Yeah, I gotta agree with Elfwine on this one. Though I think they did realize they fucked up and set the Philippines on a path to independence afterward. And Puerto Rico was undeniably ruled as a colony until the 1940s.
AHC: American Colonies in Africa
- Thread starter General Mosh
- Start date
Yeah, I gotta agree with Elfwine on this one. Though I think they did realize they fucked up and set the Philippines on a path to independence afterward. And Puerto Rico was undeniably ruled as a colony until the 1940s.
Errr.. that was well over a year aago. Has Congress even addressed the possibility? AFAIK, no, although I could be wrong. If a motion for statehood were introduced, would it get passed? Nope, no way. Puerto Ricans in the 50 states voted 83% Democratic. Theres no way a Republic majority in the House would pass a bill giving the Democrats 5 house seats and two senate ones.
Have Lincoln survive for two terms and continue to promote his idea for freedmen emigration, he ultimately looks towards Liberia. I can't see it being very successful in of itself but if you can establish US interest in Liberia, then as imperialism gains in popularity in the 1880s you could see serious American involvement in Africa.
Liberia was bullied and invested in equal turn by Britain, France, Spain and Germany in this period. Have an imperialist Congress coat its involvement in defence of the Negro republic against the Europeans (a major PR strategy used in Latin America and the Pacific) leading to Liberia becoming a quasi-colony. Considering certain annexationist interests in the American-Liberian elite and the extent American corporations dominated the country by WWII, you could see serious involvement beyond simple client state status.
Liberia was bullied and invested in equal turn by Britain, France, Spain and Germany in this period. Have an imperialist Congress coat its involvement in defence of the Negro republic against the Europeans (a major PR strategy used in Latin America and the Pacific) leading to Liberia becoming a quasi-colony. Considering certain annexationist interests in the American-Liberian elite and the extent American corporations dominated the country by WWII, you could see serious involvement beyond simple client state status.
Deleted member 9338
And those house seats will have to come from some where so the GOP could have a net lose.
Best I can think of is that after the Civil War the freed slaves are either forcibly put on or heavily encouraged to board ships back to Africa as their 'homeland' so as to not compete against local whites or cause disorder in the community. Liberia is incorporated as some form of Territory to keep it out of European control and carry on the pretence that it's being done for the former slaves' benefit but it's pretty much left to its own devices and to go to pot.
As I understand it that's not too far off how things shook out in Liberia, the returned former slaves had better educational skills or knowledge so they prospered more than the local Africans and slipped into a dominating position with regards to the local government effectively coming to control it. Even nowadays there's apparently meant to be a rather large divide both financially and culturally between those Liberians descended from freed slaves and local Africans.
Tallest Skil
Banned
What’s your point?
The bill has over 100 cosponsors in Congress.
They literally just voted to become a state. If their state constitution is republican, Congress has no choice.
This is bull honkey.
Bull honkey? Seriously? Everyone knows that you mean bullshit, if you're not comfortable actually using that word why bother using such a silly substitute?
The Philippines had a very large degree of self-rule by 1908, with an elected legislature that held very real power. By 1934, legislation had been approved that would grant the Philippines independence in 10 years. The US government might have been brutal in its crushing of the Philippine Insurrection, but it did take the idea of local-government followed by independence quite seriously, in a way the European great powers did not.
The Philippines, had the US not decided that them being independent was a bad thing, could have had what they acquired in 1946 almost half a century earlier.
But that would require being more concerned about self-determination than any imperial power (the US included) has ever felt - being better than say, Britain, is a matter of degree, not a matter of "unlike the imperialist powers".
I don't understand why some Americans get so defensive about the possibility that the US acted as a colonial power at some points in its history. Britain, France, Spain, etc. all accept their brutal colonial past. A lot of those in the ex-colonies still harbour some anger and resentment about this fact, but many have accepted it and moved on.
It's not that big a deal.
As for American colonies, I've always been titilated by the idea of America invading Mexico and dividing it into 'Princely States' in a similar way to India, using it to extract resources while allowing the Mexicans to feel somewhat self-determined, leaving it to become culturally divided later on. Is this possible at all?
It's not that big a deal.
As for American colonies, I've always been titilated by the idea of America invading Mexico and dividing it into 'Princely States' in a similar way to India, using it to extract resources while allowing the Mexicans to feel somewhat self-determined, leaving it to become culturally divided later on. Is this possible at all?
You'd probably have to have some extremely imperialist sentiments during the Mexican-American War, or perhaps trigger a second one a decade or so after the first, causing the Americans to figure they might as well break it up in order to make sure they don't make trouble again.
Are you saying the US didn't have extremely imperialist sentiments OTL?
The US might not have intended to break up Mexico as a state, but it certainly wasn't for a lack of imperialist sentiments.
I probably should have phrased that better. OTL, I don't think we ever had any intention of taking Mexico proper. We were more interested in westward expansion than southward expansion.
. . . Mexico proper included, prior to 1848, California and the other territories conquered.
And that's not even counting the "We would have gained more territory if it wasn't for that darn Trist." part.
The two are not mutually exclusive, in other words.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=QAzP6_NFGc0&list=PL5DD220D6A1282057#t=1366
I just found out that the American Colonization Society, the one that colonized Liberia, had Congress funding on its infancy. Perhaps in a POD where the ACS kept receiving government subsidies it would fare better?
I just found out that the American Colonization Society, the one that colonized Liberia, had Congress funding on its infancy. Perhaps in a POD where the ACS kept receiving government subsidies it would fare better?
Also, literacy and education grew as a result of U.S. rule. This is why Spanish is not a major language in the Philippines today but English is.
Alta California, Tejas, and Nuevo Mexico weren't integrated into the Mexican state; they were frontier zones, which, outside of the Californios and communities in north central New Mexico were sparsely populated, and controlled by the local indigenous peoples. These were not core Mexican areas, but zones in which next to nothing had changed since Spanish rule.
I'd argue that we see a sharp change in American policy from 1989 onwards than was so earlier. The Mexican cession, Oregon country, and Texas annexation were areas acquired with the intention of creating more states in the Union. In this way, U.S. westward expansion was not more imperialist than the expansion of Russia into Siberia and the Russian Far East from Ivan the Terrible onward. However, from 1898, we see a United States more or less content in its territorial growth looking to increase its clout in the world stage by participation in the rush to acquire new markets and security buffers.
While it is rightly argued that the Spanish-American War was a mistake, and a black mark against the Union in some key respects, it's flatly wrong to suggest that the United States intended to annex the Philippines as an area to one day be an integral part of the country.
That said, Puerto Rican independence is long overdue.
Tallest Skil
Banned
They were territories of Mexico, in the same way that they became territories of the US. Never intended to be ‘colonies’, but rather full states once requirements were met.