Additional US territorial expansions

The Avenger

Banned
Which additional territories could the US have acquired throughout its history?

Note: these American territorial acquisitions have to be extremely realistic and extremely plausible.

Also, you can't sacrifice any of the US's our TL territorial acquisitions in order to acquire additional territory in this TL. For instance, if the US acquires southern Ontario in 1783 but this ends up causing the US not to acquire Louisiana Territory later on (even if it's the result of the butterfly effect), then it can't work for my scenario here.
 
Last edited:
Well, Canada would be the obvious one, though the US would need a much bigger military than it had IOTL to pull it off. Other than that, I've always liked the idea of America getting involved in the overseas colonies game more. Maybe some more trading outposts in the Far East and/or Africa, for example.
 

The Avenger

Banned
Well, Canada would be the obvious one, though the US would need a much bigger military than it had IOTL to pull it off.

Or it could simply press harder for southern Ontario in 1782-1783 during its negotiations with Britain, no?

Ofc, would this butterfly away any of the US's subsequent territorial gains?

Other than that, I've always liked the idea of America getting involved in the overseas colonies game more. Maybe some more trading outposts in the Far East and/or Africa, for example.

The US has to permanently keep these territorial acquisitions in order for them to count here, though.
 
Besides what was mentioned Northern Mexico and the Caribbean. The closer to OTL Mexican-Border the more plausible it would be. An American Baja California is pretty plausible, an American Mexico City is much less so. Doesn't stop newbies from posting threads asking what would happen if the US would have annexed all of Mexico in '48.

Ofc, would this butterfly away any of the US's subsequent territorial gains?
A USA that took all of Canada could really energise the South to try to get territory to turn into Slave Sates That has been brought up before.
 
Besides what was mentioned Northern Mexico and the Caribbean. The closer to OTL Mexican-Border the more plausible it would be. An American Baja California is pretty plausible, an American Mexico City is much less so. Doesn't stop newbies from posting threads asking what would happen if the US would have annexed all of Mexico in '48.


A USA that took all of Canada could really energise the South to try to get territory to turn into Slave Sates That has been brought up before.
what I would find interesting if the US got all of Great Britain's new world colonies how that would effect the slave free state balance .
 
anything in modern Canada is likely. For example setting the boarder at the 50th parallel instead of the 49th could have easily happened. More of northern Mexico is also likely, with Baja being the most likely bit of it. Northern Borneo would be extremely likely since the territory was basicily given to the USA. Then there was the areas that OTL asked the USA to annex them: the Domican Republic the Yuctan (which would likely been a mess) and I have seen where in the 1820s El Salavado asked to be annexed.
 
Which additional territories could the US have acquired throughout its history?

Note: these American territorial acquisitions have to be extremely realistic and extremely plausible.

Also, you can't sacrifice any of the US's our TL territorial acquisitions in order to acquire additional territory in this TL. For instance, if the US acquires southern Ontario in 1783 but this ends up causing the US not to acquire Louisiana Territory later on (even if it's the result of the butterfly effect), then it can't work for my scenario here.

Extremely realistic and extremely plausivle are very vague targets to hit...
 

The Avenger

Banned
Extremely realistic and extremely plausivle are very vague targets to hit...
Well, in 1902, the Danish upper house (of their parliament) failed to approve a treaty selling the Danish West Indies to the US by just one vote. A change of one vote looks very realistic. Ofc, this wouldn't really count for this since the US ultimately did acquire the Danish West Indies in 1917.

In contrast, having the US acquire all of France requires ASB intervention.
 
Last edited:
One French military official proposed exchanging France's caribbean and pacific holdings to the US in exchange for the right to purchase planes on credit prior to WW2.

The US nearly annexed Yucatan in the 1840s and Santo Domingo in the 1870s.

Cuba was a desire of the US for a long time.

Panama and Nicaragua were close-ish.

Most of today's Mexican North was desired by polk (Baja, Sonora, Chihuahua, Coahuila, Tamaulipas, Nuevo Leone).

The US briefly owned a piece of Sabah.

Commodore Perry wanted the US to take Taiwan and the Bonin Islands.

There was talk of the US only annexing Luzon, which could feasibly remained American long-term I think.

The Pacific Trust territories are easy - the US only granted them independence in the 1990s.

The US administered Okinawa until the 1970s. Surely the US could annex the Ryukyus if it really wanted to.

The Canadian west could have feasibly been American. It was easier to get there through the US than it was in Canada until the late 19th century. Even today most of the prairies' shipping goes through the US.
 
As for the general question presented of maximum expansion, Western Canada, Cuba and all of Mexico are what I see as definitely possible, with Okinawa, Central America, and some random colonies as also possible.

For Western Canada, I'd recommend Seward's Attempt to Annex British Columbia, 1865-1869 by David E. Shi (Pacific Historical Review, Vol. 47, No. 2 (May, 1978), pp. 217-238):

The Oxford professor, Goldwin Smith, who later emigrated to Canada, advised Seward that Canada "seems likely (unless our statesmen adopt a different policy) to fall into your hands of itself, perhaps before you want it." The London Times echoed Smith's assessment, reporting that Britain would not object if Canadians wished to join the United States, but if a union was promulgated by force, Her Majesty's government would protest. This was a common view of British scholars and politicians, who had little faith in Canada's future and even less regard for her aspirations for dominion.
___

Between Russian America and Washington Territory lay the British colony of British Columbia. Until 1858 the area had been an underdeveloped and sparsely populated region, serving primarily as an outpost for the Hudson's Bay Company. In that year, however, the discovery of gold brought an influx of American miners. This rapid growth led to the formation of the Crown Colony of British Columbia. Its boundaries extended from the summit of the Rocky Mountains on the east to the Pacific Ocean and the Gulf of Georgia on the west, and from the Finlay branch of the Peace River and the Nass River on the north to the 49th parallel on the south. Vancouver Island remained a separate colony until 1866.

British Columbia's rapid growth and prosperity, however, quickly subsided. By 1865 the colony was in a state of decay, a "poor, struggling, bankrupt colony on the edge of things."' As the gold deposits were depleted, the populace began to drift away, leaving less than 10,000 inhabitants in 1866, three-quarters of whom were of British or Canadian origin. Moreover, since the Hudson's Bay Company owned the territory from the head of the Great Lakes to the Rocky Mountains, the colony remained isolated from the rest of Canada East and West. Consequently, the British Columbians, especially those on Vancouver Island, maintained closer economic and social relations with the western American territories and states than with either Canada or Great Britain.

The belief among many colonists that the Home Office had abandoned them further contributed to their sense of isolation and frustration. During the Civil War, British Columbia alone of the British North American colonies was left undefended. Rear Admiral Joseph Denman informed the Admiralty that the colony did not warrant protection: "I would consider it would be greatly for the interest of England to divest herself of these possessions by any means consistent with honor and with justice to the English settlers." Denman's comments were symptomatic of a general spirit of Little Englandism emerging in Great Britain during the 1860s, a spirit that caused great concern among the colonists in British Columbia.

In such an unstable situation, growing support among the colonists for annexation to the United States represented a logical development. Many were painfully aware of the prosperity and lower taxes prevalent in the neighboring American states. Agitation for annexation began in 1866 and remained a prominent issue for several years. Vancouver Island emerged as the center of support for the movement, particularly the port town of Victoria.

Seward learned of the support in British Columbia for annexation from several sources. In January 1866, he received an extensive report from E. H. Derby, a congressional investigator. Citing the rising discontent among the colonists in British Columbia, Derby suggested that Great Britain cede its Pacific territory to the United States as payment of the Alabama claims:

If Great Britain desires to propitiate this country after all that has occurred, would it not be her true policy to cede to us a portion of her remote territories, valuable to us, but of little value to her? Were she to cede us Vancouver's Island and British Columbia ... might she not easily bring our claims to a peaceful solution...

Seward responded favorably to Derby's suggestion. After sending the report to the Senate for consideration, he began negotiations with Great Britain on the subject.

Discussions concerning the Alabama claims had begun immediately after the Civil War. The main issues were Great Britain's recognition of the Confederacy and her building of Confederate privateers. By 1866 the negotiations had reached an impasse. Seward wanted Britain's policies judged before a neutral arbitration court. Lord Russell refused, arguing that his country's actions were beyond the jurisdiction of any foreign court.

In June 1866, Russell's government fell. As the Conservatives assumed power, conditions appeared favorable for reopening the negotiations. In a lengthy dispatch to the new government, Seward listed the American claims against Great Britain for her part in building the privateers. Lord Stanley, the new Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, finally replied in November, professing his willingness to accept arbitration of the American claims, apart from those involving the right of the British government to recognize a state of belligerency. Seward countered in January 1867, stressing that the individual claims represented only a small part of the much greater losses caused by British actions which had prolonged the war. He implied that he was holding Great Britain responsible for indirect damages that could produce enormous claims. Apparently following the plan outlined earlier in Derby's report, Seward hoped to raise the claims high enough to convince British officials to agree to a quid pro quo settlement, ceding British Columbia in exchange for the claims.

For several months prior to this last dispatch, Seward had been receiving additional evidence from British Columbia indicating substantial support in the colony for annexation. Allen Francis, the American consul in Victoria, reported in September 1866 that "the people of Vancouver Island, and of British Columbia, are almost unanimous in their desire for annexation to the United States." He included an article excerpted from the Victoria Evening Telegraph of September 5, 1866, which characterized British Columbia's relations with the United States as being closer "than our relations with any of the colonies." Two weeks later a public meeting in Victoria voted to request Great Britain to permit annexation to the United States.

Without British Columbia, the Trans-Canada won't get built and thus Western Canada will likely remain sparsely populated with one of the mains settler demographics being American ranchers who were a constant concern of Anglo-Canadian authorities in the area, especially given that their only rail connects to the rest of Canada were dependent upon the United States and that many communities likewise looked to their American counterparts for leadership and security.

As for Mexico, my always trusty citation is The Slavery Question and the Movement to Acquire Mexico, 1846-1848 by John D. P. Fuller, The Mississippi Valley Historical Review Vol. 21, No. 1 (Jun., 1934), pp. 31-48:

Between October, 1847, and the following February the theme of the story underwent considerable alteration. By the latter date, as noted above, the National Era was advocating the absorption of Mexico, insisting that it would be free territory, and citing along with other evidence, Calhoun's opposition to annexation as proof that the anti-slavery interests had nothing to fear from extensive territorial acquisitions. In other words, the National Era was convinced that if there had been a "pro-slavery conspiracy" to acquire all Mexico, it could not realize its ends even though the whole country were annexed. This conviction seems to have come largely as a result of the propaganda, which was streaming from the northern expansionist press and the opposition of Calhoun.The editor probably reasoned that since Calhoun was opposing absorption the expansionists at the North must be correct. If the main body of the anti-slavery forces could be converted to this point of view, the movement for absorption which was growing rapidly at the time would doubtless become very strong indeed.

Care should be taken not to exaggerate the anti-slavery sentiment for all Mexico. It is evident that some such sentiment did exist, but there was not sufficient time for it to develop to significant proportions. The Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo had already been signed in Mexico when the National Era took up the cry of all Mexico with or without the Wilmot Proviso. In a short while the war was over and whatever anti-slavery sentiment there was for all Mexico collapsed along with the general expansion movement. Had the war continued several months longer it is not improbable that increasing numbers from the anti-slavery camp would have joined forces with those who were demanding the acquisition of Mexico. Their action would have been based on the assumption that they were undermining the position of the pro slavery forces. It was, not to be expected that those abolitionists, and there were undoubtedly some, who were using the bogey of "extension of slavery" to cover up other reasons for opposition to annexation, would have ever become convinced of the error of their ways. They would hold on to their pet theory to the bitter end.

To summarize briefly what seem to be the conclusions to be drawn from this study, it might be said that the chief support for the absorption of Mexico came from the North and West and from those whose pro-slavery or anti-slavery bias was not a prime consideration. In quarters where the attitude toward slavery was all-important there was, contrary to the accepted view, a "pro-slavery conspiracy" to prevent the acquisition of all Mexico and the beginnings of an "anti-slavery conspiracy" to secure all the territory in the Southwest that happened to be available. Behind both these movements was a belief that expansion would prove injurious to the slavery interest. Had the war continued much longer the two movements, would probably have developed strength and have become more easily discernible. Lack of time for expansionist sentiment to develop was the chief cause of this country's, failure to annex Mexico in 1848. Even as it was, however, there might have been sufficient demand for annexation in February and March, 1848, to have wrecked the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo had it not been for the opposition of pro-slavery Democrats led by Calhoun. Their attitude divided the party committed to expansion in the presence of a unified opposition. Whatever the motives which may be attributed to Calhoun and his friends, the fact remains that those who feel that the absorption of Mexico in 1848 would have meant permanent injury to the best interests of the United States, should be extremely grateful to those slaveholders. To them not a little credit is due for the fact that Mexico is to-day an independent nation.

I'd also include The United States and Mexico, 1847-1848 by Edward G. Bourne in the The American Historical Review, Vol. 5, No. 3 (Apr., 1900), pp. 491-502 as he largely came to the same conclusions as this aforementioned work did. The Knights of the Golden Circle: The Career of George Bickley by Ollinger Crenshaw likewise from The American Historical Review (Vol. 47, No. 1 (Oct., 1941), pp. 23-50) as well as Buchanan's Proposed Intervention in Mexico by Howard Lafayette Wilson (Vol. 5, No. 4 (Jul., 1900), pp. 687-701) are also informative reads on the subject.
 
The US tried to buy Greenland after WW2 but the Danish weren't interested. There was an attempt to annex Santo Domingo during the Grant Presidency, but it was blocked in Congress due to a coalition of Anti-Imperialists and racists who were afraid of a non-white, Catholic population gaining statehood. Those are probably the two most realistic options as every thing else either requires greater military success or massive policy changes. I guess the US could have taken Palau after the Spanish-American War or maybe Baja after the Mexican-American War, but I have a hard time seeing them take more than that as the remaining Spanish colonies don't really have much value and the remaining Mexican states would be too difficult to hold down.
 

The Avenger

Banned
As for the general question presented of maximum expansion, Western Canada, Cuba and all of Mexico are what I see as definitely possible, with Okinawa, Central America, and some random colonies as also possible.

For Western Canada, I'd recommend Seward's Attempt to Annex British Columbia, 1865-1869 by David E. Shi (Pacific Historical Review, Vol. 47, No. 2 (May, 1978), pp. 217-238):

Without British Columbia, the Trans-Canada won't get built and thus Western Canada will likely remain sparsely populated with one of the mains settler demographics being American ranchers who were a constant concern of Anglo-Canadian authorities in the area, especially given that their only rail connects to the rest of Canada were dependent upon the United States and that many communities likewise looked to their American counterparts for leadership and security.

As for Mexico, my always trusty citation is The Slavery Question and the Movement to Acquire Mexico, 1846-1848 by John D. P. Fuller, The Mississippi Valley Historical Review Vol. 21, No. 1 (Jun., 1934), pp. 31-48:

I'd also include The United States and Mexico, 1847-1848 by Edward G. Bourne in the The American Historical Review, Vol. 5, No. 3 (Apr., 1900), pp. 491-502 as he largely came to the same conclusions as this aforementioned work did. The Knights of the Golden Circle: The Career of George Bickley by Ollinger Crenshaw likewise from The American Historical Review (Vol. 47, No. 1 (Oct., 1941), pp. 23-50) as well as Buchanan's Proposed Intervention in Mexico by Howard Lafayette Wilson (Vol. 5, No. 4 (Jul., 1900), pp. 687-701) are also informative reads on the subject.
In regards to British Columbia, didn't Britain offer very generous terms for BC to join Canada in 1871? If so, could the US actually compete with those terms?

The Mexico part is very interesting. There'd need to be a coalition of anti-slavery politicians and pro-slavery politicians who cared more about Manifest Destiny than about keeping the US a White-majority nation for this to have a realistic chance, but with that, it might be possible given more time. Ofc, I wonder if there'd be more hostility towards Third World immigration in the 20th and 21st centuries in the US in this TL if the US already had a huge Mexican population.

What's your source for Cuba?
 
Sikaiana/Stewart Islands, a small atoll isolated from the rest of the Solomons, was legally owned by the Kingdom of Hawaii since 1856, and in recent years the islanders have tried to use that to claim benefits from Hawaii as Native Hawaiians. Legally, I could easily see the same standards used to annex Palmyra Atoll (also owned by Hawaii) to annex Sikaiana and provoke further American expansion into the Solomons (likely involving some negotiation with Britain, Germany, and France to hammer out a partition of the area). I did a thread about that here.

To this day, I think the US could plausibly annex Sikaiana assuming some concessions are given to the Solomon Islands in exchange.

The Bahamas/Turks and Caicos and to a lesser degree Bermuda were plausible during the American Revolution due to privateering there. France/Spain could cede to the Americans in exchange for something (and probably swap some other land around with the British too). The Bahamas/T&C were pretty unimportant in the grand scheme of things, Bermuda a bit less so however.

Commodore David Porter annexed the Marquesas Islands during the War of 1812, but the US lacked the power projection at the time to actually do much about that claim. Still, with the amount of American whalers active in the area, it could end up in a Hawaii situation so that within a few decades, a US protectorate becomes inevitable.

The US practically owned Liberia in much of the 19th/20th centuries, so it's probably not too hard for the US to want a more direct hand in things there and declare a protectorate over the country.
 
In regards to British Columbia, didn't Britain offer very generous terms for BC to join Canada in 1871? If so, could the US actually compete with those terms?

Alabama Claims seems like the most likely option.

The Mexico part is very interesting. There'd need to be a coalition of anti-slavery politicians and pro-slavery politicians who cared more about Manifest Destiny than about keeping the US a White-majority nation for this to have a realistic chance, but with that, it might be possible given more time. Ofc, I wonder if there'd be more hostility towards Third World immigration in the 20th and 21st centuries in the US in this TL if the US already had a huge Mexican population.

Basically that's what was happening; the North was becoming in favor of it and the South had been split on the issue. Race, I believe, is an overblown issue in regards to the overall issue; The media at the time propagated the idea of romance between American men and Mexican women as a means of assimilating the Mexicans, even going as far as to write poetry on such. These sentiments did not stop at rhetoric, however, as such inter-marriages were actually common in the parts of the Mexican cession that had existing, sufficiently large populations and were, apparently, considered respectable. Essentially, outside of Calhoun's Pro-Slavery faction, everyone else was pretty much expecting and in favor of some form of the Latin American Concept of Branciemento rather than the "One Drop Rule" we saw historically elsewhere and later on.

What's your source for Cuba?

The Black Warrior Affair as a whole, which @David T covers beautifully here.
 
If the Napoleonic wars go differently the British might not be able to devote as much attention to Canadian expansion. Leaving it to the Americans.
 

Grimbald

Monthly Donor
All of Canada except the portion of Quebec north of the St Laurence

All of Mexico north of the mouth of the Rio Grande

Cuba

All of the Samoan Islands

Luzon ( or just Battan and the land around Subic Bay)

Bahamas, Turks and Virgin Islands

Bermuda

Greenland

French Polynesia
 
Top