Latin America with no Monroe Doctrine

If the U.S. (and Britain) didn't pledge to make sure all independent nations stay independent in Latin America, would those nations have eventually been recolonized? Who would have gotten what?

I say France gets Mexico!
 
Last edited:
If the U.S. (and Britain) didn't pledge to make sure all independent nations stay independent in South America, would they have eventually been recolonized? Who would have gotten what?

I say France gets Mexico!
They did and get lost to brunch of peasants
 

Baskilisk

Banned
*coughBritishArgentinacough*
I can't see any further colonization outside of some colony-swapping in the Carribean, or Panama. Even in 1861 France had no chance of completely ruling Mexico, establishing a protectorate was pushing it as it was.
 
*coughBritishArgentinacough*
I can't see any further colonization outside of some colony-swapping in the Carribean, or Panama. Even in 1861 France had no chance of completely ruling Mexico, establishing a protectorate was pushing it as it was.
British Argentina after independence was too difficult and costly to do; before independence, you could bribe the local government, after independence that option goes out the window.

Besides, Argentina pretty much was British during the XIXth century, I think they were even called a "Dominion of Honor" at one point because of all the money the British had poured into it.

As for other areas being annexed, well, possibly some expansion in the Caribbean, but that also seems unlikely if for no other reason than there are already a majority of the islands under European control. Central America, with all the instability, might be a good candidate, but really, once Latin America gained its independence, outright recolonization was impossible, although setting up a puppet regime would have been feasible (for example a puppet regime in Venezuela when they, I think, defaulted on their debts?).
 
If the U.S. (and Britain) didn't pledge to make sure all independent nations stay independent in Latin America, would those nations have eventually been recolonized? Who would have gotten what?

I say France gets Mexico!

Super_Cool

If Britain decided to stand aside then the French were committed to supporting the Spanish in regaining their empire. This may or may not work for a period of time. There were still loyalists in many areas plus plenty of disputes between the various rebel factions and groups. However likely to be a longer Spanish rule in some areas, difficult to say how long as would depend on the circumstances. [You might even see the continued threat force more co-operation between the various rebels or possibly one side or the other pays more attention to the ordinary people as I think both groups came largely from the ruling elites. In that case, although unlikely I suspect, you might have a more developed and stable Latin American, at least in party]. More likely I fear longer wars makes it overall poorer.

However since Britain had a good bit to gain from trading with Latin America you would need some reason why Britain didn't intervene. Possibly some fear of revolution due to some incident making the government more reactionary and willing to support Spanish power being restored. Or possibly something distracting Britain or a maccy PM decides its best tying down France and Spain fighting in the rebel colonies.

The Monroe doctrine is less important before the late 19th C anyway. If you get a French intervention in Mexico as OTL in the 1860s then you would probably get a hostile reaction from the US without any doctrine, although the latter gives an excuse for reacting and hence makes mobilising public opinion somewhat easier.

Steve
 
No chance in hell!!!! perhaps some islands in the carebeean, some territory in central america (Panama or Costa Mosquito) or Patagonia (almost no people there) would be conquered by colonial empires like France or Britain but no the big countrys like Peru, Brazil, Mexico or Argentina:D:D:D
 
No chance in hell!!!! perhaps some islands in the carebeean, some territory in central america (Panama or Costa Mosquito) or Patagonia (almost no people there) would be conquered by colonial empires like France or Britain but no the big countrys like Peru, Brazil, Mexico or Argentina:D:D:D

For the bolded case, an exception could be if the Spanish royal family fled there due to instability back home (say, oh, in 1808).
 
I think the main difference is, some country can put the squeeze on a place like Panama, like another poster said. I can imagine the Panama Canal in TTL becoming a Central American version of Hon Kong, where the British sort of muscled in and said, "We're building this here, and you can't stop us, but co=operate and it might be worth your while."

I don't know if any other country had the means plus the will to build the canal then, however; maybe France, i guess. And, without the canal, I don't know if anyone would want anything more than a few islands in the Caribbean.

Hmm, thinking about it, that might be the biggest change. An 1880s/1890s battle for Panama, which could lead to a variety of interesting things.
 
Does anyone think any mergers are possible without US interference? Pan-Americanism have any chance of success?

Also, the main difference I can think of is simply in terms of American attitudes. If the US isn't constantly sponsoring regime change, that's got to effect quite a bit, yes? Without American paternalism the political realities of Latin America would be undoubtedly different. Unfortunately I'm no scholar of L.A. historical politics. Any regimes or movements squashed by the US that anyone can think of that might've made it?
 
There's a difference between "the Monroe Doctrine" as in the paragraph or so in James Monroe's speech in December 1823 and "Monroe Doctrine" as in the geopolitical attitude / strategic belief that the US had to secure the Western Hemisphere against any kind of extraneous interference / for its own purposes. The former is eminently changeable, since it had little impact at the time of its first writing other than in diplomatic correspondence in Europe, mostly vis-a-vis Canning. The lack of Monroe's speech is not going to stop Canning from recognizing the new Latin American states, due to the European power dynamics of the time. Nor is the lack of the speech going to alter the realpolitick benefits to the USA of keeping the European powers out of the Western Hemisphere (or alter the USA's relative inability to stop the Powers from interfering up until the 1890s or so).

What you really need for there "to be no Monroe Doctrine" is for the US not to beleive or need to force the Powers out of the Western Hemisphere. On the one hand, you could attempt to change US culture in such a way to make expansion "unseemly", but land hunger was a part of the very essence of the American character, since the first settlers had fought against Native Americans to increase the size of New England and Virginia. Pretty hard to change that. What's perhaps more feasible is if there's some other large power in the Americas for the US to fear and want European help in fending off. This too is rather hard, since you'd have to change the history of either Mexico, Argentina/Peru, or Brazil sufficiently to make some successor nation powerful enough to threaten US interests (viz, potential avenues of expansion).
 
Top