AHC/WI: The US don't expand oversea?

What if with a POD around 1850 the USA doesn't expand oversea, thus not taking Alaska, Hawaii, other Pacific and Caribbean islands? By USA I mean the united states and whatever splinter country it might have(CSA and so on).

How weaker militarily would the USA be and how would they react to events outside North America?

Edit:BTW, any idea on how to reedit the thread´s title?
 
I'd think that if the USA didn't buy Alaska, the Brits would eventually take it, and there would just be a 'bigger Canada'. As for Hawaii... hard to say... the Brits and Japanese both coveted the place. Same for the Phillipines, with Germany interested as well. I'd think the USA wouldn't be all that weakened economically, and would still have great potential for military strength, but without having to protect far flung Pacific islands, the military would be smaller, especially the navy. PODs here would likely include no SAW, and without Hawaii and the Phillipines, the USA might never get dragged into the war with Japan in WW2 (if there still is one)...
 
They will expand into Mexico. There was the desire to expand. You have to go somewhere. If Canada (Britain) is too strong, then Mexico is looking nice.
 
Does Alaska count as overseas? Don't forget that not long before Alaska was purchased, there was serious discussion of trying to get British Columbia into the US (presumably they would have changed the name :p )

By the time of the Alaska purchase, it was fairly obvious that wasn't going to happen, but there were still some people talking about it.

Also, it should be fairly easy for Hawaii to remain a puppet rather than get annexed - does that count for the purposes of the thread?

Caribbean islands are also pretty trivial; just don't have the US buy them off Denmark. They were purchased during WWI because the US was concerned Germany might try to use them as a base for commerce raiding; it seems pretty easy to get rid of that purchase.

Pacific islands are a little harder because they were mostly taken originally for economic reasons (guano), but maybe have the US abandon guano islands rather than defend them once they're "spent".

Anyway, all of these "overseas" holdings are pretty much negligible. Hawaii brings cheap sugar and tropical fruit, and Alaska gold, oil, and other minerals, but I don't think that the lack would have a super huge effect (though butterflies, of course...)

No pacific islands might lead to a smaller, less active navy, I guess. Though that's a bit of chicken-and-egg
 
Does Alaska count as overseas? Don't forget that not long before Alaska was purchased, there was serious discussion of trying to get British Columbia into the US (presumably they would have changed the name :p )
I included it as oversea, if the US conquer it from land I guess you just circumvented that, lol.


Also, it should be fairly easy for Hawaii to remain a puppet rather than get annexed - does that count for the purposes of the thread?
I guess so, but why exactly would such a thing happen? Natives are overwhelmed by Asians and Whites, they can´t keep up a native government for long.

Caribbean islands are also pretty trivial; just don't have the US buy them off Denmark. They were purchased during WWI because the US was concerned Germany might try to use them as a base for commerce raiding; it seems pretty easy to get rid of that purchase.
Think about stuff like Panama though.

Pacific islands are a little harder because they were mostly taken originally for economic reasons (guano), but maybe have the US abandon guano islands rather than defend them once they're "spent".
Maybe European settle there before anyone else.

Anyway, all of these "overseas" holdings are pretty much negligible. Hawaii brings cheap sugar and tropical fruit, and Alaska gold, oil, and other minerals, but I don't think that the lack would have a super huge effect (though butterflies, of course...)

No pacific islands might lead to a smaller, less active navy, I guess. Though that's a bit of chicken-and-egg
But the navy is like the main backbone of modern US dominance, it´s kinda important.

They will expand into Mexico. There was the desire to expand. You have to go somewhere. If Canada (Britain) is too strong, then Mexico is looking nice.
But there is a big difference between conquering islands and conquering more land, also exactly how much land?
 
I included it as oversea, if the US conquer it from land I guess you just circumvented that, lol.

Can you share why you include it as overseas, though? It's not like it's being exploited colonially, or that it drives the need for a larger navy.

And if the US somehow got BC, it's not like they'd "conquer" Alaska. They'd still buy it, it would just be physically contiguous.

I guess so, but why exactly would such a thing happen? Natives are overwhelmed by Asians and Whites, they can´t keep up a native government for long.

I meant that the country would still get overthrown by American businessmen, just it would remain a nominally independent state instead of a US state.

State.

Think about stuff like Panama though.

So, no canal zone? I guess that's doable. Just keep it as sovereign Panamese territory, but force Panama to sign some horrible treaty allowing the US to station military forces there in perpetuity (or for 99 years or whatever)

Maybe European settle there before anyone else.

So, just, have some other colonial power claim them first? Could work, I guess, though it could also lead to a small war - the whole reason for the US Guano Islands Act is because a British company had monopolized the Peruvian guano trade.

But the navy is like the main backbone of modern US dominance, it´s kinda important.

I'm really not sure I'd agree with the first part of that sentence, but if you're trying to curb American military dominance, there's a bunch of easier ways than keeping the US from taking "overseas" holdings.
 
Can you share why you include it as overseas, though? It's not like it's being exploited colonially, or that it drives the need for a larger navy.
It´s has still no land route going into it, so it´s effectively an island.

And if the US somehow got BC, it's not like they'd "conquer" Alaska. They'd still buy it, it would just be physically contiguous.
But the definition of oversea has nothing to do with "conquest" or such. Alaska is an oversea territory for the US, or at least can be viewed as such.


[/QUOTE]
I meant that the country would still get overthrown by American businessmen, just it would remain a nominally independent state instead of a US state.

State.
[/QUOTE]
Then it kinda does count as being taken, you would have to avoid that.

So, no canal zone? I guess that's doable. Just keep it as sovereign Panamese territory, but force Panama to sign some horrible treaty allowing the US to station military forces there in perpetuity (or for 99 years or whatever)
Same as above, the thread isn´t about "WI the US took exactly the same land but called it differently?"

So, just, have some other colonial power claim them first? Could work, I guess, though it could also lead to a small war - the whole reason for the US Guano Islands Act is because a British company had monopolized the Peruvian guano trade.
If you remove Hawaii you kinda did half the job, I wonder what interesting(not UK) country could take it? Russia? Germany?

I'm really not sure I'd agree with the first part of that sentence, but if you're trying to curb American military dominance, there's a bunch of easier ways than keeping the US from taking "overseas" holdings.
Not sure how you could disagree, like every geopolitical source would agree with that.

Actually there is no easier method than not having the US have any direct interest outside North America or any way of project power, thus removing the possibility of the US involving themselves.
 
I'd think that if the USA didn't buy Alaska, the Brits would eventually take it

Probably not. There was too much of a rivalry between Britain and Russia. Alaska would probably just be ruled as an extension of Siberia until the gold rush comes along.
 
Probably not. There was too much of a rivalry between Britain and Russia. Alaska would probably just be ruled as an extension of Siberia until the gold rush comes along.
something that has been mentioned on here several times is that the Russians sold AK because the territory was already boxed in by British possessions, and if they didn't sell it, the UK was likely to seize it anyway (maybe as a result of the Crimean war?)...
 
Top