public at large should regard the policy of isolation as the sole
justification for the Monroe Doctrine. There is, however, neither
logic nor justice in basing our right to uphold law and freedom in this
hemisphere on our promise not to interfere with the violation of law
and humanity in Europe. The real difficulty is that the Monroe
Doctrine as interpreted in recent years has developed certain
imperialistic tendencies and that the imperialistic implications of the
policy resemble too closely the imperialistic aims of the European
powers.

For three quarters of a century after Monroe's declaration the policy
of isolation was more rigidly adhered to than ever, the principal
departure from it being the signature and ratification of the
Clayton-Bulwer Treaty in 1850. By the terms of this treaty we
recognized a joint British interest in any canal that might be built
through the isthmus connecting North and South America, undertook to
establish the general neutralization of such canal, and agreed to
invite other powers, European and American, to unite in protecting the
same. Owing to differences that soon arose between the United States
and England as to the interpretation of the treaty, the clause
providing for the adherence of other powers was never carried out.

For nearly a hundred years we have successfully upheld the Monroe
Doctrine without a resort to force. The policy has never been
favorably regarded by the powers of continental Europe. Bismarck
described it as "an international impertinence." In recent years it
has stirred up rather intense opposition in certain parts of Latin
America. Until recently no American writers appear to have considered
the real nature of the sanction on which the doctrine rested. How is
it that without an army and until recent years without a navy of any