A Bigger United States

Is it possible for the United States to be larger than OTL, given a POD after 1900?

Where would the most likely avenues for post-1900 American expansion be? Would this added land (and possibly peoples) be incorporated as extra states, or just territories?

Who would be disadvantaged by American expansion, and what effects would a larger USA have on the wider world? (a different/averted WW1, no WW2, etc.?)

Much obliged for your comments.

Possible alternate american territories could be the Phillipines and Haiti any more...I dunno.

Zeldar155 said:

Possible alternate american territories could be the Phillipines and Haiti any more...I dunno.

Click to expand...

Could Cuba be a Territory?

In the late 1860s, Buenaventura Baez, the dictator of the Dominican Republic, attempted to sell his country to the United States and very nearly succeeded, but the treaty of annexation failed in the U.S. Senate.

A few more pieces of Mexico during or right after the Mexican-American War is also a possibility. Maybe Baja California? There's a probably apocryphal story that one night during the negotiations that led to the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, the negotiators played a game of poker for Baja, the loser having to keep it.

strangeland said:

In the late 1860s, Buenaventura Baez, the dictator of the Dominican Republic, attempted to sell his country to the United States and very nearly succeeded, but the treaty of annexation failed in the U.S. Senate.

A few more pieces of Mexico during or right after the Mexican-American War is also a possibility. Maybe Baja California? There's a probably apocryphal story that one night during the negotiations that led to the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, the negotiators played a game of poker for Baja, the loser having to keep it.

Click to expand...

strangeland

The OP specified a POD after 1900!

I did read that there was a movement for Sicily to be made a state, after WWII but don't know how much basis there was in the idea.

Steve

Newfoundland was once its own separate Dominion, but came under direct rule of London again during the Great Depression when it was unable to handle the debts from World War I. After World War II, the island hosted several large US military bases and the economy was booming. There was a vote in 1949 whether Newfoundland would remain governed by a London appointed commision, return to independence, or join Canada. The Canada result won, but only with some dodgy undertakings.

If the independent vote succeeded, then Newfoundland would likely move to some sort of free trade and customs union with the US. That was the platform of the independence party. If that happened, it's possible future integration might occur with a common market and later Newfoundland even using the US dollar. Given enough time, Newfoundland might even apply for statehood. That is a low of "ifs", but its a plausible path for Newfoundland to join.

Another possibility is that the US negotiates harder with the British during WWII and possibly gains British Caribbean islands rather than just bases in which case the British Bahamas and some of the Lesser Antilles might join the US Virgin Islands as US possessions. I believe Bermuda is too valuable a naval base at the time for Britain to give that up, and other possessions like Jamaica, Belize, or Guayana too major. But some small islands might be worth it.

Okinawa might have been made a US possession after World War II, but if so then Okinawa likely becomes an independent state after the 1970s like much of the US Pacific dependencies.

It's also possible that the US could have negotiated something with Denmark that saw Greenland become part of the US after World War II. I believe the US offerred Denmark $100 million to buy it in 1946, but Denmark said no. If this happens, Greenland might remain part of the US given its strategic importance, but the US would probably allow extensive home rule. Population would be too low to ever make a state. The population might be US nationals, but not US citizens. Or they could be full citizens with voting rights. It depends on how things play out.

These are the ideas at the top of my head.

If I remember correctly, in WW1, Germany reached out to Mexico to join on its side. Mexico declined the offer.

If they accepted and attacked the US, its highly possible the US would keep at least some of the gained territory.

Northern Mexico was a complete mess at the time, what with Pancho Villa running around and the whole Revolution that was sweeping the country. By that point, most US properties and investments in Mexico had been nationalized by the Mexican government, leaving the US with no incentive to go in and take over. All it would do is add several million impoverished citizens and violence to the Southwest.

DrTron said:

Could Cuba be a Territory?

Click to expand...

Yeah, the US had multiple opportunities to nab Cuba in its history but for various reasons didn't.

Ostend Manifesto: Mid-1800s when the South is full on advocating US territorial expansion so as to create more slave states. The Mexican-American War? South backed it. More expansion? Oh yeah, give us more slaves, give us more representation in Congress. The document basically said the US should try to purchase Cuba from Spain and oh so subtly implied that we should take it by force in a war if they refused. Unfortunately for the Southerners and fortunately for the Spanish, US domestic issues regarding slavery at the time distracted national attentions and the Ostend Manifesto found itself ignored and unsupported by the rest of the country.

Spanish-American War: McKinley starts a war with Spain in part over issues pertaining to Cuba, US curbstomps the Spanish and succeeds beyond its wildest dreams, gaining Guam, Puerto Rico, the Phillipines, and forcing the independence of Cuba. However the United States demanded (and was given) a military base at Guantanamo Bay and basically Cuba had to consult with the US regarding any matters of foreign affairs or before it took out debt, both of these actions served to give the United States an enormous amount of control over Cuba thus making it largely a US client state for quite a long while. McKinley did not like the idea of annexing Cuba and had dismissed the idea.

So basically the executive branch in particular was the largest enemy of expanding into Cuba.

Other things the US had at least a possibility of taking at some point: Hispaniola, the aforementioned Cuba, more of Mexico than it received in the historical Mexican-American War, Nicaragua, and Canada (the US tried unsuccessfully during the War of 1812 and the Revolution respectively to take Canada).

A more robust outcome to the "Banana Wars" could see a good hunk of the Caribbean and bordering territories belonging to the US. The US might permanently occupy the Canal Zone if the local leaders tried to grab it early in the 20th century.

That might lead to the US slowly 'closing the gaps' between its new territories; if you own A and B, and C is between them, you often wind up with C in the long run.

Incorporation of the Philippines and other Pacific territories is possible, though not very likely.

Philippines won't happen in any way that doesn't make it basically a colony in any way to the US. Their population is large enough that they could very significantly have a voice in Congress larger than that of a good amount of US states. I suspect that is part of the reason why it was eventually determined that "the Constitution does not follow the flag".

Banana Wars annexations would make some sense though, I could see Wilson in his ever well-meaning but rather heavy-handed way occupying and seizing control of Haiti and basically running the country, intending to build it up for eventual independence and then his successors are a little more selfish and decide to annex it fully.

HeavyWeaponsGuy said:

Philippines won't happen in any way that doesn't make it basically a colony in any way to the US. Their population is large enough that they could very significantly have a voice in Congress larger than that of a good amount of US states. I suspect that is part of the reason why it was eventually determined that "the Constitution does not follow the flag".

Banana Wars annexations would make some sense though, I could see Wilson in his ever well-meaning but rather heavy-handed way occupying and seizing control of Haiti and basically running the country, intending to build it up for eventual independence and then his successors are a little more selfish and decide to annex it fully.

Click to expand...

Well Wilson kind of did do that (sans the eventual independence part since it wasn't annexed), and we stayed, but then the Depression, you know...

But yeah, basically the Banana Wars are your best shot at this. Next likely in possibility I would say are a Mexican intervention with a different WWI leading to northern Mexico being annexed, and after that the 1902 Venezuela Crisis goes hot and the US takes Canada. Both of those are very unlikely to happen.

Winning, instead of drawing, in the war of 1812. They might have gotten Canada.

Plumber said:

Well Wilson kind of did do that (sans the eventual independence part since it wasn't annexed), and we stayed, but then the Depression, you know...

But yeah, basically the Banana Wars are your best shot at this. Next likely in possibility I would say are a Mexican intervention with a different WWI leading to northern Mexico being annexed, and after that the 1902 Venezuela Crisis goes hot and the US takes Canada. Both of those are very unlikely to happen.

Click to expand...

Taking Canada can happen earlier in the Revolution or War of 1812, the US just managed the invasions poorly and got bogged down in the country instead of taking out Montreal and Quebec, the major cities.

Really the whole period starting from the Mexican-American War to the end of the era of the Banana Wars is kind of the best time for America to expand. Any time before that and America is too weak and too concerned with the North American continent itself to bother with other places. Any time after and you're entering the era where annexing random places is no longer in vogue for US policy.

As for the Wilson comment, I really don't think our Latin America policy back then is, in principle, that different to our Mideast policy now, Latin America was really one of the first widespread cases of a large, powerful United States that established that it absolutely would make sure that both regional stability and its own interests in the Caribbean and Latin America would be safeguarded. There was never a plan to actually annex Haiti, Wilson like really any other president (albeit with better intentions) perpetuated the occupation to make sure the country would be sufficiently stabilized so that the Marines wouldn't have to go back for round two.

For a post-1900 POD...consider Panama. With US support/connivance Panama breaks away from Columbia as OTL & US starts the canal. The folks running Panama decide they would rather belong to the US, and the US sees owning Panama rather than just the Canal Zone as a strategic plus. In 1910 the population of Panama is around 310,000 so absorbing a lot of "Latins" is not that much of an issue. At a minimum Panama becomes bilingual quickly, and with a significant US military & economic presence you'll get many more "Americans" settling there (or retiring there from military/intermarrying etc). Statehood after WW2 is a possibility, independence is not.

HeavyWeaponsGuy said:

Taking Canada can happen earlier in the Revolution or War of 1812, the US just managed the invasions poorly and got bogged down in the country instead of taking out Montreal and Quebec, the major cities.

Really the whole period starting from the Mexican-American War to the end of the era of the Banana Wars is kind of the best time for America to expand. Any time before that and America is too weak and too concerned with the North American continent itself to bother with other places. Any time after and you're entering the era where annexing random places is no longer in vogue for US policy.

As for the Wilson comment, I really don't think our Latin America policy back then is, in principle, that different to our Mideast policy now, Latin America was really one of the first widespread cases of a large, powerful United States that established that it absolutely would make sure that both regional stability and its own interests in the Caribbean and Latin America would be safeguarded. There was never a plan to actually annex Haiti, Wilson like really any other president (albeit with better intentions) perpetuated the occupation to make sure the country would be sufficiently stabilized so that the Marines wouldn't have to go back for round two.

Click to expand...

Yup this pretty much sums up the answers the OP.

Other than the optimism on the US's ability to take Canada, which is...

Well, I suppose there's a way the US can do less badly than OTL, but that's not saying much.

Also, in the Revolution, we did strike for Montreal and Quebec. It just didn't work.

And in the conditions faced by Montgomery and Arnold, there's not much you can do to make it work better.

sloreck said:

For a post-1900 POD...consider Panama. With US support/connivance Panama breaks away from Columbia as OTL & US starts the canal. The folks running Panama decide they would rather belong to the US, and the US sees owning Panama rather than just the Canal Zone as a strategic plus. In 1910 the population of Panama is around 310,000 so absorbing a lot of "Latins" is not that much of an issue. At a minimum Panama becomes bilingual quickly, and with a significant US military & economic presence you'll get many more "Americans" settling there (or retiring there from military/intermarrying etc). Statehood after WW2 is a possibility, independence is not.

Click to expand...

I don't see how this would work sentiment-wise in Panama, the reason the Americans were presented with the opportunity to help them rebel against Colombia in the first place was because they wanted to be free and independent of someone else's rule, the Panamanians would have been just as pissed at being ruled from DC as being ruled from Bogota.

If the US wanted to do this by force however, and eventually the Panamanians decided that the benefits of US protection and prosperity weren't so bad...

Plumber said:

Yup this pretty much sums up the answers the OP.

Click to expand...

Thank ya kindly Mr. Plumber, I see for once we have discussed Wilson without derailing the thread, we are making progress as it would seem.

Though I find myself amused at the realization of how immensely similar US Latin America policy back in the early 20th century was to modern US Middle East policy. Gotta protect 'dem bananas/oil resources.

Mentioned once already, I really like the Greenland idea. Seems quite plausible to me actually. Also, its always seemed odd to me that Baja California isn't part of the USA based purely on geography.