AHC: Largest possible USA

Yeah, true, but If I may be allowed, since you brought that up, DoD's American expansion got a little farfetched after a while. I mean, still holding onto Peru in 1953? The main this is, it seems that nobody really took resistance & certain other things into proper account back in the days when it was still being written, so yeah......

On the contrary, the prospect of resistance wasn't ignored. It's just that you - and, to be fair, most of the post-Vietnam generations - greatly overestimate how effective unsupported insurgency and guerrilla warfare are.

For a quick challenge: name three insurgencies which succeeded in driving out an occupying power where the guerrillas didn't have:

(i) safe havens in territory which the occupying power couldn't (or wouldn't) touch; or
(ii) active support - materiel and/or manpower - from a supporting foreign power; or
(iii) both of the above.

And this doesn't even take into account the fact that modern OTL insurgencies are greatly supported by the post-WW2 sense of legitimate governments of a region (which produces international pressure on occupying powers), and things like modern journalism covering those insurgencies (which largely applies from Vietnam on).
 
Besides the Manifest Destiny focus on colonizing the West the United States expansion policy was very picky. Unlike other countries the United States did not want to rule over mass populations like Britain and the European powers and instead focused on small unpopulated islands for trade, especially with China which was a goal for a long long time. This is why Alaska and Midway (Midway to China get it those clever dogs) were purchased and annexed. However, proposals to annex Santo Domingo, during Grant, and even plans, granted it was one senator who wanted to sell the "half naked natives" textiles, were shot down. Partly it was because imperialism had a more or less bad rep in the United States though not to everyone but more importantly the USA was incredibly racist and didn't want to rule over more "niggers (blacks or latinos)." Any further expansion of the United States will need to remove this toxic mindset which anyone can tell you is very very difficult. After all during this time was the time of white supremacy and the Democratic Party and the South would make a fuss if any party seriously tried and after McKinley the Republicans sold out the Black voters and embraced white supremacy (granted it did make electoral sense [black voter suppression was very effective at the expense of the poor whites] but was far from what we would consider moral). However, if one was to solve the race problem one will also have to solve the military problem. In terms of size the USA army for most of its history was a joke. It had a smaller army than Italy in 1910. While the USA was able to ground out a victory in the Philippines but at the expense of a million Filipinos and a very tarnished US reputation (some nasty massacres got reported in the press). It was very much the Iraq of the 1800s-1900s with all the torture and waterboarding. If you can solve these problems the United States has potential, population and resources, but it doesn't have the will or really the means during most of its history to seize and hold colonies.
 
For a quick challenge: name three insurgencies which succeeded in driving out an occupying power where the guerrillas didn't have:

(i) safe havens in territory which the occupying power couldn't (or wouldn't) touch; or
(ii) active support - materiel and/or manpower - from a supporting foreign power; or
(iii) both of the above.

Its not like South America is lacking in some truly difficult terrain or a rich tradition of guerilla warfare for race, ideology, and profit, I mean just look at the Chan Santa Cruz Republic, lasted for over fifty years as an independent nation and it was led by Mayan peasant farmers with machetes and outdated guns. Not the best comparison but to give perspective Peru is almost perfectly set up for guerrilla warfare due its geography and that is only the most well set up. Latin America is filled with hard to reach areas that bandits and rebels have notoriously made their home in. Not even to mention the fact that foreign aid is a distinct possibility if the US ever gets on the bad side of any great power (course I havent read your TL so you probably explain that bit) but I do think you underestimate how well set up Latin America is for guerrilla war.
 
Yes, it was. The claim thereon was renounced in fear of Europeans claiming it when we didn't have a military way to protect it.

No, it was not.

Liberia and Misisissippi-in-Africa were founded by Private organizations not linked to the government as territories to get African Americans to move to as part of their ridiculous ideas that Blacks and Whites could'nt live together and in the 1840's when said organization ran out of funds and started losing support they more or less stopped and Liberia proclaimed itself indeepndent and soon after annexed M-i-A.

Maryland colny, founded with funds provided by the State of Maryland was similar, however it lasted until 1854, at which point it declared itself a Republic and was annexed by Liberia three years later.

At no point were these territories supported or condoned by the United States government nor did anyone in the U.S. government, foreign governmsts or the settlers themselves consider them to be American territory.
 
Its not like South America is lacking in some truly difficult terrain or a rich tradition of guerilla warfare for race, ideology, and profit, I mean just look at the Chan Santa Cruz Republic, lasted for over fifty years as an independent nation and it was led by Mayan peasant farmers with machetes and outdated guns. Not the best comparison but to give perspective Peru is almost perfectly set up for guerrilla warfare due its geography and that is only the most well set up. Latin America is filled with hard to reach areas that bandits and rebels have notoriously made their home in. Not even to mention the fact that foreign aid is a distinct possibility if the US ever gets on the bad side of any great power (course I havent read your TL so you probably explain that bit) but I do think you underestimate how well set up Latin America is for guerrilla war.
For a large chunk of the 19th century the criollos/patrones/caudillos are still in power and mestizos, poorer European immigrants, and natives are still somewhat complacent.

(speaking of this thread's USA, not Decades of Darkness, in rest of post)

If the US conquers areas like Panama, Colombia, or Venezuela, they'll need some good generals. In order to be successful, they'll have to be willing to cooperate with mestizos, poor whites, and natives against the criollos, patrones, and caudillos. That happening is not too far-fetched if the US is already willing to absorb 'Hispanic' areas. Which is possible with the correct PODs and or arising attitudes (they shifted all the time anyway in OTL).

The successful generals will be popular among everyone they helped as well as Anglo-American settlers.

The 19th-century Americans will probably betray the natives after using them against the white landholders. But the natives of South America never overthrew their oppressors to the extent that they reestablished lasting independent states. And immigration from Europe and Asia can be directed to new southern territories instead of curtailed.

There would be tension but not able to drive out the Americans.
 
Last edited:
Its not like South America is lacking in some truly difficult terrain or a rich tradition of guerilla warfare for race, ideology, and profit, I mean just look at the Chan Santa Cruz Republic, lasted for over fifty years as an independent nation and it was led by Mayan peasant farmers with machetes and outdated guns. Not the best comparison but to give perspective Peru is almost perfectly set up for guerrilla warfare due its geography and that is only the most well set up. Latin America is filled with hard to reach areas that bandits and rebels have notoriously made their home in. Not even to mention the fact that foreign aid is a distinct possibility if the US ever gets on the bad side of any great power (course I havent read your TL so you probably explain that bit) but I do think you underestimate how well set up Latin America is for guerrilla war.

I have read DoD myself, though, and I definitely agree with what you've said here.

@Zuvarq: Really, really depends on the time and place.
 
Realistically? Add Canada and Cuba, and that's about it.


To answer the question it really depends on the PoD, as different PoD's will lead to it controlling different territories.

Having said that, with a PoD of America including Canada, the below is what I think the largest plausable United States would be;

Not big enough!!!




Below: still not big enough! (It's taken from a probe orbiting Mars)

Earth_and_Moon_from_Mars_PIA04531.jpg
 
Its not like South America is lacking in some truly difficult terrain or a rich tradition of guerilla warfare for race, ideology, and profit, I mean just look at the Chan Santa Cruz Republic, lasted for over fifty years as an independent nation and it was led by Mayan peasant farmers with machetes and outdated guns.

I'm not doubting the willingness of South Americans to engage in guerrilla warfare, even in such warfare lasting for decades. OTL history shows that well enough. What I am doubting, as history also shows, is the ability of most such guerrilla warfare to force out a determined, well-armed occupying power without safe havens and/or foreign support.

Even the Chan Santa Cruz republic, which you mention, had tacit British recognition for most of its existence. After the British withdrew that support in 1893, Chan Santa Cruz didn't last that much longer. (Although I'll grant that it wasn't British support which formed the republic in the first place.)

Not the best comparison but to give perspective Peru is almost perfectly set up for guerrilla warfare due its geography and that is only the most well set up. Latin America is filled with hard to reach areas that bandits and rebels have notoriously made their home in.

Latin America has plenty of such out-of-the-way areas where bandits, rebels, revolutionaries and drug dealers (those sometimes being synonymous) can establish themselves. I don't doubt that for a second.

There is, however, a big gap between "bandits hiding in the hills" and "guerrillas forcing out an occupying power". For instance, in Peru itself, Shining Path launched a wide-scale insurgency against the Peruvian government in 1980, which saw them have a presence in large areas of the countryside. Shining Path is still around today, more than 30 years later, and still haven't given up completely. But the Peruvian government is still there, and Shining Path is now little more than an organised cocaine-smuggling ring.

Much the same could be said of militant groups in Colombia, who have been at it for even longer. FARC, ELN and others have been conducting guerrilla warfare in the Colombian hills since the mid-1960s, but are no closer to taking control of the country than when they started. (Of course, one reason the Colombian rebels have been able to continue for so long is drug smuggling, but even without that, they could probably have been hiding in the hills for several decades.)

Not even to mention the fact that foreign aid is a distinct possibility if the US ever gets on the bad side of any great power (course I havent read your TL so you probably explain that bit) but I do think you underestimate how well set up Latin America is for guerrilla war.

The relative lack of foreign aid is explained in the TL. But no, I don't think I underestimate Latin America's suitability for guerrilla warfare. I do think that too many people overestimate the ability of guerrillas to drive out occupying forces (or established governments) without foreign support.

It is actually possible, by the way, to list three insurgencies which have accomplished that goal. But coming up with those three names is a lot harder than most people believe.
 
I really should get around to reading DoD actually, I'll bring it up again when I get to reading the TL (not gonna be soon most likely given how quarter papers are coming up in the next week but I'll get to it). Its probably for the better for me to criticize it after I've read it rather than just see a few maps and go from there.

It is actually possible, by the way, to list three insurgencies which have accomplished that goal. But coming up with those three names is a lot harder than most people believe.

Mind listing them?
 
I think the most the US could expand would be:

-taking OTL Canada via doing better in the American Revolution and/or War of 1812

-taking Baja California, Sonora, and Chihuahua via doing better in the US-Mexican War

-annexing Cuba after the Spanish-American War
 
Top