Where, When and How would be the best chance for America to have a state in South America?
A South American State In The Union?
- Thread starter the Apple Man
- Start date
nowhere, never and no way
thank you for asking the AH.Com South American Lobby, have a good day
I think I'll disagree. It would take a while and it couldn't be a direct POD. Look at DoD. Obviously nobody wants that, but it's one way of doing it.
Maybe later and less unified Latin American independence movements plus a mercantilist/imperialist US = A port city or two falling into gringo hands.
maverick
Banned
All right, long (serious)answer now
1. The Unites States' history of Manifiest Destiny was based on the idea of westwards expansion, so much that it ended with Japan and a fight for supremacy over the pacific!, ok seriously...you'd need great naval resources and a will to do this that it was never there, Jefferson himself enviosioned a nation of yeomen frontiersmen farmers or something like that, always expanding to the west, not the south, a cultural thing I believe
2. The United States also never annexed the most populous areas of mexico, want to know why? because it was full of mexicans! brown, catholic, spanish-speaking people with a different culture that opposed american ideals and Slavery, and given that the expansionists in the USA were pro-slavery and the anti-slavery nationalists was anti immigration and anti-expansion, well...
3. There is the thing about imperialism and the Monroe Doctrine...annexing continuous territory is not the same as annexing a country far and away, which would be a colony. That is without mentiong the hastle of having to conquer a country in South America, militarily and economically, not to mention politically...
And of course, they were against imperialism and colonialism, and their expansion towards the west was motivated by the need to give more lands to farmers and slaveowners who'd move on foot or horse, not ship...
1. The Unites States' history of Manifiest Destiny was based on the idea of westwards expansion, so much that it ended with Japan and a fight for supremacy over the pacific!
, ok seriously...you'd need great naval resources and a will to do this that it was never there, Jefferson himself enviosioned a nation of yeomen frontiersmen farmers or something like that, always expanding to the west, not the south, a cultural thing I believe2. The United States also never annexed the most populous areas of mexico, want to know why? because it was full of mexicans! brown, catholic, spanish-speaking people with a different culture that opposed american ideals and Slavery, and given that the expansionists in the USA were pro-slavery and the anti-slavery nationalists was anti immigration and anti-expansion, well...
3. There is the thing about imperialism and the Monroe Doctrine...annexing continuous territory is not the same as annexing a country far and away, which would be a colony. That is without mentiong the hastle of having to conquer a country in South America, militarily and economically, not to mention politically...
And of course, they were against imperialism and colonialism, and their expansion towards the west was motivated by the need to give more lands to farmers and slaveowners who'd move on foot or horse, not ship...
wormyguy
Banned
As was clearly stated in my post, and your quote.All of those are technically in North America.
Could a colonial power sell Dutch/French/British Guinea? I think they controlled them during the relevant periods.
You mean Guyana? Maybe if, for some reason, the US got involved in the Great War on the Central Power's side, they could get British and/or French Guyana as a result? It's a stretch, but it just might work.
Where, When and How would be the best chance for America to have a state in South America?
I don't know how can you achieve this, except if you were talking about one of the Guyanas (the French, the British or the Dutch ones).
Another possibility (quite ASBish) would be the folowing: Anglo-British relations are extremly tense. Transcontinental railways are delayed, and the US is worried about the security of its west coast.
The British presence in Malvinas is seen by the US as a threat to the only naval route between eastern and western US. Either the US invades them and conquers them, or conquers Tierra del Fuego instead (Argentina didn't occupied Tierra del Fuego until the late 1870s). It's ASBish, because I don't think the US had the naval capabilities to defeat the British in the South Atlantic in the XIX century. And, in any case, even if succesfull, this would probably lead to the US having a small base, not a state.
Thande
Donor
I know this was just a typo but it made me giggle
Wasn't there some point between 1790 and 1810, I forget exactly when, when the Falklands were essentially "American" due to lots of Nantucket whalers being based there, and neither Spain, France nor Britain enforcing their conflicting claims?
Of course the Falklands aren't big enough to support a state-sized population, they'd probably end up like American Samoa or something.
...leading to a Falkland Islands War between America and Argentina during the Reagan years...I know this was just a typo but it made me giggle
Wasn't there some point between 1790 and 1810, I forget exactly when, when the Falklands were essentially "American" due to lots of Nantucket whalers being based there, and neither Spain, France nor Britain enforcing their conflicting claims?
Of course the Falklands aren't big enough to support a state-sized population, they'd probably end up like American Samoa or something.
...awesome!
Thande
Donor
...leading to a Falkland Islands War between America and Argentina during the Reagan years...
...awesome!
*hits him with flyswatter* BUTTERFLIES DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!
American Peru/Bolivia
Main POD - The Guano Islands Act of 1856 doesn't pass. US needs to find another source of guano for fertilizer and gunpowder.
The US Government encourages investment in the huge saltpeter and guano deposits in the Atacama desert of Chile, Peru, and Bolivia. Because of this investment, the area is dominated by US industry.
As the value of the nitrates increase, events roll out as in OTL. Peru attempts to nationalize various US industry developed to mine the nitrates, process them, ship them, and support the American workstaff shipped into the area.
During negotiations with Peru, the War of the Pacific breaks out for control of the region and resources. All supply going to the US is cut off. President Grant authorizes an Expedition Force to sail into the area to protect US citizens and property. The US navy quickly establishes control in the Pacific. As a result, the ground war lingers on and the losses are much higher for both sides than OTL. The US establishes small beachheads and bases to protect industry, without getting overly involved in the war. A treaty is agreed upon with Chile to help them finish off Peru. With American naval domination and troops, Peru is taken and held. A small group of elite troops also complete a raid on La Paz.
At the peace treaty, Chile gained the same territories as OTL, but the US also took control of the next four southernmost peruvian territories, and the two next southernmost Bolivian territories.
The US develops Arequipa (Peru's second largest city) to facilitate American Nitrate and Mineral interests. By World War 2, the territory granted statehood.
Obviously would need a lot of research to build a case for continued US control and investment in the area, but this was a possible route for a US state in South America.
Main POD - The Guano Islands Act of 1856 doesn't pass. US needs to find another source of guano for fertilizer and gunpowder.
The US Government encourages investment in the huge saltpeter and guano deposits in the Atacama desert of Chile, Peru, and Bolivia. Because of this investment, the area is dominated by US industry.
As the value of the nitrates increase, events roll out as in OTL. Peru attempts to nationalize various US industry developed to mine the nitrates, process them, ship them, and support the American workstaff shipped into the area.
During negotiations with Peru, the War of the Pacific breaks out for control of the region and resources. All supply going to the US is cut off. President Grant authorizes an Expedition Force to sail into the area to protect US citizens and property. The US navy quickly establishes control in the Pacific. As a result, the ground war lingers on and the losses are much higher for both sides than OTL. The US establishes small beachheads and bases to protect industry, without getting overly involved in the war. A treaty is agreed upon with Chile to help them finish off Peru. With American naval domination and troops, Peru is taken and held. A small group of elite troops also complete a raid on La Paz.
At the peace treaty, Chile gained the same territories as OTL, but the US also took control of the next four southernmost peruvian territories, and the two next southernmost Bolivian territories.
The US develops Arequipa (Peru's second largest city) to facilitate American Nitrate and Mineral interests. By World War 2, the territory granted statehood.
Obviously would need a lot of research to build a case for continued US control and investment in the area, but this was a possible route for a US state in South America.
US Surinam
There are alot of limitations on how such a state could realistically have happened. Latino-majority states are unlikely because of American racism. We have no non-Anglo-majority states, despite having had the populous Puerto Rico, Cuba and Philippines in our hands. The problem is that Latinos were strictly second class, treated like kids, and run by politically connected Americans mostly for their bank accounts. Poverty and health both stayed quasi-medieval in Puerto Rico until they were allowed to choose ALL their leaders. So, a simply conquered state, especially as big as Chile or Peru would stay in rebellion and probably be let go.
Plus, we had no real Pacific Fleet yet, making Chile, Peru, and Bolivia hard targets; and it would've been a long haul back then. And, there's alot of land, alot of it decidedly hard to dominate easily. It's one thing to beat an army or two, it's quite another to occupy and hold that kind of thing. Sorry, Rushchurch.
BUT, I'm not seeing anything impossible in Anglo-settled South America. And, neighboring Guyana's improbably because virtually all's jungle, and too many Anglos would've died in this time before they figureded out quinine.
POD: $2/3M added to Louisiana Purchase, in exchange for Surinam. Surinam was Dutch at the time, but since the Dutch Republic at the time was a Napoleonic puppet state, I think that would've looked more like opportunity to the French negotiating the deal. The Frenchman doing the deal sold it by pointiong out, very rightly, that it was much faster and easier to travel to Surinam than most of the North American turf transferred in the deal, and by pointing out the successful Dutch peanut plantation.
The American Government incorporated Surinam as a territorial government, with slavery. Population was light, so the Jefferson Administration and first Surinam administration decided to encourage Anglo population with the target of making it eventually an Anglo-majority state. They made land available cheap to American citizens who immigrated. Aggressive lawyers ended up with the valuable already-developed plantations, of course, as happened to so much Mexican turf Texas. And nobody ever asked any questions about where slaves came from, unless they were lily-white.
At that, only the northern part would see much Anglo population, because southern Surinam's mostly rainforest - see above, before quinine. Anglo population became a majority by the late 1840s, not that non-Anglos were ever well-counted in the territory.
The territory got more military protection than most because of its isolated statusl, and because it made a handy base. There's still an AFB there. There were revolts and slave raids, of course, just as in OTL, but population was never so heavy. After a decade or so, settlers were informally told they could expect no protection in the rainforested South; even if rainforest was cleared, rebels and slave bands kept out of sight in the nearby still uncleared part. Troops reached Surinam in 1865 - 2 years later than OTL - to enforce the end of slavery there. But, sharecropping and Jim Crow replaced the outright slavery like in other ex-slaveholding states. Racist rule was finally replaced at the same timeframe as in other Jim Crow states, and with the same need for action to make it happen.
Surinam's development toward statehood was on the slow side because of its big non-Anglo cultures, its rainforest south, transit costs, and the differences in what crops worked well; Latinos and indios had long figured that out, but they didn't get so much attention, of course. Southerners had dreams of Surinam helping alot with the balance against the populous, high-immigration North, like the OTL Southern-Cuban dreams, but it didn't work out that way.
Surinam was admitted to the US in March of 1912, the same year as Arizona and New Mexico. Thanks to A/C and modern medicine, it's now a high-growth state like Arizona.
There are alot of limitations on how such a state could realistically have happened. Latino-majority states are unlikely because of American racism. We have no non-Anglo-majority states, despite having had the populous Puerto Rico, Cuba and Philippines in our hands. The problem is that Latinos were strictly second class, treated like kids, and run by politically connected Americans mostly for their bank accounts. Poverty and health both stayed quasi-medieval in Puerto Rico until they were allowed to choose ALL their leaders. So, a simply conquered state, especially as big as Chile or Peru would stay in rebellion and probably be let go.
Plus, we had no real Pacific Fleet yet, making Chile, Peru, and Bolivia hard targets; and it would've been a long haul back then. And, there's alot of land, alot of it decidedly hard to dominate easily. It's one thing to beat an army or two, it's quite another to occupy and hold that kind of thing. Sorry, Rushchurch.
BUT, I'm not seeing anything impossible in Anglo-settled South America. And, neighboring Guyana's improbably because virtually all's jungle, and too many Anglos would've died in this time before they figureded out quinine.
POD: $2/3M added to Louisiana Purchase, in exchange for Surinam. Surinam was Dutch at the time, but since the Dutch Republic at the time was a Napoleonic puppet state, I think that would've looked more like opportunity to the French negotiating the deal. The Frenchman doing the deal sold it by pointiong out, very rightly, that it was much faster and easier to travel to Surinam than most of the North American turf transferred in the deal, and by pointing out the successful Dutch peanut plantation.
The American Government incorporated Surinam as a territorial government, with slavery. Population was light, so the Jefferson Administration and first Surinam administration decided to encourage Anglo population with the target of making it eventually an Anglo-majority state. They made land available cheap to American citizens who immigrated. Aggressive lawyers ended up with the valuable already-developed plantations, of course, as happened to so much Mexican turf Texas. And nobody ever asked any questions about where slaves came from, unless they were lily-white.
At that, only the northern part would see much Anglo population, because southern Surinam's mostly rainforest - see above, before quinine. Anglo population became a majority by the late 1840s, not that non-Anglos were ever well-counted in the territory.
The territory got more military protection than most because of its isolated statusl, and because it made a handy base. There's still an AFB there. There were revolts and slave raids, of course, just as in OTL, but population was never so heavy. After a decade or so, settlers were informally told they could expect no protection in the rainforested South; even if rainforest was cleared, rebels and slave bands kept out of sight in the nearby still uncleared part. Troops reached Surinam in 1865 - 2 years later than OTL - to enforce the end of slavery there. But, sharecropping and Jim Crow replaced the outright slavery like in other ex-slaveholding states. Racist rule was finally replaced at the same timeframe as in other Jim Crow states, and with the same need for action to make it happen.
Surinam's development toward statehood was on the slow side because of its big non-Anglo cultures, its rainforest south, transit costs, and the differences in what crops worked well; Latinos and indios had long figured that out, but they didn't get so much attention, of course. Southerners had dreams of Surinam helping alot with the balance against the populous, high-immigration North, like the OTL Southern-Cuban dreams, but it didn't work out that way.
Surinam was admitted to the US in March of 1912, the same year as Arizona and New Mexico. Thanks to A/C and modern medicine, it's now a high-growth state like Arizona.