America Overseas

Basically, everything the USA acquired before 1898 became a state, it was how we operated. There may be some small island that I am forgetting, but the USA model was to acquire (buy, conquer) and administer as a territory. Non-white minorities were not allowed power (Native Americans, Slaves, etc). US would encourage settlement by the giving away of free land (often moving off natives first) and infrastructure such as railroads. Once their are enough whites to pay for a government (25K to 100K), it would petition Congress and become a state.

That only works for territories that either have small enough populations to outnumber or are contiguous and thus the native populations can easily be moved.

Hell, the only reason Alaska and Hawai'i are'nt still territories is because the government realized they could/would be used by the Soviets as legitimate propoganda.


If Borneo was admitted, it would likely follow the same pattern. Direct rule by the US Federal government, displacement of natives, and moving in white settlers.

North Borneo had a population of some 285,000 in 1936. In 1865, the population would have been much smaller and could have been immigrated into submission when referring to a white majority. There'd probably be a considerable amount of Chinese, Japanese, and other sorts of Asian peoples moving in, but only as a minority, even if a significantly sized one.

With a more "cooperative" white population in north Borneo, I could see the US controlling the Philippines more easily. It may even "Americanize" certain regions (significant ports) to the point where it can keep them while "liberating" the Philippines later.

Borneo was on the other side of the Ocean and more importantly was simply not somewhere that could be settled i large numbers due to its position in the Tropics and the diseases that come with it.
 
Last edited:
Hell, the only reason Alaska and Hawai'i are'nt still territories is because the government realized they could/could be used by the Soviets as legitimate propoganda.

I would consider that would be news to anybody living in Alaska or Hawaii. I guess representation in the Federal Government really isn't worth that much and they apparently met the population requirement. Seems that the Soviets could have made just as well as a case against the US by mentioning Puerto Rico, Guam and American Samoa.
 

WeisSaul

Banned
Borneo was on the other side of the Ocean and more importantly was simply not somewhere that could be settled i large numbers due to its position in the Tropics and the diseases that come with it.[/QUOTE]

Wasn't the US east coast considered a pretty uninhabitable place in the 17th century?
 
Wasn't the US east coast considered a pretty uninhabitable place in the 17th century?

Not really, no, I mean maybe the inland, but that was because of the Amerindians living their, not because of disease or environment, though the South was generally less comfortable to live, hence why even today the South-East states (South of Virginia) have low populations

If the East Coast was like North Borneo Europeans and European descended people would at the very best only be half the population by now.
 
Last edited:
I was thinking that Americans would feel differently about taking over Asian territory than about their desire to conquer the continent they're already on. But now that I think about it, they probably would prefer to conquer places over letting European powers keep it. There is, however, the issue of the price of sending Americans to these places, and the issue of unfamiliar diseases. What would they believe they had to gain from owning northern Borneo, to justify this? Orangutan furs? If this was later on, I could imagine they'd like to grow rubber trees for tires, or tropical fruits that could be shipped in refrigerated ships. However, even these only make sense if they didn't have access to more nearby places for these things. Perhaps they'd use Borneo for trading with Asian countries? I don't know.
 
I would consider that would be news to anybody living in Alaska or Hawaii. I guess representation in the Federal Government really isn't worth that much and they apparently met the population requirement. Seems that the Soviets could have made just as well as a case against the US by mentioning Puerto Rico, Guam and American Samoa.

They most likely did use them as propaganda.

Hawai'i met the population requirement way before it was a state, I mean it had 154,000 people in 1900 alone, and Wyoming was admitted with only 62,000. Basically the only reason it did'nt become one earlier was racism, and I have no doubts that they would have either waited until it was majority white or a 'Statehood or Independence' movement grew so large as to be a legitimate threat to it remaining part of the country.

As for Alaska their was little real impetus to make it a state as, while it did have more than the established requirement to become one, it still had a small population at the time, and they could have waited until the 80's (when it reached over 400,000) to make it a state and would likely have had few problems.
 
They most likely did use them as propaganda.

Hawai'i met the population requirement way before it was a state, I mean it had 154,000 people in 1900 alone, and Wyoming was admitted with only 62,000. Basically the only reason it did'nt become one earlier was racism, and I have no doubts that they would have either waited until it was majority white or a 'Statehood or Independence' movement grew so large as to be a legitimate threat to it remaining part of the country.


"Most likely did use them as propaganda"? Do you have any facts that they did.

When the vote for statehood came up there were only two choices: Statehood or Territory. The US ignored UN resolutions regarding decolonization.
 
Top