What made Alaska and Hawaii such a more plausible form of extra-continental expansion than Alaska and Hawaii? It's easy nowadays to talk about diseases being a deterrent, but how many people at the time were actually knowledgeable about them?
Alaska wasn't extra-continental, for one: it was non-contiguous. When it was purchased, Seward and other members of the US government believed that, with pressure, British Columbia could be transferred to the US or, better, it would vote to join the US. Even if it didn't, it would increase American dominance over the Pacific coast of the continent, it removed a European power in total from American affairs, it had a low indigenous population and settler population, and it was
really cheap. It really was ideal, as it furthered American strategic goals simultaneously with giving another piece of land to settle. It really was a natural fit.
Hawai'i, of course, served as the gateway to the Pacific for the US (and the US held no Pacific ports of any type until after its Annexation and the Spanish-American war). With the US pivoting to the Asian market in the end of the 19th century, acquiring Hawai'i was one more link in a chain securing better access, while also allowing defense of the mainland (you could say there is a three point defense line from Alaska to Hawai'i to Panama). At the very least, it secures US power projection into the Pacific.
The problem with the Kongo is that it does
not fit any strategic American goal as of OTL. In order to change that, you
have to make the US fit it into its strategic calculus. And, as I mentioned before, that would be, OTL:
- North American Dominance
- Caribbean/Central America
- Pacific
- South America
So to make the Congo basin rise so high, you must find a way to even put the Congo on the list at the time.
Luminous mentioned the Monroe doctrine. Surely such a restriction could be amended. For one thing, wasn't it much easier for someone on the east coast to get to Kongo, than to Alaska or Hawaii in the 19th century? Considering that's where most of the people were, their sphere of influence is what's most important, right?
You could butterfly it, or alter it somewhat, if the PoD is before the actual declaration, but remember that for the early part of its existence, the Monroe Doctrine was enforced and tacitly approved by the British, who didn't want any upstart European powers from taking land in the Americas, either. And it definitely was one that benefited the US, as it allowed the US to develop in relative peace and not worry about European powers unduly influencing or annexing territories it might be interested in.
Though, I did point out that the Monroe Doctrine could have its definition altered to encompass all the new worlds, and a good chunk of Africa is in the western hemisphere. You can play with it; you might even avert it, but I think that a Monroe Doctrine that would encompass sub-Saharan Africa is not tenable.
More to the central point, to sum up this thread, the strongest argument against an American Zaire, is the demographics of the existing population. Suppose someone like Booker T Washington, and other prominent African Americans advocated its becoming an American territory. What I would like to see at a later date is have The Nation of Islam colonize Kongo. If they are fortunate enough to become a state, then Malcolm X becomes president of The United States in the 1970's.
The strongest argument against it is creating a PoD that has them legitimately interested in the region. Demographics are icing on the cake.
It is
exactly for this reason that the US wouldn't let it become a state - they don't want to be the tail wagging the dog, in the end, and it diminishes the power of the mainland immensely (compare to Hawai'i/Alaska, as you pointed out earlier. They have very little influence over politics). If the US does end up in control of the region, it will be for nation building and resource extraction, and not in that order. Integration, outside of maintaining a naval base or two, would not be feasible there.
Also, with the ongoing war against the Islamic Afro-Arabs in the eastern part of the Congo (which would see an analogy to OTL Moros rebellion drawn early), any sort of Islamic revivalist movement will be treated very poorly. (Combine that with nearly a century of missionary work which would end up with large portions of the western part of the Congo more resembling the bible belt in religion than anything...)
Another desirable outcome is more stability within Europe. With the U.S more involved in the Eastern hemisphere, they help deter a winner take all mindset. In this timeline, Germany is particularly successful colonially. France and Great Britain are the other winners. The Soviet Union never happens. Russia is a more modest power in the 20th century. Lastly, the nuclear weapon is either created later or not at all.
Not necessarily at all - this is so far removed from the PoD that it is relatively inconsequential. It might even leader to heightened competition between the European powers to snap up the remaining pieces of Africa, as the choosiest part is taken. That isn't particularly guaranteed in any part, so to make such sweeping determinations seems far fetched.
For the record, my point about the black population of the USA in this time period it´s to demonstrate that USA have a large pool of people that could be "encouraged" to be colonist in the Congo, and a group that have little say so in the situation if this is not well explained is my fault, in all in all i with @
DValdron analisis of the USA sociopolitical situation
And many would rather choose to remain in the United States, as they did OTL. Africa tends to be a deathtrap for Americans, either way, and it would soon be shown that African Americans have lost whatever resistances they might have once had (ignoring that this is a completely different part of Africa they'd be going to...)
You'd have to provide incentives to move (a Homesteading Act of some sort) and actually have it bear fruit for
continued support. The Federal government isn't going to start rounding them up to send them to Africa (it doesn't care enough to) and the State governments don't have the legal authority to do so. There was no attempt to expel African-Americans OTL as, despite the racial animus, they still remained a crucial source of labor throughout the south.
And, in the end, after the economic devastation that the South went through with the Civil War, it isn't as if they can afford to expel such a large portion of their population.
Now, if there are some initial successes, you might see black immigration pick up in the early 1900s... but, really, it'd take plenty of time. And, well, this all supposes the US would be attempting to retain the Congo, which I doubt they would.
The number I've generally heard cited is 10 to 20 million.
Aye. I think Wiki goes from 2-15, depending on how it's defined (disease only? all deaths? etc). The only thing certain is that the number can't exactly be determined, but it is massive.
I think we need to go to much earlier POD for this to become a reality. If American westward expansion is averted or at least heavily curbed there might be more of an appeal for expanding into the Atlantic and acquiring colonies in Africa and the Caribbean. Let us say the war of 1812 is lost to a greater extent by the Americans, or they anger British public opinion enough for Britain to try to invest in blocking American expansion. The British Empire takes control of the Ohio and Mississippi possibly by capturing New Orleans early on, and an Indian confederacy led by Tecumseh is established as a buffer state. Tensions rise between the hawkish South and West, against New England which had never wanted the war in the first place as it went against their mercantile interests. A devastating civil War follows and at the end the New Englanders are victorious. By this point the British Empire has heavily invested in in securing and fortifying the Ohio and Mississippi rivers and is beginning to see profit from the fur trade and gun trade with the Indian protectorates. The United States is just now recovering and is looking for the opportunity to expand, since the post-war government is New England dominated and influenced by the ship building and other mercantile interests, overseas expansion is offered as a solution and as a way to avoid a border war with Britain. Emancipation may or may not have happened earlier than OTL, either way in the chaos of the civil war a lot of blacks free themselves from their masters and escape to the northern cities triggering a racial panic among northern whites. The African colonisation project that in OTL lead to Liberia is both larger and happens somewhat earlier. At some point either Haiti or one of the Spanish islands may be conquered. Trading outposts and small settlements are placed at the delta of the Congo, soon enough tribal wars and other challenges pressure the government to safe-guard the interests of traders and settlers. American rule soon establishes itself throughout the region of the Congo, and indeed by the end of the nineteenth century, the US has more territory in Africa than in North America.
First, I doubt the viability of native states, especially in the Ohio river, considering the sheer American population that already existed in the region, which would have to be expelled in order to make it a viable native state. Same with the trans-Mississippi; that is a lot of land that the British are outright annexing, and right at the time they really should be doing better things in Europe (considering this Napoleon fellow). The last thing they need is a resource drain from such major conquests.
Part of the issue with a devastating Civil War is that you'll be setting the US back decades in its own economic development - they will be far, far weaker. And, without the Ohio Valley, the South is going to be a lot stronger than the North - which is just limited to Pennsylvania and north, at best. And if the war results in a slave rebellion, the South is going to be blaming the entire thing on the North. But yeah, by the time you get to the 1850s, the US might be returning to the prosperity levels it had in 1812, which means it's barely ahead of its North American neighbors. It makes far more sense for them to compete against neighboring states, of which one would have a large American majority within it. Or, it might be competing with a larger Mexico for influence over the Caribbean. Being weaker makes the US have to expend much more effort, as a portion of its total capabilities, at home instead of away.
Haiti, conquered, after a slave rebellion? Doesn't strike me as likely. And, for the objective, why wouldn't settlement simply be expanded in Liberia if they are already there? And if settlement is the objective, it'd be better to look at territory far better suited for African-Americans (OTL Namibia is a far better choice). The Congo really
isn't suited for heavy settlement until the 20th century, and even then, the native population is far too large. My biggest problem here is that I could see the entire timeline up to this point working decently, until suddenly the US is in the Congo. The
why of their being in the Congo isn't addressed (Again, it is a poor choice if your goal is to create settlements).
This sounds more like a divided US scenario, with the South preparing to kick the North out of the union after stabbing the USA in the back at the end of a major war.
This may imply or move towards a much more segmented caste system in America.
I don't necessarily see the treatment of American blacks improving. The key is that American blacks in the south were a critical population necessary for cheap labour. They had to be oppressed in order to enforce that devalued labour that the Southern Economy depended upon. So you're not going to get rid of Jim Crow.
You may get African blacks occupying a much lower caste in the American empire.
The notion of an African-America occupation/colonial force, ruling over the Africans in Africa, and ... subordinated in America... You're going to get massive race relations problems. You're creating an intermediate class in a permanent vise.
I wouldn't call it a caste system - it's just an expansion of the OTL race relations in the US, with all groups jockeying for power against the lowest on the totem pole. It just so happens that African blacks, at least here, are beneath American blacks, who are below Chinese immigrants, who are below native Americans, etc etc. Otherwise, agreed with the overall point.
I really don't think that a multi-continental nation like this, where each half is roughly comparable, is sustainable in the long run, though.
Only other point would be that if the South isn't so damaged in TTL Civil War, then its economy would be healthy enough that it could allow better conditions. There is less of a need to artificially cap labor when the region in question is much better off than OTL. (By what I've read, the South had to take 60-100 years to return to prewar prosperity, adjusted for inflation, depending on the measure used). If the dependence on cheap labor is lessened, then the laws are (slightly) more easily changed, though the cultural animus would need to be overcome first.
-
Anywho, my personal thoughts (if anyone could give an opinion on the timeline of events listed above in my previous post, it'd be good) boil down to this:
Africa colonies are luxuries that the US didn't need OTL. Even with Liberia, it still is a Luxury to the purposes of the mainland. For US colonies of this scale, and not mere outposts on the ocean with ill-defined land boundaries, the US needs to be in a better position than OTL to accomplish its objective.
