A more aggressive United States

WeisSaul

Banned
So let's suppose the US had been more expansive and aggressive in acquiring lands.

-Backs Filibuster William Walker in Sonora and Baja California,and annexes them. (That or it just buys them up in the Gadsden purchase)
-Backs Filibuster John A. Quitman in Cuba and annexes Cuba (Or it just buys it at one point or another)
-It votes to incorporate Santo Domingo as a state in 1870
-It keeps North Borneo in 1865 and Liberia in 1867 as bases and coaling stations
-It keeps the Falklands as a territory in 1832
 
Last edited:
Well the UK and US toyed with the idea of Washington taking control of all of Canada west of Thunder Bay at times in history. Combine that with a jingoist notion that Manifest Destiny should involve outright control instead of localized puppet governments and there could be concievably a continental unification by about 1904-1914. But there would be rebellions in southern Mexico that would have to be quelled along with Haiti and perhaps Cuba as well. Quebec would probably have stirrings of revolt and we'd be looking at land grabs elsewhere, including the Falklands, Borneo, and maybe elsewhere. It might work (Central America with each of its seven nations as a state + 29 Mexican states + 50 US states + 8 Canadian states / 6 Territories + Cuba + Hispanola + Jamaica + Virgin Islands and concievably you could carve out a US with 100 stars on the flag. Civil Right sand integrating everyone would be painful, especially at first, and I wonder who else would try to sign on (Guyana and Taiwan would be possibilities under different circumstances). A US that has worldwide influence because it *has to* as part of its territories.
 
Liberia i know of, but North Borneo and the Falklands?:eek: What the.....?

In 1831, the captain of the USS Lexington, in what can only be described (even by Americans such as myself) as an act of piracy, raided the Argentine settlement on the islands. Ostensibly, he did so in response to reports of mistreatment of American merchants and at the request of the US ambassador in the region. He spiked the settlement's guns, blew up its powder and essentially destroyed its physical presence. Then he sailed away, declaring the islands to be in no one's possession. The vacuum that resulted triggered the British establishment of a military outpost in (I think) 1833. A case can be made that the root of the 1982 war lies in this incident.

EDIT: This is concerning the Falklands, of course.
 

WeisSaul

Banned
In 1865 Brunei offered the US a lease on North Borneo (modern Sabah). The American Ambassador accepted the lease, scared the hell out of the British, and one month later sailed to Hong Kong and sold off the lease to the British. The US government didn't care that much for the whole ordeal. It was bit more focused on reconstruction at home than it was on Imperialist desires.

In OTL the British feared the US would use North Borneo as a coaling station and would eventually expand its power in the region. An American power base in North Borneo was a spear pointed straight into the heart of British-Chinese trade. From North Borneo the US could have easily expanded into British Sarawak and later posed a threat to British Malaya and British Hong Kong. It also would have been an easy way to flank the Spanish in the war that was inevitably going to occur eventually between the US and Spain. North Borneo could have ended up with the US carving out a massive East Indies/Trans Pacific Empire. The Ryukyu Kingdom seemed pretty vulnerable to a sort of Hawaiianization scenario and an established US could have turned Brunei into a protectorate and later a colony. Considering all these places had low populations, the US could have immigrated them into demographic domination. Manifest Destiny wouldn't have ended with with the west coast of America, but with the western edge of the Pacific. Conflicts with Britain in East Asia also could have tanked the future Anglo-American special relationship. North Borneo could have been a pretty big POD.
-------------
Controlling the Falklands would have benefited the US greatly. Considering the Nicaragua canal was an impossibility with Britain controlling the Moskito coast and British Honduras, and being the only major colonial power (Spain was second rate by this time) with the most territories in the Caribbean Basin, Nicaragua was too insecure to be of use. Panama wouldn't be an option until 1903. All US ships going from one coast to the other had to pass the Falklands, so it would have been very good to have. It likely would have made the US more prominent in South American affairs. Considering in TTL the US keeps Liberia, there could be a network of ships going from a US port, in this case Miami, going to Liberia, then the Falklands, then perhaps an annexed Easter Island, followed by possible Clipperton Island purchased from the french, the a final journey to the west coast.

Such an elaborate network of ports kind of reminds you about all the effort the British put into securing lines to India.
 
Last edited:
Given the love between Britain and America for most of the 1800's I can't see this being a goer.

The Brits were happy enough to see the Spanish empire crumbling, but not to be replaced with the Americans. Certainly they would fight to protect their sugar islands (even though the product was less valuable than in the last century).
 

amphibulous

Banned
In 1831, the captain of the USS Lexington, in what can only be described (even by Americans such as myself) as an act of piracy, raided the Argentine settlement on the islands. Ostensibly, he did so in response to reports of mistreatment of American merchants and at the request of the US ambassador in the region.

"Ostensibly"??? Three US civilian vessels had been seized.

The US certainly didn't always behave well, but there was nothing "ostensible" about the rationale for this incident. The settlement had, under international law, committed piracy.
 
Er, regarding Panama the French were building a canal there in the 1880s

Regarding the US and Panama, they had a treaty with Britain in which IIRC Britain gave up the Moskito coast and the US agreed not to build a canal in Panama

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Spain isn't going to sell Cuba and no filibuster has a prayer of taking the island from the native population and a substantial Spanish garrison so unless the US suddenly embarks on a massive military expansion which the public would have found unacceptable and too costly...
 

WeisSaul

Banned
Given the love between Britain and America for most of the 1800's I can't see this being a goer.

The Brits were happy enough to see the Spanish empire crumbling, but not to be replaced with the Americans. Certainly they would fight to protect their sugar islands (even though the product was less valuable than in the last century).

I mentioned their fear of US power in the region and made no comment on any US attempts to take the British West Indies. The United States was far more situated to expanding into the Pacific then the British were. While America only had to go strait from its coast to the far east, Britain needed to go around the cape of good hope or through the Mediterannean and red seas. Then through the Indian Ocean, then past Indonesia through Malacca or the Sunda strait to get to the far east. US had a stronger hand in the region. If the United States attacked Britain in the west Indies, all Britain would have to do would be to sail strait towards the Americas and beat the Americans out with their superior navy.
 
I mentioned their fear of US power in the region and made no comment on any US attempts to take the British West Indies. The United States was far more situated to expanding into the Pacific then the British were. While America only had to go strait from its coast to the far east, Britain needed to go around the cape of good hope or through the Mediterannean and red seas. Then through the Indian Ocean, then past Indonesia through Malacca or the Sunda strait to get to the far east. US had a stronger hand in the region. If the United States attacked Britain in the west Indies, all Britain would have to do would be to sail strait towards the Americas and beat the Americans out with their superior navy.

Well, Britian was ALREADY going all these places so to get to the Pacific was actually only ONE STEP on from where they already were, which is what made the ocean largely CLOSER to British power than to US power which had to project from the homeland

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
"Ostensibly"??? Three US civilian vessels had been seized.

The US certainly didn't always behave well, but there was nothing "ostensible" about the rationale for this incident. The settlement had, under international law, committed piracy.


The captain of the American ship, Harriet was arrested by Argentine authorities for illegal sealing. The ship was impounded, the skins were confiscated and the captain was facing the due process of a trial. That is not piracy on the Argentines' part. The piracy occurs when Captain Duncan of the Lexington attacks Puerto Soledad, re-confiscates the ship and cargo, and destroys the settlement and arrests the bulk of its inhabitants. I don't know the names or facts concerning the other American merchants involved, but the above speaks pretty clearly.
 
Top