Skip to main content

Secondary Sources

Bradley, James. “Playing Roosevelt’s Game, The Japanese Monroe Doctrine for Asia, Roosevelt’s Open and Closed Doors.” In The Imperial Cruise. New York: Little, Brown and Company, 2009.

  • These sections of the book argue that Roosevelt used the Monroe Doctrine as a justification for "Big Stick Diplomacy" and that they were not necessarily as linked as TR would have liked people to believe.
  • It uses many new paper articles and other primary sources like letters that other books do not.  It also includes large chunks of text from these sources which are not included in other books.  This helps determine whether a source will be helpful as well as show how Bradley interpreted the sources for the argument.
  • This does not help as much with TR's polices on the Philippines as much as it does on Latin America and China, but that is not really a major problem.
  • This fits well into the other anti-Collins sources and works as a longer aid with more specific examples to the Ricard article.

Collin, Richard H. Theodore Roosevelt, Culture, Diplomacy, and Expansion A New View of American Imperialism. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1985.

  • Claims that the moves made by Roosevelt in Latin America were motivated by a goal of protection rather than imperialism and that it was a "strategic necessity"
  • Collins is one of the main authors in the field and makes a similar point in all of his books. He does an exceptional job of explaining a view that most is not as common.
  • This book does not address the Monroe Doctrine as a significant part, but does explain some of the other ideology behind the choices made by TR.
  • It gives a very good explanation of the context for the period and choices that is not found in many of the other books or articles.
  • It has a full bibliographic Essay which gives a detailed explanation of the sources Collins used and may aid in making use of/finding other helpful sources later on.

Collin, Richard H. Theodore Roosevelt’s Caribbean The Panama Canal, the Monroe Doctrine, and the Latin American Context. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1990.

  • This book claims that TR's policies were in effort to support the Monroe Doctrine and exclude Europe so that Europeans would not over run Latin America.  To do this it not only directly discusses the Monroe Doctrine, but vigorously argues that the Panama Canal and other Latin American policies aided countries in Latin America.
  • This book uses many primary sources including government documents in a way that the previous Collins book hadn't. Furthermore, the bibliographical essay in this book is broken down into subjects which proves easier to use as well as more helpful.  Collins also gives some annotation of his own on the major sources.
  • This book directly discusses a major part of the question I seek to address in a way that not only gives context, but fully develops the argument while allowing for comparison with the "other side" of academia.
  • It does not go into great detail when discussing alternative views because Collins thinks that those are the views that most Americans hold and are taught in school.  Essentially, he doesn't converse with the opposing view in academia, which is the only major down fall of the book.

Maass, Matthias. “Catalyst for the Roosevelt Corollary: Arbitrating the 1902-1903 Venezuela Crisis and Its Impact on the Development of the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine.” Diplomacy & Statecraft 20, no. 3 (2009): 383-402.

  • This article argues that Roosevelt felt that the corollary was strategically needed as an amendment to the Monroe doctrine to prevent another Venezuelan crisis.
  • This article serves as the middle ground between Collins and the traditional view. That middle ground is hard to fine and has a dialogue with both sides that is not found in other sources.
  • The main problem with this article is it focuses very heavily on just a couple sources.
  • It will help me work through the two main arguments and find any holes in each.

Ricard, Serge. “The Roosevelt Corollary.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 36, no. 1 (March 2006): 17.

  • Argues the the "Big Stick Diplomacy" of TR was a new concept, not building off of the Monroe Doctrine.
  • It has direct reference to many of the same documents as Collins without directly referencing Collins.  Because of the reference to the same events and primary documents as Collins the two can be viewed as "having a conversation" in a way that would not be possible otherwise.
  • It is important for my work for exactly that reason as well as the idea that it gives a clear explanation of the more common view that Collins uses as the "straw man" for his argument.  It also addresses many of the primary sources I had thought of using and gives a better idea of where to find them and how to go about interpreting them.
  • It does not discuss many of the effects on that the TR administration had on later administrations though.

Thompson, J. Lee. Theodore Roosevelt Abroad: Nature, Empire, and the Journey of an American President. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010.

  • This is one of the only books to directly address the role that TR played in the Taft and Wilson presidencies and explain the circumstances around these interactions.  Furthermore, it includes parts of letters that were written between the former president and the men in office (and the citations for them in the bibliography) that will aid in the primary source "hunt"
  • This book seeks to chronicle the things that TR did after his presidency. This is the only discernible argument because it seeks to work more as a biography, but this is extremely helpful because it "reveals Roosevelt's post-presidential journey largely though his words, in his letters and speeches... and in the words of those who wrote to and about him, without overwhelming authorial prodding and comment."(x)
  • This book is small, and thus does not include all of the information that it could, but does have a rather lengthy notes section as well as a selected bibliography that makes up for that issue.
  • This book picks up where all but the Artists of Power book leaves off and even hits many of the points that Artists of Power misses, making it highly useful for this project.

Tilchin, William N., and Charles E. Neu, eds. Artists of Power. Westport, CN: Praeger Security International, 2006.

  • This is a book of essays and each focuses on an important idea of the Collins argument.  Some of them also look at the way that TR helped the US emerge on the global policy scene.
  • The two main arguments of the essays are that TR was a strategic thinker and did what was needed for both the US and the Latin American countries and that TR was an important influence on US foreign policy and how the US emerged on the "global scene".
  • The most important part about this book for my argument is that it begins to address the influence of Wilson on this emergence and has a glimpse of how TR influenced Wilson. This helps a lot because it is a major part of the argument I seek to make.
  • While it does begin to look at Wilson and TR together, it does not include many of the primary sources I was hoping to include, so it is not helpful in evaluating those and aiding the reader of the module with that at all.

Walker, Stephen G., and Mark Schafer. “Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson as Cultural Icons of U.S. Foreign Policy.” Political Psychology 28, no. 6 (December 1, 2007): 747-776.

  • The main point of the paper is to compare Wilson and TR's beliefs and policies and see whether and how they affected Realism and Idealism in American political thought.  They seem to claim that the systems were rather influenced by the two men.
  • This article does not explicitly explain the influence of TR on Wilson, but rather compares the policies and beliefs of the two men.  This does, however, allow for extrapolation and inference that other articles and books do not based on this comparison.  That ability makes it a helpful source for me since it is hard to find articles and books that discuss the direct impact of TR on Wilson, or really any relation between the two.
  • This source engages theory more than the other sources, but does so in language and format different from the others.  For that reason, it doesn't fit as nicely with the other literature as I would like.  However, when paired with the essays in "Artists of Power" it may become very useful.


Secondary Sources