AHC: The USA becomes a Major Colonial Power

Well, not all serious scholars agree with you. European colonialism can be seen as an economically, structurally, and politically distinct process from the westward expansion of white settlement in the United States and Canada...or for that matter the expansion of Han Chinese power throughout what became the Chinese Empire or the expansion of the Russian Empire. Just because China, Russia, and the United States can be lumped together as "empires" on one level because of their expansionist history of conquest and settlement, it ignores some key differences by calling it all "colonialism."

The OP wanted to explore what could have made the United States seek a different avenue for empire than expansion in North America and what this would look like. This was a perfectly reasonable question that does not imply racism or gringoism.

It's not a coincidence the US really only got into the "colonial game" pretty much around the time that the western expansion was complete. There would have to be some strong reason for the US to look across the sea as opposed to across the plains.

The idea of manifest destiny would have to have been radically altered or made non-existent. Perhaps Britain somehow holding onto most of the land west of the mississippi?
 
Right.

The distinction between 'overseas' and 'across land' is IMO irrelevant. If you want to distinguish between expansion/settler colonies on the one hand and ruling over local cultures then I'll buy that distinction easily. But in that case, if you want to disregard the US expanding west of the Appalachians, you really have to consider Canada and Australia as British expansion, too. In which case the further expansion of the British Empire (India, chunks of Africa) are almost irrelevant (geographically) compared to the settler colonies.

Yes, we read your original post.
It's the "by colonialism I mean..." that I don't accept. Like Lincoln's quote "How many legs does a lamb have, if you call the tail a leg?"

Your wording was

That states that you mean that expansion west DOESN'T count as colonialism.

People who start Sealion threads, saying 'I don't care how the Germans get to Britain, what happens if...' get the same treatment.

If you want to create an artificial distinction, don't expect everyone to accept it.

I specifically said major colonial power in the same sense as Britain or France. I said that because I wanted to distinguish British and French colonialism from Russian and American settler colonialism. That's why I clarified by stating "By major colonial power, I mean...".

I'm not saying that American expansion west wasn't colonialism. In fact, I said that it was colonialism in my first response to you. It's obvious that American western expansion was colonialist expansion (although it was more similar to Russian expansion than French/British expansion). I simply said that it wasn't overseas colonialism. There is a distinction between the two, and that distinction is that you have to take a boat or plane to reach the place being colonized. You can't just walk/drive there.

Sorry. But claiming that moving west isn't 'major colonization' just leaves you
open to charges of (unconscious) racism, gringoism and American exceptionalism.

Yup, you got me. I am an evil white supremacist gringo. Never mind the fact that I'm not white, and that my family is mostly made up of Afro-Cubans. :rolleyes:
 
You group American Exceptionalism with racism like exceptionalism is a bad thing.

I've always thought american exceptionalism as away for americans politicians to act superior and treat others as bellow them without being racist.

racism opens a can of worms but proclaiming american superiority over the rest of the world appeals to the voters and non-caucasian americans can also use it to.:D:D:rolleyes:
 
You group American Exceptionalism with racism like exceptionalism is a bad thing.

American Exceptionalism is usually used in a way that seems jingoist, if not straight-up racist. "America is the greatest country on Earth" and all that.

But American Exceptionalism doesn't have to be racist. Objectively, the US had a unique set of circumstances that allowed it to be successful as a country: a vast amount of sparsely populated land*, 30% of the world's coal*, major oil reserves, a ridiculous amount of arable land which allowed the country to be a major food exporter, one peaceful (Britain up until 1932) and one non-threatening (Canada since 1932 and Mexico since 1848) neighbor, a sort of climate "sweet spot" (with certain exceptions, like Utah and Alaska), and of course, the two oceans that protected the US in World War I and II. But that isn't due to some inherent superiority of the American people or being chosen by God. It's just good luck.

*Seriously. This is absurd, especially in the late 19th century, when everything ran on coal. Even today, coal still accounts for 41% of global electricity production. We're like a less evil Saudi Arabia, only with coal.
**Of course, early Americans killed the people living there, turning it from "sparsely populated" to "empty".
 
You need a more militaristic and tolerant United States. Most of the problem especially those politicians from the South was expanding into overseas countries would be the fact that too many other races would become part of the United States
 
The thing is there really is no reason, other than prestige, to engage in that kind of colonialism for the States. All the resources needed were out west. The overseas grabs were motivated by the prestige of over seas empires gripping the Euro-world at the time, and to secure overseas trade. Unless the US can be confined to east of the Mississippi, or better yet east of the Appalichians, there's no motivation to do so.
 
I'm thinking a PoD during the civil war, when France and Britain actively aid the South, and the North still wins, and in less time meaning less general disillusionment with war. America will try to expand overseas, it will go to war with Spain earlier, annex the Northern regions of Mexico and make the rest into a colonial puppet, and take control in central America. The Dominican Republic and Haiti will be taken. The rest of South America, however, will be defended by the British Navy. In Africa Liberia will be made a puppet, American colonizers will take some of the at that time unclaimed land.(Belgian Congo, French Congo, Gabon, German East Africa) Hawaii and Alaska will be taken as in OTL. During WW1, America will take advatage of British preoccupation with the war by taking over countries in South America. In order to gain American aid Britain will sell some of it's Western Hemisphere territories to America, such as Jamaica, Belize, and the Bahamas.
 
With a PoD anytime during or after the Constitutional Convention, how do we make the USA a major colonial power? By "major colonial power", I mean on the same scale as Britain or France, where the "mother country" holds a vast amount of overseas territory significantly larger than the OTL US colonial empire (1898-1945).

"America already was a colonial power because of the Native Americans" posts need not apply.

OK, let's have a think. Empires happen when a realm expands beyond its capacity to be easily administered. When this happens, governors (or whatever) are appointed to administer the far-off territory and are assigned armed forces to help them. If you have light-touch administration and the armed forces are sufficiently powerful, you can handle quite a lot of planet. Which is why the British Empire became so big so fast...

The difference between (say) British imperial administration in the 18th century and (say) US federal administration since the 19th century is that the British wanted this structure to be permanent (it reflected the class division in British society, itself a descendant of a feudal society) but the Americans wanted this structure to be temporary (the US-administered territories were eventually to be given self-government and a voice in the federal government).

The British method had to change in the 19th century after the American War of Independence, otherwise the Empire would have collapsed. to this end, the Dominion concept was invented (see also "Responsible Government") and the colonies became Dominions with limited self-government. This worked remarkably well, and I've argued that absent WW1 and WWII, it would have lasted to the present day. The American method didn't have to change and it has remained intact: occupy an area, democratise it, then either integrate it into the USA or let it become independent (cf Germany post WWII, or Iraq post Gulf War II).

So the POD you need is rather a change of mindset than a specific event: you need the US to be occupying an area populated with people it considers unworthy of democracy and who cannot rebel. That way the US remains administering it from above and the imperial stucture remains intact. So possible answers are:

  • Post WWII, appalled by the Holocaust, some variant of the Morgenthau plan is applied to Germany and it remains governed by a US military occupation committee: few Germans are involved in the administration thereof, and those that are are appointed by the US occupying forces, not elected by Germans.
  • With a greater loss of life in 9/11, Iraq is invaded and occupied, but no moves are made to construct a democratic government answerable to Iraqis: it remains governed by an appointed body.
 
Last edited:
It's not a coincidence the US really only got into the "colonial game" pretty much around the time that the western expansion was complete. There would have to be some strong reason for the US to look across the sea as opposed to across the plains.

The idea of manifest destiny would have to have been radically altered or made non-existent. Perhaps Britain somehow holding onto most of the land west of the mississippi?

I can imagine several situations that might drive the US to expand "overseas" rather than in North America. Such expansion would also be more akin to exploitative colonialism than settlement colonialism.

1. As you suggest, have "westward expansion" be blocked after US independence, although the nations standing in the way would most likely be either France or Spain, who alternatively controlled the vast Louisiana territory. This would require more committment on the part of France (or Spain) to hold onto the territory.

2. A less likely possibility is for Britain (or another European power) to actively sponsor and support the independent native nations in the Louisiana territory as proxies for their own presence. This could be interesting, but also seems fairly unlikely.

3. The westward expansion of Americans but not the United States. Given the possibile inevitability that Americans would want to settle west of the Mississippi, have more "Texases" develop in the loosely goverened Spanish/Mexican north or parts of Louisiana. Mormons, other disaffected Americans, "Americanized" Native Americans like the "Five Civilized Tribes" voluntarily move west and establish their own nations, perhaps supported by Britain or Spain as a buffer against US expansion.

4. Confederate victory in the American civil war. Depending on how this happens, it could have the effect of making the "west" less open to settlement because of conflicting claims. The US (and CS for that matter) might seek overseas expansion.

5. Super Liberias. This is somewhat related to 4. The USA (and CSA if independent) might seek to more aggressively "return blacks to Africa" and establish a number of colonies in west africa for that purpose. Some of these settlements might be set up as technically independent countries as was Liberia, but others could become explicit overseas colonies. Either way, geography, as well as the basic racism common to both North and South would prohibit these being treated as "territories" intended to eventual statehood. They would be more like exploitative colonies used for geopolitial influence, penal purposes, and exploitating African resources.
 
Top