Empire of North America involved in overseas colonialism

If we imagine a scenario where you get an independent Empire of North America like in Thande's Look To The West, I can imagine you have an alternate USA but with none of the anti-imperialist ideology. In this situation then, is it possible for them to get involved in overseas colonialism, after the frontier runs out in the 1890s, and come to fully believe in an imperialist mentality?

If so, I'm very interested in people's thoughts on how decolonisation would work. It would seem like they would be in a qualitatively different situation from the European colonial powers in OTL, in that they have a loyal manpower base five or six times larger. Would that mean that, unlike France, Britain and Portugal, they actually have enough troops and money to hang on to places that IOTL colonial powers had to give up?
 
See Spanish American War.

Essentially, we just stole the Philippines and a few other places from Spain. It turned out very very badly.

I would rather have seen the anti militarism/imperialism turned up a notch or three. The way it wound up is that Cuba is a perpetual sore and the Philippines were too far to hold on to. And to keep the Philippines in line resulted in the US Army going places they shouldn't have.
 

loughery111

Banned
See Spanish American War.

Essentially, we just stole the Philippines and a few other places from Spain. It turned out very very badly.

I would rather have seen the anti militarism/imperialism turned up a notch or three. The way it wound up is that Cuba is a perpetual sore and the Philippines were too far to hold on to. And to keep the Philippines in line resulted in the US Army going places they shouldn't have.

This isn't "what should happen?" but rather, "what would happen if ______?".

On the OP:

By the time this empire could get in on the game, they'd be a latecomer as was Germany. It's highly likely, however, that butterflies would have them playing games in the Western Hemisphere long before the frontier is filled. A US-analogue without anti-imperialist or isolationist sentiment might well wind up coming to blows with Spain or the post-revolution Latin American states far earlier than IOTL. Assuming a constant history until the 1840's, just for the purposes of an example, an America which isn't devoted to universal adult male suffrage likely won't have an ideological opposition to swallowing and suppressing Mexico; after all, those damned brown Catholics don't need to be given the vote or even statehood, right?

This could lead interesting places, all of which are probably quite scarily racist.
 
This isn't "what should happen?" but rather, "what would happen if ______?".

On the OP:

By the time this empire could get in on the game, they'd be a latecomer as was Germany. It's highly likely, however, that butterflies would have them playing games in the Western Hemisphere long before the frontier is filled. A US-analogue without anti-imperialist or isolationist sentiment might well wind up coming to blows with Spain or the post-revolution Latin American states far earlier than IOTL. Assuming a constant history until the 1840's, just for the purposes of an example, an America which isn't devoted to universal adult male suffrage likely won't have an ideological opposition to swallowing and suppressing Mexico; after all, those damned brown Catholics don't need to be given the vote or even statehood, right?

This could lead interesting places, all of which are probably quite scarily racist.

Ideological opposition maybe not, practical opposition quite likely. Why bother annexing Mexico outright and getting a poor, perpetually troubled sore for yourself when you could just plant some relative of the Emperor on the throne and administer it as a puppet state (ie., the Maximillian solution, only with Big Brother to the north to make sure Max stays Emperor)? All of the upsides, none of the downsides. I suspect that while the machinery of empire in the Western Hemisphere would be a lot more explicit here, it would still be rather indirect for the most part.
 
It seems likely that we'd get the sort of Caribbean Ameriwanks that are generally seen with the US annexing Sonora, Baja and the Republic of the Rio Grande, + Yucatan and Cuba while Mexico becomes the first in a chain of puppets/protectorates going down the peninsular.

Conflict vis a vis Britain could be more likely in this scenario.
 

loughery111

Banned
Ideological opposition maybe not, practical opposition quite likely. Why bother annexing Mexico outright and getting a poor, perpetually troubled sore for yourself when you could just plant some relative of the Emperor on the throne and administer it as a puppet state (ie., the Maximillian solution, only with Big Brother to the north to make sure Max stays Emperor)? All of the upsides, none of the downsides. I suspect that while the machinery of empire in the Western Hemisphere would be a lot more explicit here, it would still be rather indirect for the most part.

True enough, but the same thing in the end, essentially. Rule through local elites backed up by American guns and money in exchange for whatever the region has to offer, plus prestige. That's going to be the case whether it's direct territorial rule or rule though a puppet government.
 
True enough, but the same thing in the end, essentially. Rule through local elites backed up by American guns and money in exchange for whatever the region has to offer, plus prestige. That's going to be the case whether it's direct territorial rule or rule though a puppet government.

True, for the most part; I just don't think the US will ever actually try to impose direct rule. As you note, they subjects of such rule would be "damn dirty brown Catholics," so far as Americans are concerned. You'll basically see a series of what are much more explicitly "Banana republics". IOTL, Americans could at least pretend that local governments were just being influenced by the US and United Fruit; ITTL, the rulers will probably *be* American, even if they aren't actually ruling part *of* America.
 
If you look at colonial empires in our timeline, it usually involved initial trade with an area, then using the military to prevent restrictions to that trade and protect traders, then implementing indirect rule to control the economics more directly, and then eventually having to bring in direct rule to stop a revolution/intrusion from another power.

What I want to happen is for a monarchical America to get involved in this all around the world. Remember, there's already a population of about 40 million by 1870, so it should be able to compete on pretty equal terms with European powers. As it's not the USA but a state more along British lines, it has more flexibility in having a mixture of territories, protectorates and mandates in suiting colonial government for its needs.
 
The British colonies that became dominions did start engaging in their own colonial endevours pretty quickly IOTL.

NZ's exploration and settlement for example was largely driven from Sydney. Then Australia and NZ's occupation of various Pacific islands was driven by various agricultural interests in search of cheap labour.

NZ also had a lot of American origin sailors or traders visit before Britain formally took over the country and I would imagine the same commercial drivers would occur ATL, those being the whales, seals and trading with the Maori. I think an expansive *North America would quite likely be very interested in NZ, the South Pacific or Australia, assuming one of the other big powers had not already staked a claim, as per OTL
 
Top