No Roosevelt Corollary: The US Doesn't Prevent Western Recolonization

[Dean_the_Young]

For whatever reason (Roosevelt no chosen as vice President, never gets elected President), the US doesn't announce the Roosevelt Corollary. Various European powers, acting on the cause of failed loans and instability, intervene and defacto colonize various parts of Central and South America.

How would the world (and US) be changed?

[King Gorilla]

Originally Posted by Dean_the_Young

For whatever reason (Roosevelt no chosen as vice President, never gets elected President), the US doesn't announce the Roosevelt Corollary. Various European powers, acting on the cause of failed loans and instability, intervene and defacto colonize various parts of Central and South America.

How would the world (and US) be changed?

The US (and Britain) would both do everything in their power to undermine the efforts of said European powers to do so. The reason for this was that South America was vitally important to the US as a source of raw material and a market for its manufactured goods. Likewise for Britain, it was a source for raw material, a market for its goods and site of investment capital. Having other powers trying to divide South America into individual fiefdoms would have undermined these lucrative economic relationships.

[David S Poepoe]

The Monroe Doctrine is still very much in effect. The Roosevelt Corollary just meant that we would intervene internally in a Western Hemisphere country's internal affairs in order to insure that the Europeans didn't interfere.

[sumwhereinCA]

no european country would recolonize cause even without the roosvelt collary, the USA would fight. plus latin america might like the USA a little more

[Nicole]

Well, if we're talking actual colonization, the US would fight... but a different, less interventionist President may allow nations to take de facto control of Latin American nations, as long as it's not official... however, I don't know- the US has always seen Latin America as it's backyard.

[King Gorilla]

Originally Posted by Imajin

Well, if we're talking actual colonization, the US would fight... but a different, less interventionist President may allow nations to take de facto control of Latin American nations, as long as it's not official... however, I don't know- the US has always seen Latin America as it's backyard.

The US intervened in South American affairs from the Monroe doctrine onwards, usually on behalf of American businesses and creditors with the rate of interventions really picking up steam in the later half of the 19th century.

[Dean_the_Young]

Originally Posted by David S Poepoe

The Monroe Doctrine is still very much in effect. The Roosevelt Corollary just meant that we would intervene internally in a Western Hemisphere country's internal affairs in order to insure that the Europeans didn't interfere.

However, everyone knew that the Monroe Doctrine was enforced by the British, not the Americans. With tatic permission with the British, and a temporarily distracted/weaker US, powers such as Germany could easily shove their foot in the door.

Originally Posted by sumwhereinCA

no european country would recolonize cause even without the roosvelt collary, the USA would fight.

Originally Posted by King Gorilla

The US intervened in South American affairs from the Monroe doctrine onwards, usually on behalf of American businesses and creditors with the rate of interventions really picking up steam in the later half of the 19th century.

Why should the US fight for what goes on on another continent? The US never really interfered beyond the Caribbean before, and hasn't ever been much of a war mongerer. We're looking at a different version of the Age of Jingoism; the US could very well not want to mess with an established European power. Especially if its Navy and Army aren't in the best shape.

Historically, the early US involvements were largly limited to the Caribbean and Mexico. Even Mexico wasn't a direct intervention; the threat of veteran armies were what persuaded French support to withdraw from their Mexican puppet allies. If the US "sphere" is limited to Mexico and the Caribbean, then there's less reason as to why other powers can't intervene.

Originally Posted by Imajin

however, I don't know- the US has always seen Latin America as it's backyard.

This perception, however, had its roots mainly from the Spanish-American War onwards, when the Age of Jingoism demanded that the US prove its might to the world. Teddy was the epitome of Jingoism, and Teddy was the one who really established the US as the nearly undisputed power of the Western Hemisphere.

If you avoid the Spanish-American War, you also avoid beginning the period of American Imperialism, you quite easily butterfly Teddy's presidency, you open the door for a host of unreformed labor troubles, and you never have the US personally enforce the Monroe Doctrine. Big changes there.

[King Gorilla]

Originally Posted by Dean_the_Young

However, everyone knew that the Monroe Doctrine was enforced by the British, not the Americans. With tatic permission with the British, and a temporarily distracted/weaker US, powers such as Germany could easily shove their foot in the door.



Why should the US fight for what goes on on another continent? The US never really interfered beyond the Caribbean before, and hasn't ever been much of a war mongerer. We're looking at a different version of the Age of Jingoism; the US could very well not want to mess with an established European power. Especially if its Navy and Army aren't in the best shape.

Historically, the early US involvements were largly limited to the Caribbean and Mexico. Even Mexico wasn't a direct intervention; the threat of veteran armies were what persuaded French support to withdraw from their Mexican puppet allies. If the US "sphere" is limited to Mexico and the Caribbean, then there's less reason as to why other powers can't intervene.

But this thread is limited to after 1900 during which time SA was already largely within America's sphere of influence. The only other power that had a stake in the continent to rival America's was Britain and Britain was perfectly happy with the satus que as London remained the primary source of investment capital for much of the continent. Part of the reason why countries acquire colonies is to get captive markets for their manufactured goods. America and Britain dominated these markets, whats more, their corporations owned large shares of the strategic resources produced in these areas. If another european power got in the mix, they would want to favor their own businesses and strategic interests instead of the preexisting social order. Doing this would make America and Britain unhappy particularly if another power was going after some of the continents more valuable realestate.

Finally the US intervened in Latin America rather frequently, although much of the early incidents of this usually involved marines and what limited navel assets were available being sent into to protect us interests following the semi annual revolution. Most of these were minor but alot of them occurred throughout all of Latin America.