A Larger American presence in Africa?

Let's assume in this timeline, the United States assumes federal control over Liberia, rather than the American Colonization Society thrusting them into independence. Later in the Scramble for Africa, would we see the United States pursue more land, either in Guinea or elsewhere in Africa? I doubt they would have settler colonies like the UK did.

If the Spanish-American war still happens ITTL, might we see the United States try to annex some more African Colonies?
 
If the Spanish-American war still happens ITTL, might we see the United States try to annex some more African Colonies?

Spain barely had any control over the Western Sahara in that time and it's a pretty much just useless desert, I can't see why the USA would want Equatorial Guinea either.
 
If the US did get control of Spain's African colonies, they would probably go the way of the Philippines, being a protectorate (or some such nonsense, a colony in all but name) until the cost of maintaining order becomes too high and they're granted full independence. The only real major change I can think of would be that Western Sahara would give the US a more firm foothold for fighting a war in North Africa, whether against Germany/Italy or whomever else emerges from these butterflies.
 
Spain barely had any control over the Western Sahara in that time and it's a pretty much just useless desert, I can't see why the USA would want Equatorial Guinea either.

Western Sahara has fish oil, while Equatorial Guinea has a lot of rubber, which the US can't grow at home
 
Western Sahara has fish oil, while Equatorial Guinea has a lot of rubber, which the US can't grow at home

Doubtful that the US would annex an entire country for rubber or fish oil. 9 times out of 10, the cost-benefit analysis of that says no, especially since rubber wasn't as big of a commodity in 1898 as it would become (since trucks, tanks, etc weren't really a thing yet), so it would take some phenomenal brainpower to force that
 
Probably the easiest way to start would be to have the American Colonization Society pick a better spot for Liberia than where it is, Namibia has some potential. Plus it might get the Americans trading with the Portuguese and the Congolese.

If you wanted something bigger you could try to get the Americans to take some treaty ports during the Barbary War, although you would need some reason for the Ottomans to be in bad enough straits that they would not be able to do anything about it.
 
Doubtful that the US would annex an entire country for rubber or fish oil. 9 times out of 10, the cost-benefit analysis of that says no, especially since rubber wasn't as big of a commodity in 1898 as it would become (since trucks, tanks, etc weren't really a thing yet), so it would take some phenomenal brainpower to force that

They wouldn't be countries though; they would be colonies. And small ones at that.
 
They wouldn't be countries though; they would be colonies. And small ones at that.

Purely semantics. Why would the American public be on board with paying millions in tax dollars for the US to govern a bunch of Africans that don't speak English, with no financial returns other than maybe some cheap rubber that they could just as easily get from Southeast Asia or Latin America? At least the Philippines, Guam, and Cuba had real strategic value, Equatorial Guinea does not. Maybe I could buy Western Sahara being annexed, because the overhead costs would be so low, but not Guinea.
 
Purely semantics. Why would the American public be on board with paying millions in tax dollars for the US to govern a bunch of Africans that don't speak English, with no financial returns other than maybe some cheap rubber that they could just as easily get from Southeast Asia or Latin America? At least the Philippines, Guam, and Cuba had real strategic value, Equatorial Guinea does not. Maybe I could buy Western Sahara being annexed, because the overhead costs would be so low, but not Guinea.

Oh, I agree that Western Sahara is far more likely. Ironically in a world where the US does have both Western Sahara and Liberia in 1900, I would expect them to hold onto Western Sahara much longer
 
Probably the easiest way to start would be to have the American Colonization Society pick a better spot for Liberia than where it is, Namibia has some potential. Plus it might get the Americans trading with the Portuguese and the Congolese.

If you wanted something bigger you could try to get the Americans to take some treaty ports during the Barbary War, although you would need some reason for the Ottomans to be in bad enough straits that they would not be able to do anything about it.
Why is Namibia a better location than Liberia? A place with one of the dryest deserts in the world doesn't sound very appealing to me.
 
Why is Namibia a better location than Liberia? A place with one of the dryest deserts in the world doesn't sound very appealing to me.
Check both Decades of Darkness and @Revachah 's own scenario on the said topic.
Not all of Namibia is desert, and naturally most of the settlement would be in the places that weren't so dry. Though I should point out that DoD's Liberia also included some parts of OTL southern Angola which were more appealing.

Of course, almost anywhere was better than OTL Liberia, where considerably more than half of the migrants died of tropical diseases.
 

Lusitania

Donor
Your premise that US government take over Liberia is why? Because the Liberians fucked it up so much it’s worse than Haiti? Just on the crazy thought they do take over Liberia they will find it a huge money pit and will be the last country to decide they want to increase its prestige and sink millions of $ in Africa. Heck if they wanted to increase prestige they have all of Central and south America to do so.

But you also have to remember that the US had control and influence over the Carribean, Central America and South America without the need to make them American citizens. Remember you conquer them they your problem now. No the American way was to send in the troops overthrow the government and put a stooge that says “yes sir” when you tell him something. Then pull American troops out. That was why they were called banana republic because they bent to American government.

So I get the thing about taking over Liberia because it fucked up. But I do not get take more land and spend more $.

As I indicated in other threads the Americans can buy what resources it needs. Having resources in Africa surrounded by potential rivals or enemies makes no sense. Not economic or militarily. Unless those territories had a resource only available there and was vital to America it would want to stay away from África.

If they did take over Liberia they would tryfix the problem, put someone in charge and sail out. Mission accomplish.
 
Last edited:
Top