American Colonization of Africa/Asia

Is there any possible way to have a well-developed american nation and have such a nation own a colony in Africa or Asia like the U.S.A. had with Liberia?
 
Liberia was'nt really a Colony, it was a state created by, and initially run-by Americans before becoming independent.


As for the topic if the Portuguese had stayed in Brazil then you might see Brazil end up taking over Angola, Mozambique and maybe Guinea (I assume that Portugal itself would keep those closest to it).

A larger, more powerful Mexico that either takes the place of, or is rival to the United States might decide to go after the remaining Spanish colonies in the Caribbean and Pacific.

A surviving CSA might try and get an African colony, either to get more slaves from, or to deport them to.

If you go far enough back you could create a powerful Amerindian state that becomes a world power and goes about creating colonies.
 
Liberia was'nt really a Colony...


Let's not confuse labels with reality. Liberia was a colony and was repeatedly referred to as such by people at the time of it's founding and for decades afterward.

The terms "colony" and "colonization" are very broad and cover a multitude of of historical and current situations. In 2010 places as diversely governed and administrated as Bermuda, Gibraltar, Guam, and Samoa are still considered colonies.

The easiest way for more American colonies to be founded in Africa is for a more concerted effort to be made to ship more slaves, former slaves, and descendants of slaves back to Africa. That idea was first put into practice before the Civil War and was still being seriously discussed in some circles; i.e. Huey Long, as late as the Great Depression.

Prior to the Scramble, European claims in Africa consisted of a relatively few, relatively small, and relatively scattered territories. There were plenty of regions in coastal western Africa still "free" and available for the taking. A large Liberia or a series of "Liberias" under American control could have been set up if the political will had been there.

Of course that will would have meant that the labor provided by the ex-slaves as enslaved-in-all-but-name-sharecroppers was no longer needed. An earlier boll weevil perhaps?
 
Let's not confuse labels with reality. Liberia was a colony and was repeatedly referred to as such by people at the time of it's founding and for decades afterward.

The terms "colony" and "colonization" are very broad and cover a multitude of of historical and current situations. In 2010 places as diversely governed and administrated as Bermuda, Gibraltar, Guam, and Samoa are still considered colonies.

While that may be, from the OP's question it seems more he's referring to Colonies in the manner in which most existed in the 19th century, either as unrepresented territories milked for their resources and economic benefit to the Home country, with little to no investment into them or areas that a country had decided to outright annex and incorporate into itself.

Liberia was neither of these, hence America never had African colonies in the above sense.
 
While that may be, from the OP's question it seems more he's referring to Colonies in the manner in which most existed in the 19th century, either as unrepresented territories milked for their resources and economic benefit to the Home country, with little to no investment into them or areas that a country had decided to outright annex and incorporate into itself.


From the OP's question, he's specifically including colonies like Liberia.

If you don't want to believe me, re-read the last six words in his original post:

... like the U.S.A. had with Liberia.

Why shouldn't we take the OP at his own words?

Liberia was neither of these, hence America never had African colonies in the above sense.

In your sense perhaps, but definitely in the sense of the OP's question because he mentions Liberia as a specific example.
 
From the OP's question, he's specifically including colonies like Liberia.

If you don't want to believe me, re-read the last six words in his original post:



Why shouldn't we take the OP at his own words?



In your sense perhaps, but definitely in the sense of the OP's question because he mentions Liberia as a specific example.

I think we're going by different ideas what he meant.

While you're going by what he said literally, I'm assuming he does'nt realize that Liberia was'nt a Colony in the sense I described.
 
The Viceroyalty of Rio de La Plata included the islands of Fernando Poo and Annobón in Equatorial Guinea. Suppose the country manages to organize early. It doesn't have to be the whole Viceroyalty. Maybe keeping Uruguay would be enough. Then they take control of the Patagonia in the 1830s/1840s. After that, they somehow become at war with Spain. Maybe the Argentinean government can intervene in the Chincha Islands War, and so after defeating the Spanish fleet, they invade the two islands and ask them as a war prize, claiming they are part of the country's legacy.

Well, that could be one possibility.
 
I think we're going by different ideas what he meant.


I'm assuming he meant what he wrote while you're presuming you know what he should have wrote instead.

While you're going by what he said literally...

Yes, that's how reading works. Or used to work before deconstructionism was developed.

... I'm assuming he does'nt realize that Liberia was'nt a Colony in the sense I described.

In other words the OP was too stupid to realize Liberia didn't fit the parameters of his question despite mentioning it by name and your version of his question is superior to the one he wrote?

That's a rather interesting interpretation and a rather troubling attitude.
 
If Liberia is not a colony by your ideas, then there still is the example of the Phillipenes.

Liberia did not have independance till 1847, 25 years after Liberia`s founding.
 
Top