What would Europe do with Latin America if there was no Monroe Doctrine?

[Doctor Imperialism]

Let's say that for whatever reason - whether it's struck down in the Senate, Monroe dies somehow, or even if the US fails to come into existence - the Monroe Doctrine does not come into being. Furthermore, let's say the USA of TTL is weakened somehow - perhaps no Louisana Purchase - and is unable to exert influence into Latin America at all.

Now, with no Monroe Doctrine, Europe has a free hand in Latin America. What would Europe decide to do with it? Would they puppetize the Latin states, or would they decide on outright conquest? How might European influence manifest itself? Would Europe even get involved in Latin America at all?

 

[Elfwine]

The Monroe Doctrine is only going to matter if the US can back it up. Which, as of Monroe's time, it can't.

Which is to say: Not likely to be different than OTL to see it go missing, at least not initially.

 

[Doctor Imperialism]

The Monroe Doctrine is only going to matter if the US can back it up. Which, as of Monroe's time, it can't.

IIRC, it was also in Great Britain's interest to support the Monroe Doctrine, thus adding legitimacy.

 

[RamscoopRaider]

Much the same as OTL, the Monroe doctrine was essentially the US saying "and us too" after the British encouraged the other European powers not to mess around in the Americas, the British will still do what they were going to do before the Monroe doctrine came out

 

[Kaiser K]

Didn't stop Napoleon from invading Mexico.

 

[Codae]

The Monroe Doctrine was promulgated as a political move. Britain had a good thing going with all those Latin American markets opening up, and was interested in keeping them open--i.e. not letting mercantilist Europeans take over again. The British, interested in having allies in this effort, asked the United States for a joint declaration in favor of the independence of Latin America, but the Americans decided that they would be tying their own hands by issuing such a proclamation. The solution was to unilaterally put forth a declaration with no restrictions on American activities in the sphere of interest.

 

[Doctor Imperialism]

Didn't stop Napoleon from invading Mexico.

That was during the Civil War, wherein the US was (obviously) weakened. It's actually part of what inspired me to make this thread in the first place - if France tried squirming in during the few years of the ACW, what would happen in the US was permanently weakened?

Of course the US was rather insignificant until after the Civil War, but I've always wondered why the French seemed to take advantage of America's weakness and jump in, disregarding the British. You would think it should be the other way around - European powers jumping in if Britain was weak.

 

[The Kiat]

Without any backing to hold the doctrine, perhaps some European powers (including the British) might invade countries that can't payback their lones. I don't know how any European state would actually colonize South America in the 19th Century. It's not as if the Austrians are going to invade Colombia or anything.

 

[scholar]

Without any backing to hold the doctrine, perhaps some European powers (including the British) might invade countries that can't payback their lones. I don't know how any European state would actually colonize South America in the 19th Century. It's not as if the Austrians are going to invade Colombia or anything.

Not without the Burgundian inheritance anyways.

 

[Gonzaga]

The Monroe Doctrine is only going to matter if the US can back it up. Which, as of Monroe's time, it can't.

Which is to say: Not likely to be different than OTL to see it go missing, at least not initially.

IIRC, it was also in Great Britain's interest to support the Monroe Doctrine, thus adding legitimacy.

I don't think the British acted in a way to inforce the Monroe Doctrine. They probably didn't even care about it. They were worried about other European powers getting involved in the Americas.

Also, as Elfwine said, the US simply didn't have the power to back it up. The Monroe doctrine didn't stop the French (and later French and British) from blockading the Argentine ports during the government of Rosas, neither stopped the Spanish from having a war with Chile, Peru, Bolivia and Ecuador (the Chincha Islands War).

 

[Admiral Brown]

Without any backing to hold the doctrine, perhaps some European powers (including the British) might invade countries that can't payback their lones.

Not sure. ITTL Argentina didn't pay its debt during the first half of the XIX century, and Britain didn't invade, even if it could have, cause the US influence over the South Cone in those years was almost nill.

(In fact, both France and Britain did intervene, even blockading Buenos Aires, at a time, but not because of the debt, but because Argentina didn't allowed British and French Ships to freely sail through the Parana river. The US didn't do anything.)