America (and the World) without the Munroe Doctrine

What would the Americas and the rest of the world be like if there was no Munroe Doctrine, either from no USA, a weaker USA or one that doesn't enact it?

Would South America become a hotspot for Colonialism and enroachment from the Old World Powers?

Or would life carry on as usual?
 
What would the Americas and the rest of the world be like if there was no Munroe Doctrine, either from no USA, a weaker USA or one that doesn't enact it?

Would South America become a hotspot for Colonialism and enroachment from the Old World Powers?

Or would life carry on as usual?

Well in the nineteenth century, it was mainly Britain who enforced the Monroe Doctrine, because it suited British commercial interests that the Latin American countries remained independant. So in order to have no Monroe Doctrine, you need to find a reason why Britain doesn't support the idea as part of the general Pax Britannica.

Cheers,
Nigel.
 
Spain still repeatedly intervened in her old colonies, in Mexico and Dominican Republic. France still tried to set up an empire in Mexico under Napoleon III. To a large extent the doctrine was just there to justify American intervention.
 
What would the Americas and the rest of the world be like if there was no Munroe Doctrine, either from no USA, a weaker USA or one that doesn't enact it?

Would South America become a hotspot for Colonialism and enroachment from the Old World Powers?

Or would life carry on as usual?
The Monroe Doctrine was nothing but useless posturing that was later used as justification for American imperialism in Latin America.

As an aside, the US played nearly no part in the actual enforcement of the doctrine, since it was all done by the British anyway (as has already been mentioned). So, no Monroe Doctrine... nothing changes.
 
The Monroe Doctrine was nothing but useless posturing that was later used as justification for American imperialism in Latin America.


Minifidel,

Close, but not quite.

The policy that became the Monroe Doctrine was actually first saw life as a British diplomatic proposal. Santander, Bolivar, and the rest were busy removing Spain from the American mainland and Britain was worried about those Spanish colonies becoming colonies of some other, more capable, European power. (The parallels between this and the Philippines in the 1890s is striking.)

Accordingly, Britain approached the US about a joint declaration. Monroe, sensitive to the potentially grave domestic political issue of working with Great Britain so soon after two wars with that nation, decided that the US should issue the policy in it's own. John Quincy Adams drafted it, Monroe presented it during a State of the Union address, and Britain saw no need to make a statement of it's own.

This method in which the doctrine was announced gave each the US and Britain "plausible deniability". The US was following a British diplomatic lead without being seen as doing such and Britain, who would be enforcing the Doctrine for the first 75 years, would have made no official statement on the issue whatsoever.

As the sneering contempt for the Doctrine in your post nicely illustrates, the policy is viewed with suspicion in Latin America. That wasn't always the case however. Independence leaders from Mexico to your Argentina hailed it, seeing it as political hedge against European reconquest and knowing full well that Britain was the true power in the equation. Bolivar himself even lauded it during the Congress of Panama.

From a Latin American perspective, the trouble began as the US grew more powerful and presidents after Monroe began adding different interpretations to the policy. Very early on, the US invoked the Doctrine over treaties between an independent Texas and Britain. While the Doctrine originally dealt only with new colonies, Grant expanded it to include the transfer of colonies, Cleveland expanded it to include border disputes, and Teddy Roosevelt - who else? - put the Doctrine in the form that Latin America now loathes.

As an aside, the US played nearly no part in the actual enforcement of the doctrine, since it was all done by the British anyway (as has already been mentioned). So, no Monroe Doctrine... nothing changes.

Again, not quite.

The US began "enforcing" the Doctrine as early as 1866 when Johnson invoked it against the French in Mexico. Britain hadn't taken up the Doctrine in that case because she had been part of the original seizure of Veracruz for loan payments that France had piggybacked her actual invasion on. Cleveland, by the 1880s IIRC, had announced his border dispute addition. US enforcement of the Doctrine began within ~40 years of Monroe's speech.

If Monroe hadn't announced the Doctrine, Britain most certainly would have announced the same policy on her own. There wouldn't have been a "Monroe Doctrine" in that case, but there would have been something almost exactly like it. Also as the US' power and influence grew, some later president would have announced something similar too.

Then Latin America would have two Doctrines to complain about!


Bill
 
I hardly see it as being owned...


Minifidel,

I'm the one who wrote the post so I'm the one who can state that you weren't "owned' at all and my post wasn't written to "own" you either.

... I can easily admit when I'm wrong...

I can also state that you weren't wrong either.

You provided a quick, succinct response to the OP's question. As you correctly pointed out, there'd be essentially no difference if Monroe had not announced his "Monroe Doctrine". Britain still would have enforced a policy it had first suggested and the US would have still announced it's own version sooner or later.

... and it's especially easy when it's in response to such a detailed and insightful post as Bill's.

You had already provided the actual answer. All I did was provide details and a little nuance, that's all.

As for the sneering contempt in which Latin America holds the Doctrine, I happen to agree with much of that opinion. The Doctrine has been cynically used by major powers to meddle in the affairs of smaller nations. In that, the Doctrine in no different than other international policy in the whole of human history.


Bill
 
As for the sneering contempt in which Latin America holds the Doctrine, I happen to agree with much of that opinion. The Doctrine has been cynically used by major powers to meddle in the affairs of smaller nations. In that, the Doctrine in no different than other international policy in the whole of human history.

Great information and conveyance Bill. I think that's (bolded) the key point IMO ... it was used with a means to an ends. It served the interests of some, not all. Just like any policy or doctrine from governments. The evolution of nations created variety into who was the meddler and whom was meddled. There are plenty of worse plausible scenarios and doctrines that warrant more or justified 'contempt' than the Monroe doctrine.
 
Last edited:
Top