I'm not saying it wasn't. Just that people understand perfectly fine the intent of the question, but need to show how smart they are and so ignore it.
WI: America becomes a Colonial Empire
- Thread starter Numb
- Start date
I'm not saying it wasn't. Just that people understand perfectly fine the intent of the question, but need to show how smart they are and so ignore it.
Speaking for myself, I'm not sure if we should assume that the original poster accepts that the US was indeed a colonial empire OTL. People have strange problems accepting the idea that the US was an imperialist power.
I'd hope that's not the case here, but I'd hope for a lot of things - like Numb having worded this accurately in the first place. It's not hard. Also, the comments on France and Algeria are probably relevant to whether American settlement of the West was colonization too, which is as much worth having as any other mostly-on-topic discussion.
I can see further US imperialist action in the Nw World consisting of supporting the filibusters more, and perhaps occasional intervention in a war as a pretext for seizing the reigns.
Because often Americans are trained to believe that we're the "good guys,"
Taking all of Mexico after the Mexican-American war probably counts, too.
So are Brits, I think, but they admit they had an empire. Some are even proud of it.
So are Brits, I think, but they admit they had an empire. Some are even proud of it.
Man, now that would be a really great TL. An actually anticolonialist, anti-imperialist US that fights for actual freedom and democracy. That shit's like a wet dream for me.
I'd like to add that we mustn't forget about the distant regions of French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Mayotte, and Reunion, which are, in fact, considered integral parts of France today just as Algeria once was.
I think this discussion would be more interesting if we dropped the semantics and just focused on areas where the United States could have expanded to:
1. Cuba - It technically *was* a territory of the United States for a few years after the Spanish-American War ended up until it was declared independent.
2. Liberia - Liberia is interesting in that it wasn't directly controlled by the United States at any point, but the company that controlled it was located within the United States. During the time that this company governed Liberia, it wasn't considered an independent country. I put it in the same category as the relationship between the Netherlands and the Dutch East India Company before it was bankrupt, or Belgium and the Congo Free State when it was King Leopold's private domain. It's possible that if something went horribly wrong (I mean, worse than Liberia's OTL history) the United States could directly intervene for a period of time.
3. North Borneo - This came pretty close to happening in OTL if not for the Civil War wearing the country out.
4. Treaty ports in China - The United States wanted action in China and certainly had a strong presence there, but its concessions were all but in name.
5. Elsewhere in the Americas - Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, and Veracruz were all under United States military occupation at some point. Perhaps the United States could have acquired more in Northern Mexico through filibustering, like William Walker's Baja California and Sonora. Purchasing Greenland at some point in time doesn't seem too unreasonable, either.
6. Okinawa - This might be stretching it...
1. Cuba - It technically *was* a territory of the United States for a few years after the Spanish-American War ended up until it was declared independent.
2. Liberia - Liberia is interesting in that it wasn't directly controlled by the United States at any point, but the company that controlled it was located within the United States. During the time that this company governed Liberia, it wasn't considered an independent country. I put it in the same category as the relationship between the Netherlands and the Dutch East India Company before it was bankrupt, or Belgium and the Congo Free State when it was King Leopold's private domain. It's possible that if something went horribly wrong (I mean, worse than Liberia's OTL history) the United States could directly intervene for a period of time.
3. North Borneo - This came pretty close to happening in OTL if not for the Civil War wearing the country out.
4. Treaty ports in China - The United States wanted action in China and certainly had a strong presence there, but its concessions were all but in name.
5. Elsewhere in the Americas - Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, and Veracruz were all under United States military occupation at some point. Perhaps the United States could have acquired more in Northern Mexico through filibustering, like William Walker's Baja California and Sonora. Purchasing Greenland at some point in time doesn't seem too unreasonable, either.
6. Okinawa - This might be stretching it...
The US could've kept the FSM, Palau, and the Marshalls as colonies, I suppose. Same with the Japanese islands (Ogasawara islands, Okinotorishima, Volcano Islands)
Isla Aves could've been kept after the guano miners finished up with it.
Likewise, Navassa Island was kind of imperialistic, but it made sense.
Isla Aves could've been kept after the guano miners finished up with it.
Likewise, Navassa Island was kind of imperialistic, but it made sense.
Snake Featherston
Banned
By all means we should ignore that the USA expanded to its mainland territories, Hawail, and Alaska by imperial means when it comes to these questions as nothing is more ruinous for discussions of alternate history than discussing actual historical realities that might be more than somewhat relevant.
How about we change the question to be "What if America did not develop an anticolonial identity, and instead deliberately aimed to facilitate an overseas empire, in a similar manner to European colonial powers?"
Personally, I think people are being very limited in their ideas, in terms of the US permanently taking places it came close to in our timeline. If instead we allow an early POD for an identity change, it could take colonies it didn't particularly care about in our timeline. Once more of a trend started, I could certainly see the US intervening to carve out useful parts of the former Spanish and Portuguese Empires, including Buenos Aires, mines in Peru, and maybe parts of Brazil.
Personally, I think people are being very limited in their ideas, in terms of the US permanently taking places it came close to in our timeline. If instead we allow an early POD for an identity change, it could take colonies it didn't particularly care about in our timeline. Once more of a trend started, I could certainly see the US intervening to carve out useful parts of the former Spanish and Portuguese Empires, including Buenos Aires, mines in Peru, and maybe parts of Brazil.
I don't think anyone is arguing that the United States wasn't imperialist or that it's methods of expansion were "better" than the European methods of overseas expansion.
Seriously, we all know the question that the OP is asking, some of us are just trying to be difficult and clever. "Ooooh, but we colonized the Philippines so your question is invalid. Ooooh, but manifest destiny was a form of colonialism." Stop it.
My theory: What if for some reason America did not or could not expand westwards? That might convince them to be more active in the overseas department than OTL; without the resources of the continent at their disposal they may be more convinced to look elsewhere for them.
Napoleon wouldn't sell, limiting the USA to the Mississippi, or arming of natives by the British (or other power), limiting the USA to east of the Appalachians? Interesting scenarios, both of them.
However for this thread, lets say that the USA was able to hold on to Cuba, Hispaniola, and Puerto Rico in the Caribbean, Alaska and Hawaii in the Pacific (I consider them both colonies as even Alaska was 'overseas' until WWII), was able to buy Greenland (never happened OTL), and somehow managed to finagle Bermuda away from the UK at any POD, that would make for a really good buffer-state network around the main country. Add in the Philippines and/or north Borneo, Panama/Nicaragua, and Liberia as outer sphere of influence colonies. That would probably do it without totally getting into Ameriwank territory.
I don't see why the U.S would want to get anywhere in the Pacific Ocean without a west coast. I'd argue that they'd become more active in the Americans than OTL, but I don't see colonies in Asia/Oceania.
And both of them almost certainly leading to wars in which the USA tries to gain the ability to expand westwards through those areas...
Faeelin
Banned
Much like how Britain and France weren't active without a west coast, eh?
American sailors were active in East Asia before 1848.
Yeah, they would both require ASB interference, which was one reason I didn't go on further with the thoughts.
@kooluk: This thread is based off of the USA being the whole lower 48, and as such my ideas were based off of that.
I'm surprised that nobody exclaimed how dumb my idea was in acquiring Bermuda.
Ah, my mistake. If the United States expands westward as OTL, then they don't really have the need to become more colonialist then they did OTL. They already have a vast country to develop, plenty of room for the people, and plenty of natural resources. In my mind, it's kind of (kind of... on the surface) like Russia and China; they don't really need to gain colonies.
But nations have always done things for no reason. If they want to gain colonies, I'd say the best bet would be in the Caribbean and Central America. South America was too full of British interests to colonize, and Asia bar the Philippines and a few other islands was already carved up. America wasn't in the habit of going to war with European countries for land, except for Spain. I don't see the U.S in a rush to acquire any African lands after the Civil War.
So yes. Central America, a few islands in the Pacific, and the Caribbean. That's my idea.