America disappears - what becomes of the Monroe Doctrine?

Okay, the hypothetical scenario is this (plausible or no, for the sake of discussion let's just accept it):

The CSA wins the ACW, or at least survives, but the USA is crippled due to intervention by the British/French blah, blah, cliched scenario. Whatever your reason, lets just assume that in the middle of the 19th Century, events unfold which cause the USA to lose much of its credibility as a nation, and it's power projection capabilties.

So what becomes of the Monroe Doctrine? We know that this doctrine, while not *official* policy, was implemented, particularly during the Venezuela Crisis (I believe it was cited somewhere during the Spanish-American War as well, though I'm not sure about that).

With the absence of any hinderance, save for the nations themselves, does Europe start to interfere in the activities of Latin America again? What becomes more important, colonising Africa and Asia, or dominating (not reconquering) the Americas? Or will Europe ignore it completely?
 
The only Doctrine worth a damn is done in hospital...

...The Monmroe Doctrine becomes a footnote in history - like Benny the Moose's 'Mare Nostrum'. Nostrums are not infallible...
 
The struggle for political influence in the Americas would certainly become more colourful, but I would like put a few short notes forward:

- the Monroe Doctrine was not respected by the Europeans because they admired President Monroe so much, but because the USA had the power to enforce policies conforming to it.
- even if the North loses the Civil War, they are bound to become a first-rate industrial, and probably in a shorter run than OTL, due to the existence of the CSA, military power. The USA will have interest in Central and Southern America, and they will be ready to invest their influence and capital there.
- same goes for the CSA. They will evoke the Monroe-Doctrine just as the US did/does (Monroe himself was a virgin during his early years, but also from Virginia) when it pleases them. If they are not bound to decay, they will most certainly have their own set of interests in the Carribean region.
- still there are more possible butterflies. The USA might develop an earlier emphasis on Pacific expansion after losing its Carribean coast, especially if the CSA is strong enough to turn the Carribiean into some sort of "Rebel Lake".
- especially Britain will try to play a Greater role- because they can, but do not forget France's intervention in Mexico which happened OTL as well. But I do not think we will see much "re-colonializing". The existence of independant republics worked quite well for the European powers, and Spain resp. Portugal were too weak for a reconquista anyways.
 
hmm... perhaps the South would adopt the Monroe Doctrine as well and co-operate with the US, similar to the way that the US and Canada co-operate now, to keep Europe out of the Americas. There's no law stating that the US and CS will hate each other forever.
 
The Monroe Doctrine was not particularly relevant to European-Latin American relations. It hardly stopped the German-British blockade of Venezuela in 1903, nor the overwhelming economic influence of countries like Britain in South America.
 
hmm... perhaps the South would adopt the Monroe Doctrine as well and co-operate with the US, similar to the way that the US and Canada co-operate now, to keep Europe out of the Americas. There's no law stating that the US and CS will hate each other forever.

If the South wins, it will probably have had European help. If the British and the French help the South, they will be expecting more then cotton in long term gratitude.


The struggle for political influence in the Americas would certainly become more colourful, but I would like put a few short notes forward:

- the Monroe Doctrine was not respected by the Europeans because they admired President Monroe so much, but because the USA had the power to enforce policies conforming to it.
- even if the North loses the Civil War, they are bound to become a first-rate industrial, and probably in a shorter run than OTL, due to the existence of the CSA, military power. The USA will have interest in Central and Southern America, and they will be ready to invest their influence and capital there.

Yes, but the US will have to project power past the Confederacy, something they could do, but I would expect that the British and French would be pretty thoroughly intrenched in the region by the time the Union has recovered from the war.

- same goes for the CSA. They will evoke the Monroe-Doctrine just as the US did/does (Monroe himself was a virgin during his early years, but also from Virginia) when it pleases them. If they are not bound to decay, they will most certainly have their own set of interests in the Carribean region.

I think its been agreed by most of the period experts here that the Civil War was the only war the CSA could have won. The Confederates couldn't project power beyond their borders, let alone across the sea into the Caribbean.

- still there are more possible butterflies. The USA might develop an earlier emphasis on Pacific expansion after losing its Carribean coast, especially if the CSA is strong enough to turn the Carribiean into some sort of "Rebel Lake".

Yes, it would make sense that the USA would probably focus more on the Pacific, but the Caribbean would probably be a French and British lake instead of a rebel lake.

- especially Britain will try to play a Greater role- because they can, but do not forget France's intervention in Mexico which happened OTL as well. But I do not think we will see much "re-colonializing". The existence of independant republics worked quite well for the European powers, and Spain resp. Portugal were too weak for a reconquista anyways.

Right, this is the reason I think the Monroe Doctrine is broken if the South wins the Civil War. If the British and the French help the CSA, they will expect the CSA to help them block the USA from interfering with their interests in Central America.
The French want to establish a puppet empire in Mexico, the British were helping the Maya of the Yucatan fight against the oppressors, British Honduras has a disputed border with Guatemala, Both powers will want to build a canal in Nicaragua. Basically, I would expect the British and the French to set up puppets and client states all over Central America and the Caribbean, and all of these will be part of their empires like Egypt was considered part of the British. And they would expect the CSA to recognize these endeavors, or they will pull their support from the South. And without their support, the Union will conquer the CSA.
 
One interesting way to look at this is to see what was happening during the ciivil war, and what the Europeans dropped once it was over - Spanish reassumption of rule over Santo Domingo is one, and French intervention in Mexico is the other.

With the Confederacy winning the war, there would not be an immediate chance of any reassumption of American power, so such interventions will continue. Washington having just lost a war can moan all it wants at Spain, but Spain doesn't need to take any notice of them now. The Confederacy is not likely to care what Spain does, unless down the line it impacts on them commercially or politically (eg a successful slave uprising in Cuba won't be looked at happily by Richmond, but that's more what Spain does NOT do, or fails to do, rather than what Spain does)

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
The struggle for political influence in the Americas would certainly become more colourful, but I would like put a few short notes forward:

- the Monroe Doctrine was not respected by the Europeans because they admired President Monroe so much, but because the USA had the power to enforce policies conforming to it.

The Americans never had any real military power to support the Monroe Doctrine until after the last twenty years of the 19th century. The British fairly enforced it from its inception to the 1870s.

What would be in the best interests of the US and CS would be joint continued support of the Doctrine, but that may not occur until the late 19th century. I think it fairly likely that the British will set in in order to keep access to the Latin American markets.
 
I'd say this really depends on when the POD is, of the US becoming a paper tiger. Even in 1824, when the Monroe Doctrine was made, the European nations had largely pulled out of the Americas, and weren't likely to just roll back in and start colonising again. The biggest changes are likely to be those caused by the USA acting differently, not those caused by the Monroe Doctrine becoming meaningless.
 
European nations wouldn't start recolonising the Americas, that I can believe. But what would they do? There's suddenly the absence of anything hindering them. I was even thinking about Panama specifically. The canal is an economic asset for anyone. Assume the US and CS, or just the US depending on the actual POD, are completely crippled.
 
I would think that instead of American intervention OTL there would be more European interventions akin to the initial occupation of Veracruz by Britain, Spain, and France right before the Second Mexican Empire. However, considering how the French adventure played out in defeat I don't think there will be a rush for neo-colonization. Instead the European powers would compete for trading rights in the New World. At worst some countries would become Protectorates (possibly the Mayans of Santa Cruz).
 
As David says the Monroe doctrine didn't really matter IOTL until the late 19th century anyway. It was largely the British who had heavy investments in latin American nations who kept others at bay- outright colonisation is unlikely to have happened anyway, these were modern, western nations, not native lands for the taking.
And of course it didn't stop Europeans getting involved if they felt like it.
 
I think it would be interesting if Germany unification goes as IOTL. The Germans, being late comers to the colonization thing, may look to the Americas where they can pick up the slack.
 
I imagined a German foothold might be in Nicaragua or Panama for a canal. Britain probably wouldn't appreciate this, but it could serve for an interesting front in WWI.
 
Top