquest, annexation, acquisition or influence. And, thirdly, the evolution of the role of the United States as an "international policeman" with financial jurisdiction over many Latin American countries. The process used in developing this thesis includes a cursory summary of the evolution of the British perception of this principle, as can be seen from official journals and records. There is no attempt to provide a comprehensive, in-depth analysis of every historical event related to this doctrine and the UK's reaction to this event. As a result, we don't get an exhaustive report – we rarely do – about this development process. The advantage of this approach, however, is that it allows the reader to see both the "big picture" and individual historical "details" within it.

^[21] The Examiner was a weekly newspaper founded by Lee and John Hunt in 1808. For the first fifty years, it was a leading intellectual magazine that set out radical principles, but since 1865, the magazine has repeatedly changed owners and political affiliation, which led to a rapid decline in readership and loss of purpose.

^[22] The Edinburgh Review was a magazine published from 1802 to 1929 and contributed to the development of modern periodicals and modern standards of literary criticism. The magazine was founded by Francis Jeffrey, Sidney Smith and Henry Brougham as a quarterly publication. It was conceived as a means of spreading liberal views in Edinburgh. The magazine soon gained wide recognition for its political and literary criticism, and by 1818 its circulation had reached 13,500 copies. Among its authors were the novelist Sir Walter Scott, the essayist William Hazlitt, the historian Thomas Babington Macaulay, the educator Thomas Arnold and the legal historian Sir James Stephen. The prestige and authority of The Edinburgh Review among British periodicals in the 19th century could only be compared with The Quarterly Review.