AHC have the Boer Republics join the USA
- Thread starter 606jae
- Start date
Bizarre idea, but I like it. As far as I'm aware the USA was an ally of the British at the time so I'd suggest a deterioration of British-American relations and the Boer Republics later becoming American protectorates that eventually become states. Considering that America and Britain are now enemies the US might side with the Central Powers in WWI so maybe there would be a form of Manifest Destiny amongst the Boers who see it as their destiny to spread America across Africa.
Last edited:
I just had a brain fart: "That's not what the southern counties of Florida look like... wait, ohhhhh"
IIRC, Theodore Roosevelt actually supported the Boer republics since he saw their struggle against the British empire as Republican nations against monarchism being similar the US's old struggle in it's war of Independence.
In the year 2017 there is only war.
When America and Russia annihilated each other—and the rest of the world—in 1962 global anarchy set in where humanity remained. It would take decades for any form of organized government to become re-established; one of the first was the United States reborn from a lucky surviving regiment that captured Washington, DC.
By the 21st century, dictatorships, theocracies, and roving warbands fight over what few resources remain. The United States, governed by an aggressive and expansionistic military junta, seeks natural resources in relatively undamaged regions. One of these is South Africa, at this point a mess of tiny Boer, English, and native nations. Some of the Boer states, hoping for a chance at protection, petition to be annexed into the Union. The US is happy to oblige them, and gains a foothold on its third continent—it annexed the Venezuelan coastline ten years earlier.
When America and Russia annihilated each other—and the rest of the world—in 1962 global anarchy set in where humanity remained. It would take decades for any form of organized government to become re-established; one of the first was the United States reborn from a lucky surviving regiment that captured Washington, DC.
By the 21st century, dictatorships, theocracies, and roving warbands fight over what few resources remain. The United States, governed by an aggressive and expansionistic military junta, seeks natural resources in relatively undamaged regions. One of these is South Africa, at this point a mess of tiny Boer, English, and native nations. Some of the Boer states, hoping for a chance at protection, petition to be annexed into the Union. The US is happy to oblige them, and gains a foothold on its third continent—it annexed the Venezuelan coastline ten years earlier.
William Jennings Bryan also came out in support of the Boer Republics for much the exact same reason.
The big question is why? Kruger abd Reitz wanted to avoid ruling over an enlarged "buitelander" (predominantly British) franchise. The Afrikaners left the Cape in the 1830s to get away from the Britsish. Tthey're not gonna take another English power. Hell, some of them went to Argentina (a Catholic country formerly Spanish - despite the bad blood between the Boers' ancestors and the Spanish/Catholic Church) - and if you think I'm talking crap, there's a bunch of kids that are studying with me that still hate "die Souties/rooinekke/Britse" for what was done to their great great grandpas' families (the concentration camps (the British used those too it's not just the Nazis).
TBH if it were France, the Netherlands or Germany - sure. But an English/Anglophilic person ruling was what Kruger tried to avoid when he fixed the last elections to get him in office instead of his opponent.
Last edited:
Skallagrim
Banned
One certainly disturbing reason for the USA to become involved with the Boer Republics might be the vaguely (and by some people even rather concretely) envisioned notion to depart large numbers of blacks 'back' to Africa. This had been the whole idea behind Liberia. Jefferson first articulared the idea, I think, that 'slavery is wicked, but if we end it, the former slaves will surely hates us'. The solution later proposed by others, to some considerable acclaim, was to create a colony in Africa for free American blacks. liberia. But Liberia declared independence in the 1850s, and this was recognised by the USA in 1862. But then, the whole idea of 'that's sure a lot of free blacks, say!' cropped back up when abolition became an inevitability. The old idea ('just send them away') was certainly not frowned upon in learned circles. As late as 1858, such figures as Abraham frickin' Lincoln advocated for the abolution of slavery... on the condition that all blacks were deported.
One can imagine a scenario where, with Liberia gone, the USA opts to buy a modest 'colony' from the Boers, in order to dump (in theory) all its black people there. Now to be sure, this would never work. The logistics are insane. That's why it was never done in OTL (I'm rather cynically confident that it's pretty much the only reason it wasn't done). But whether it worksd or not hardly matters for this thread. The process would take decades, and would demand co-operation with the Boers.
When the British start threatening the Boers, the Boer Republics request to be placed under the protection of the USA. This is done, and deciding it's not worth the hassle, Britain decides not to have any kind of Boer War. Ties between the USA and the Boers tighten, and when the vast riches of the Boer Republics are discovered, US companies swoop in. The British will no doubt be reconsidering the option of war then, so the Boer Republics are quickly admitted as states.
One can imagine a scenario where, with Liberia gone, the USA opts to buy a modest 'colony' from the Boers, in order to dump (in theory) all its black people there. Now to be sure, this would never work. The logistics are insane. That's why it was never done in OTL (I'm rather cynically confident that it's pretty much the only reason it wasn't done). But whether it worksd or not hardly matters for this thread. The process would take decades, and would demand co-operation with the Boers.
When the British start threatening the Boers, the Boer Republics request to be placed under the protection of the USA. This is done, and deciding it's not worth the hassle, Britain decides not to have any kind of Boer War. Ties between the USA and the Boers tighten, and when the vast riches of the Boer Republics are discovered, US companies swoop in. The British will no doubt be reconsidering the option of war then, so the Boer Republics are quickly admitted as states.
Except that the wealth was already discovered before the Second Boer War (gold in the Transvaal) and as far as I know - I don't remember primary school history where we did this so well - diamonds in Kimberley was the cause of the First War.
Ergo, it's unlikely that die Oranje Vrijstaat or Zuid-Afrikaanse Republiek make friends with America before then. They got on well with the British as long as the British respected there territorial integrity - Hell, considering that Britain controlled the coast from Cape Town to Durban they were the Boers chief trading partners. It was when the wealth was found that things started going sour.
Skallagrim
Banned
Sure, fair enough. Still hardly matters to the larger scenario, seeing as the Boers won the first round. So you get a US-Boer land deal shortly after the US Civil War (Britain won't object to that, I imagine). When the First Boer War occurs the Boers can formally enter into an alliance with the USA afterwards, and when things like the Jameson Raid occur, the Boers can formally request US protection. That last bit should at least delay any Second Boer War. After that, with Anglo-Boer relations permanently soured, the Boer Republics draw ever closer to the USA and eventually get statehood. (The more the British pose a credible threat to the Boers, the molre eager they'll be to get absorbed into the Union.)
--
Other scenarios can be imagined, I suppose, but getting the USA to actually want to annex the Boer Republics is rather tricky. They need a vested interest in the region. The whole 'deporting freedmen there' deal is a credible way to establish that interest, and subsequent investments into mining in the Boer Republics can create further ties.
Skallagrim
Banned
ASB forum for this.
>It violates the laws of physics or it's based on a POD of an evolutionary/geological nature and therefore it's ASB
>It's not ASB and people should not call it that, because it's just unlikely, which is not the same thing
Pick one and only one.
This is very difficult to do. America didn't have many interests in Africa besides Liberia at the time, and getting on Britans angry side at the beginning of the century isn't really a good idea. But I like this idea. It's not impossible but it's pretty hard to do. I'd say if you get more Dutch immigration to America, and more Dutch culture in America, and also having interests in Industrializing Africa, and getting markets their, wanting to contest against Britan, helps the Boers win wars against Britan, and America with Boer compliance is annexed as the territory of the United States. A lot of strings you have to pull, but you could technically get it.
For America to want the Republics, would they be fine with said lands being landlocked? Especially as they're almost surrounded by British territory, and if Anglo-American relations are taking a downturn as such an annexation is taking place the route looks even trickier. (Unless the British for some reason decide letting the Americans take over and dealing with the gold issue through them is better/good enough?)