American version of Algeria

[walmart]

Anyway you could end up with an American version of French Algeria. Highly population and poor region dominated by a small white American minority as an integrated part of the United States.

Could Mexico or the Philippines serve such a role

How would this effect Texas v. White

How would this impact the civil rights movement and American society

 

[Thanksforallthefish]

Mexico would fit this. Unlike some posters here I don't think it would be integrated in the way of making little states with equal representation. Most likely it will remain a colonial possesion like Puerto Rico. If statehood is granted I can see it coming with "cheats" like only allowing English speakers or protestants to be elected or even citizens. There is no way than the XIX Century US would allow Catholic, Spanish-speaking (and worse in their minds, brown and most probably anti-slavery) Mexicans to become a political bloc in Washington.

And also unlike Puerto Rico and Argelia for that matter Mexico would represent a HUGE portion of the US territory and population, I don't know the exact demographics but I think it would be more people in Mexico than in the US South?. And assuming it happens after the Mexican-American war you would be dealing with an nation with an emerging national identity suddenly annexed. There would be resistance from the start.

That would mean a more militarized US to keep the "peace" there which would lead to social tensions, similar to the slavery issue which also wouldn't go away and in fact it might even worsen if Mexicans take a harsh stance against it, which seems likely, though some would try to benefit I soubt there would be any sympathy to the planters who would most likely try to exploit Mexicans too.

Mexico would eventually be let go as some sort of "associated state" that would quickly chart it's own course because of it's population and size, or there would be a civil war that would break North America apart.

 

[Jan Olbracht]

Perhaps Nicaragua or Panama are annexed by USA and canal is the reason?

 

[Prince of Permsia]

Arguably Hawaii was this.

 

[Tanaka did nothing wrong]

(sorry for the bad English. I am writing this on my phone. Also, not sure if my ideas are right )

Perhaps a more closely integrated Philippines that is made a Federal territory shortly after it's taken from Spain. If the world goes down the same path it did IOTL, in the 1950s, many Philippinos would start to feel disgruntled with the existing state of affairs; being a territory would mean a somewhat subservient position inside the Union, as they wouldn't have political rights but would still have economic and other responsibilities towards the state. Add to that a little bit of racism inside the USA, because Philippinos moving to the continental USA could be seen as stealing the jobs and because they are Asian, meaning discrimination against people who are residents inside the USA from their birth and acts of violence against them. Also, add to that unfair practices such as the US government helping corporations through legislation and other means to keep the Philippines as a captive market and stifle potential domestic competition there (basically an analogue to the current situation in Puerto Rico).

All these could lead to widespread discontent inside the Philippines and a burgeoning independence movement in the islands. Perhaps, if anti-communist paranoia in the USA is more severe and lasts longer, the US government would crack down to peaceful pro-independence organisations and groups for being "anti - American", something that could lead to radicalisation and the beginning of a war of independence in the area.

If this happens, the US government would be forced to fight. With the French fighting communist insurgents in Indochina and the British in a similar position in Malaysia, the more hardline anticommunists in the USA would start screaming about the "explosion effect" that would lead to Asia going Red and the conspiracy hatched in Moscow to throw the West out of the area (that must be why all these conflicts happen at the same time after all); many business interests that would have invested heavily in the Philippines would also press for decisive action to end this "emergency" ; and most important of all, many, if not most, Americans would consider the Philippines an integral part of the USA and thus the war there would be viewed more as secession (and therefore, a bit like Civil War 2.0). All these would mean that the USA would be mired in a conflict to keep what many would consider not a random Asian country, but an area as American as Puerto Rico or Hawaii (at least).

 

[Byzantion]

Anyway you could end up with an American version of French Algeria. Highly population and poor region dominated by a small white American minority as an integrated part of the United States.

Could Mexico or the Philippines serve such a role

How would this effect Texas v. White

How would this impact the civil rights movement and American society

Cuba.

 

[walmart]

Cuba.

Too small

Perhaps, if anti-communist paranoia in the USA is more severe and lasts longer, the US government would crack down to peaceful pro-independence organisations and groups for being "anti - American", something that could lead to radicalisation and the beginning of a war of independence in the area.

Could this led to a retardation of the civil rights movement out of fear of setting precedent for the Philippines ?

If this happens, the US government would be forced to fight.

How successfully would an insurgency be given the strength of the US navy ?

That would mean a more militarized US to keep the "peace" there which would lead to social tensions, similar to the slavery issue which also wouldn't go away and in fact it might even worsen if Mexicans take a harsh stance against it, which seems likely, though some would try to benefit

Would the need to keep Mexico down and a stronger American military prevent the American Civil war ?

 

[galileo-034]

A bit far away, but why not Libya? A little memory of the Barbary Wars in the early 1800s.

 

[VaultJumper]

A bit far away, but why not Libya? A little memory of the Barbary Wars in the early 1800s.

would Europe allow that?

 

[Mooze17]

would Europe allow that?

Nah, it wouldn’t, and an American Libya could easily be cut off by whoever controls Gibraltar, so there wouldn’t be much America could do about it.

 

[Soup]

I think the biggest issue here is that proportionally Algeria was much closer to France than basically any Latin American country could be to the USA until the modern era. My initial thought was Venezuela, which would be similarly distant-yet-close but it had just 5 million people in 1950. I think that the Philippines is the best bet for this, but it does lack the historical embeddedness that French Algeria had.

 

[Coley]

Somehow Walker prevails in Nicaragua and with a more belligerent USA eventually taking everything from the Mexican to Colombian border, it's not pretty. The worst of robber barons set up shop there. Being so close, there'd be blowback, with central American communities in USA from early 20th so every heavy handed event in central America gets a response up north.

 

[MegaPrem]

Anyway you could end up with an American version of French Algeria. Highly population and poor region dominated by a small white American minority as an integrated part of the United States.

Could Mexico or the Philippines serve such a role

How would this effect Texas v. White

How would this impact the civil rights movement and American society

Well whites typically settled in areas ideal for settlement. Transvaal had the Highveld, Algeria had the fertile coast of the Maghreb, British Kenya had the central highlands, etc. The Philippines being a tropical area with a disease risk for white settlers would not be ideal, however an area in Mexico could work.

 

[Daylight Savings]

Arguably Hawaii was this.

Seconded. The US did exactly this. The ultimate evolution was full integration which saw the ruling white minority largely lose power locally, while maintaining control from afar due to the greater population of the homeland.

 

[Leonidas]

Mexico would fit this. Unlike some posters here I don't think it would be integrated in the way of making little states with equal representation. Most likely it will remain a colonial possesion like Puerto Rico. If statehood is granted I can see it coming with "cheats" like only allowing English speakers or protestants to be elected or even citizens. There is no way than the XIX Century US would allow Catholic, Spanish-speaking (and worse in their minds, brown and most probably anti-slavery) Mexicans to become a political bloc in Washington.

And also unlike Puerto Rico and Argelia for that matter Mexico would represent a HUGE portion of the US territory and population, I don't know the exact demographics but I think it would be more people in Mexico than in the US South?. And assuming it happens after the Mexican-American war you would be dealing with an nation with an emerging national identity suddenly annexed. There would be resistance from the start.

That would mean a more militarized US to keep the "peace" there which would lead to social tensions, similar to the slavery issue which also wouldn't go away and in fact it might even worsen if Mexicans take a harsh stance against it, which seems likely, though some would try to benefit I soubt there would be any sympathy to the planters who would most likely try to exploit Mexicans too.

Mexico would eventually be let go as some sort of "associated state" that would quickly chart it's own course because of it's population and size, or there would be a civil war that would break North America apart.

To add to this, it's important to note that Mexico is also a racially diverse country, and if the white criollo elites could be brought on board with the annexation and given incentives to anglicize, the mestizo and indio majority of the Mexican population would effectively find themselves under the same bosses with a different flag being flown overhead. It would be a politically complicated issue, because even then there would still be strong support for Catholicism from all sectors of the population, so the WASPs in Washington who greenlit the annexation would have to get a lot more comfortable with "popery" if they want to hold on to their new conquest at all.

 

[Tanaka did nothing wrong]

Could this led to a retardation of the civil rights movement out of fear of setting precedent for the Philippines

Well, I am not sure; in fact, it might have also have the opposite result. Because by the late 1950s you would have the USA embroiled in a war on (at least typically) domestic soil. This would have set a precedent of a very large minority living in USA territory, whose members don't have political rights although they have the same responsibilities with full American citizens and who are subjected to discrimination and other unfair practices taking up arms against the government.

Now, when this uprising breaks out, there would be increased racial tensions inside the country, as Philippinos would be attacked by various "reputable" groups due to the "sedition". But it wouldn't take long for this situation to become worse, as groups such as the Klan could try to take advantage of this upheaval to become more aggressive against African-Americans, claiming that they were "the next Philippinos".

For its part, the US government would probably manage to draw the conclusion that the Philippines War had set a dangerous precedent, as it could give ideas to the various minorities if there wasn't significant change on the way they were treated. If the war also dragged on, this danger would become even greater. Thus, the US government might decide to push for civil rights legislation in the late 1950s, in order to prevent the threat from materialising.

But this itself would open a whole new can of worms, as the various segregationists would scream bloody murder and it might lead to the very situation the government wanted to avoid at all costs, with the South turning to something like a war - zone involving the Federal government on the one hand, the more militant African-American organisations on the other and Klansmen and other similar groups fighting against both. Add to the mix a USSR trying (or seeming to try) to take advantage of the US domestic distractions, things like all of Vietnam going communist after the departure of the French etc and the more rabid anticommunists in the USA would start claiming that the civil rights movement was indeed a communist plot to subvert the USA and this time, due to the ITTL situation ((much worse than OTL) domestic unrest, a protracted war in Asia sapping resources, the USSR adopting a more aggressive foreign policy etc.) could lead to these ideas gaining at least more traction than OTL, something that could result in some VERY GOOD THINGS.

Thus, a US government would have reasons to make such a decision and not make it.

(just my views; not sure if they are correct)

 

[Wendell]

Spanish Sahara is seized in the war with Spain?

Liberia becomes a formal colony?

 

[Legofan4]

I don't really see the Philippines having much success in uprising if they are made into a full part of the U.S. Especially because as a set of islands it is much harder to smuggle in arms. The U.S. early on decided not to integrate the Philippines with the rest so almost all of the history of the Philippines after being taken from Spain would be different if they made a different choice so early.

 

[Anneessens]

Highly population and poor region dominated by a small white American minority as an integrated part of the United States.

Probably not what you're thinking of, but in a certain sense South Carolina and Mississippi would've fitted that description in the 19th Century - with the caveat that whites were a much larger minority in those states than Europeans in Algeria.