Giving America a Reason to be more Expansionist/Imperialistic

Okay, we get threads all the time on this board that ask the same basic questions: "What if America conquered all of the Western Hemisphere", or "What if the US participated in the Scramble for Africa", or "AH Challenge: Give America territory in Europe, or the Middle East, or up my ass...".
Well, as most experienced AH.commers know, America had many reasons that either, A) they couldn't expand more than in OTL, or B) they didn't want to. Let's look at the reasons.

1. Canada- unless all of British North America secedes during the Revolution, chances of conquering of annexing all parts of what's today Canada are small. History would have to take a decidedly different course. I mean, in OTL we were lucky enough to get Washington state.

2. Mexico- yes, we could've annexed all of Mexico if we wanted to, but the thing is, we didn't. Throughout most of America's history, the US have been more or less openly racist. Incorporating all those dirty brown-skinned, Catholic, Spanish-speakers would be just horrible. Notice the areas we actually annexed was largely uninhabited.

3. With regards to the two previous subjects, throwing British intervention away from the Canada issue and residual racism from the Mexican one, pre-1865 taking too much territory to the north or south would throw off the delicate balance of free-state/slave-state. Notice why Texas was only admitted as one state, despite it's size. I mean, there was considerable opposition to the Mexican-American War from the north. Now imagine if the north had included the Maritimes, Quebec, and the Ottowa penisula. The resistance would be multiplied.

4. After the Civil War, we still have problems. As the years pass, we have less and less reason to want to declare war on Britain (except for the years immediately after the war, too be fair), we were just doing too much trade with them. On Mexico, why would we want to annex the whole of the country? Racism was still at play, and even throwing that aside, do you honestly not see that making Britain/France angry. With the Carribean, well I can see Cuba and the whole of the island of Hispaniola being annexed without a huge stray from real history, but that's about it.

5. Now grabbing territories all over the world... just no. Not gonna happen. Yes, I know, the Phillipines were annexed, but they were never intended for statehood. We just held them long enough to "civilize and democratize" them. In fact, they probably would have gained independence earlier if it wasn't for Japanese aggression. And don't even bring up Liberia. It's entire reason for existence was to get blacks OUT of the US. Incorporating it into the Union would defeat the purpose!

Okay, now that we've gone over all this, what WOULD make America more expansionist? What social, cultural, political, whatever changes at one point would make America willing to annex the Western Hempisphere, participate in the Scramble for Africa, obtain territories in Europe, the Middle East, up my ass, etc? Any PODs at any point in history are acceptable. And yes, DoD would be a great example of this, but let's think of original ideas. Any takers?
 
You'd have to separate the concepts of Manifest Destiny and Slavery. The North might appreciate the expansions if it was to expand Republicanism across the continent and wasn't to expand slavery. It might cut back on some of the racist concepts in American society as well.
 
I disagree a little on Canada - I think a little more effort in the Sullivan campaign and aiding Clark a little more out West would have netted Upper Canada.

The reason why the US was granted the Ohio region was because we captured some lightly defended forts in Indiana and Illinois. How many more men, energy was needed to capture Ft. Detroit and Ft. Niagarra? I do not know what the British and real Indian troop strength was but it could not have been like they garrisoned Lower Cnaada. If George Rogers Clark could capture the Ohio region with a few hundred men, would not a few hundred more capture what turned into Upper Canada?

Clark himself tried for Ft Detroit but it was always a bit out of reach for him because of limited resources and militia that was not committed.

What if the Sullivan campaign had the goal of capturing Ft. Niagarra just not in harrassing the Indian presence of western NY in 1779 and then aid Clark in capturing Ft. Detroit, could that have realistically given the US, the peninsula of Ontario at the Parris peace table? This would have been before the British turned South, the main Continental force would still be with Washington to counter British moves in the NY/NJ/PA/Conn area.

Just think of the butterflies if the US captured Ft Detroit and Ft Niagarra in 1779.
 
I disagree a little on Canada - I think a little more effort in the Sullivan campaign and aiding Clark a little more out West would have netted Upper Canada.

The reason why the US was granted the Ohio region was because we captured some lightly defended forts in Indiana and Illinois. How many more men, energy was needed to capture Ft. Detroit and Ft. Niagarra? I do not know what the British and real Indian troop strength was but it could not have been like they garrisoned Lower Cnaada. If George Rogers Clark could capture the Ohio region with a few hundred men, would not a few hundred more capture what turned into Upper Canada?

Clark himself tried for Ft Detroit but it was always a bit out of reach for him because of limited resources and militia that was not committed.

What if the Sullivan campaign had the goal of capturing Ft. Niagarra just not in harrassing the Indian presence of western NY in 1779 and then aid Clark in capturing Ft. Detroit, could that have realistically given the US, the peninsula of Ontario at the Parris peace table? This would have been before the British turned South, the main Continental force would still be with Washington to counter British moves in the NY/NJ/PA/Conn area.

Just think of the butterflies if the US captured Ft Detroit and Ft Niagarra in 1779.
Okay, we grab the Ottawa peninsula, which will probably be admitted as a state later on. Fair enough.
But that's another free state, y'know.
 
Counter the Ottawa Penin with another slave state (ie Oklahoma, or Kansas) or do not counter it with another slave state and the ACW occurs 4 to 8 years earlier as the balance of admitting free, slave, free to balance power in the Senate erodes sooner.

With this Peninsula, the Indian menance by the British would diminish, there would be no squabble over the Brits still NW occupying forts on US soil. There would still be impressment but there would be a better relation between the US and the Brits and the impressment issue would be worked out without a war of 1812.

Also, I think that with the Ottawa Peninsula, there is a greater likelihood that the US might obtain the entire Red River region in 1819 via a purchase. I think that the Oregon territory goes down like OTL, because the Brits want a Pacific Port, they are willing to let up some of the land in the middle (Man and Sask) for some money and continued trapping rights until the area is settled, but want to hold onto BC and Alb. The Red River purchase may be a 50/50, because I do not think that the Brits ever sold land under any condition.

Just think, the Industrial output of the US with another state like Michigan. A larger rust belt today. Canadian Football would take a hit. The Buffalo Bills or some other team (St Louis) may be in Toronto.
 
Okay, we grab the Ottawa peninsula, which will probably be admitted as a state later on. Fair enough.
But that's another free state, y'know.
:confused:Ottawa Peninsula:confused: do you mean OTL's southern Ontario?

I've never heard it called THAT before, and it's a bit of a wierd name for it.
 
You'd have to separate the concepts of Manifest Destiny and Slavery. The North might appreciate the expansions if it was to expand Republicanism across the continent and wasn't to expand slavery. It might cut back on some of the racist concepts in American society as well.

Good Point
Lets say instead of compromising on Slavery, we fight a civil war much earlier. This is probably the typical thing that you are talking about. For instance, a couple of things happen. 1. Ben Franklin's anti-slavery petition in 1792(?) is taken seriously in the North and gains real political traction. 2. Washington weighs in and sort of endorses Hamilton in 1797 and Jefferson gets into the election of 1798. 3. Hamilton wins by a narrow margin possibly getting the election thrown into the House and waits until Washington dies in 1799 and refuses to negotiate on slavery and outlaws the practice through Executive Order. I am not sure of the plausibilty considering the amount of anger Hamilton generated. I figure the late 1790s to early 1800s no later than Trafalgar in 1805 is good timing because England is otherwise occupied with what is going on in France and would not be inclined to intervene and English naval supremacy is not assured. With a Northern Victory which I believe is certainly possible you would see the old Southern system eradicated much early and the racist element of our culture pushed to the way side. And Hamiltonian Imperialism would become the norm.
 
Good Point
Lets say instead of compromising on Slavery, we fight a civil war much earlier. This is probably the typical thing that you are talking about. For instance, a couple of things happen. 1. Ben Franklin's anti-slavery petition in 1792(?) is taken seriously in the North and gains real political traction. 2. Washington weighs in and sort of endorses Hamilton in 1797 and Jefferson gets into the election of 1798. 3. Hamilton wins by a narrow margin possibly getting the election thrown into the House and waits until Washington dies in 1799 and refuses to negotiate on slavery and outlaws the practice through Executive Order. I am not sure of the plausibilty considering the amount of anger Hamilton generated. I figure the late 1790s to early 1800s no later than Trafalgar in 1805 is good timing because England is otherwise occupied with what is going on in France and would not be inclined to intervene and English naval supremacy is not assured. With a Northern Victory which I believe is certainly possible you would see the old Southern system eradicated much early and the racist element of our culture pushed to the way side. And Hamiltonian Imperialism would become the norm.

I'm not sure that the Hamiltonians would have been the best expansionists, although you never know. They did prefer to emulate the British, so perhaps. I do think you'd need Jefferson in office though, he did have the Louisiana Purchase, after all, and set the precedent for great expansions. Maybe if Jackson had been anti-slavery. He had the popularity and the ability to take on the states, congress, and the mucky mucks who benefited from the institution.
 
Good Point
Lets say instead of compromising on Slavery, we fight a civil war much earlier. This is probably the typical thing that you are talking about. For instance, a couple of things happen. 1. Ben Franklin's anti-slavery petition in 1792(?) is taken seriously in the North and gains real political traction. 2. Washington weighs in and sort of endorses Hamilton in 1797 and Jefferson gets into the election of 1798. 3. Hamilton wins by a narrow margin possibly getting the election thrown into the House and waits until Washington dies in 1799 and refuses to negotiate on slavery and outlaws the practice through Executive Order. I am not sure of the plausibilty considering the amount of anger Hamilton generated. I figure the late 1790s to early 1800s no later than Trafalgar in 1805 is good timing because England is otherwise occupied with what is going on in France and would not be inclined to intervene and English naval supremacy is not assured. With a Northern Victory which I believe is certainly possible you would see the old Southern system eradicated much early and the racist element of our culture pushed to the way side. And Hamiltonian Imperialism would become the norm.
My biggest problem with this scenario is the idea that the executive order would be able to do that. In that time period it was the legislative branch that held all the power, the president was pretty much supposed to be "head clerk" as my history teacher described it. Executive orders were, at the time, expected to be ways for the president to keep control of the little things that happened while congress was not in session. If Hamilton thinks that he can use one to outlaw slavery without even talking to congress there's going to be an impeachment trial, plain and simple. Although if enough people back Hamilton you could get an actual civil war instead of attempted secession: Congressional forces vs. Presidential forces, one in favor of slavery(or at least not outright outlawing it right now) and the other abolitionist but both trying to take full control of the country not secede from it.

Another option is having Chief White Eye not be assassinated, so his deal about making Ohio a state earlier goes through. While Ohio is flooded with whites in a generation or two, it still gives America experience having Natives in power and seen as legal equals which should lessen the racist outlook and(if you really want to change things up) might give the US a "protect natives from Europe" reason for expansion. That last part's farfetched though.
 
1777
Vermont Republic formed

1779
Clark takes Ontario [Southern peninsula half]

1780
New York & New Hampshire reach Compromise, both drop Claims to Vermont and to Western Lands.
Vermont joins Continental Congress and ratifies AoC.

1783
Treaty of Paris.
US gains Ontario in Treaty, Great Britain agrees [OTL] to Vacate NW Territory.
As the US controls Ontario, [Lakes Erie and Ontario] GB doen't have a good route to support the NW Indians, and dosen't Varicate over withdrawing, Allowing faster American Settlement.

1785
Presence of one more Northern state allows both NW [and lesser known] SW Ordinances to be passed with the Slave Ban provision.

1787
Constitution Convention.
Vermont sides with New York in Compromise of Slave representation Forcing the Slave States to accept Slaves count as 1/2 free man.
Vermont's support also allows provision to ban slave trade as of 1799.

1791
Ontario becomes 15th State [Vermont was 14th]

1803
Louisiana Purchase, I Political Wrangling, Anti Slave provision in SW Ordinance is repealed in Exchange on a Ban on all Slaves In Louisiana Purchase.

The Cotton Gin is only a few years old and not completely accepted.
There is Plenty of Room still East of the Mississippi,
Lots of People still believe slavery is about to die out.

1826
Michigan Applies for Statehood [control of Ontario allowed faster movement across Lake Huron] However there is no Slave State to pair it with.

1828
David Crockett elected President, a Man of [private] Abolitionism Sentiments.

1829
Crockett Vetoes a Bill to Allow Slavery in Louisiana territory.

1830
Crockett again Vetoes a Louisiana Slavery Bill. He also Vetoes a bill Strengthening the Fugitive slave laws.

1831 - 1835
American Civil War.
Michigan, Several other States enter Union.

1836
Passage 13th Amendment, Banning Involuntary Servitude.
Texas Independence.

1838
President Jackson/Congress accepts Texas request for annexation.

1839 - 1841
Mexican American War, s
Service by Veterans from both sides help heal wounds left over from ACW.

1841
Treaty of Mexico City.
US gains OTL Mexican Cession, California [No Gold Rush Yet], Second teir Mexician states [C,C,S, & Baja]
This whole territory is mostly empty, but the US does pick up some Spanish Speakers to go with it's second Class Blacks.

1844 ->
Irish Potato Famime,
A Million Dead a Million Fled. With no Slavery in the South a lot more Irish go South, Into Texas and the SW, where they mix with the Catholic Mexicans.

1852
Ostend Manifesto
Under the Cry of Freeing the Cuban Slaves, the US strong arms Spain into Selling Cuba/Porto Rico.

1855
54-40 or Fight
War with Britain. US Invades Canada, Britain Blockades US, War ends. [TTL's War of 1812]

1856
Treaty of Paris
US gains British Columbia. Rest returned to status Quo.
Begins first Major Naval Buildup.

1850's
German Immigration that started with the potato Famines in the 1840's continues and Accelerates. Most South Germans/Austrians end up in SW, Forming what will be know as the Catholic Belt.

1856
Crimean War
President Steward buys Alaska.

1866
US Annexes Santo Domingo.
 
You'd have to separate the concepts of Manifest Destiny and Slavery. The North might appreciate the expansions if it was to expand Republicanism across the continent and wasn't to expand slavery. It might cut back on some of the racist concepts in American society as well.
Actually, what about the reverse? Expansionistic slave state.
Good Point
Lets say instead of compromising on Slavery, we fight a civil war much earlier. This is probably the typical thing that you are talking about. For instance, a couple of things happen. 1. Ben Franklin's anti-slavery petition in 1792(?) is taken seriously in the North and gains real political traction. 2. Washington weighs in and sort of endorses Hamilton in 1797 and Jefferson gets into the election of 1798. 3. Hamilton wins by a narrow margin possibly getting the election thrown into the House and waits until Washington dies in 1799 and refuses to negotiate on slavery and outlaws the practice through Executive Order. I am not sure of the plausibilty considering the amount of anger Hamilton generated. I figure the late 1790s to early 1800s no later than Trafalgar in 1805 is good timing because England is otherwise occupied with what is going on in France and would not be inclined to intervene and English naval supremacy is not assured. With a Northern Victory which I believe is certainly possible you would see the old Southern system eradicated much early and the racist element of our culture pushed to the way side. And Hamiltonian Imperialism would become the norm.
Stay with me here, because this is a bit of an oddball POD to go with the above "expansionistic slavery" idea.

Say Jefferson dies early in 1806 or whatever, leading to a massive New England/Rest of the US rift that ends with New England breaking away from the US. The *United States, now being completely dominated by the slave states, gradually starts expanding southwards, conquering Mexico and eventually annexing territories in South America. By 1930 or so, this *US is said to stretch "from Pole to Shining Pole" or somesuch.


It's not too big of a stretch, is it? I mean, sure, I wouldn't expect a really fleshed-out TL to come out of it or anything like that, but it's a nice enough concept.
 

Thande

Donor
Actually, what about the reverse? Expansionistic slave state.

Stay with me here, because this is a bit of an oddball POD to go with the above "expansionistic slavery" idea.

Say Jefferson dies early in 1806 or whatever, leading to a massive New England/Rest of the US rift that ends with New England breaking away from the US. The *United States, now being completely dominated by the slave states, gradually starts expanding southwards, conquering Mexico and eventually annexing territories in South America. By 1930 or so, this *US is said to stretch "from Pole to Shining Pole" or somesuch.


It's not too big of a stretch, is it? I mean, sure, I wouldn't expect a really fleshed-out TL to come out of it or anything like that, but it's a nice enough concept.

Wow. I don't think I've ever seen the sarcasm-based analogue of a nuclear first strike before :D
 

Skokie

Banned
Any TL that involves the US splitting into two or more states. They'll fight each other to the death in the scramble for the West. When they're done with that, and after a few years of industrialization, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, New England, etc. might find it "necessary" to acquire colonies to serve as markets for their goods and as a source of raw material and cheap labor.
 

Eurofed

Banned
My "United States of the Americas and Oceania" TL is a major exploration of this topic. Britain passes an oppressive Quebec Act, Canada joins the American Revolution, Iroquois tribes side with the Patriots, Washington gets a third term, Austria, Prussia, and Naples defeat Britain, Russia, and returned Napoleon (who however manages to defeat the UK at Waterloo) in a three-way war when the Congress of Vienna breaks down.

Consequences: 40-years-long Federalist dominance (no Alien & Sedition Laws) which ensures major American investment in military preparedness and internal development (which accelerates the settlement of the North and West). The USA win major victories in the French-American War and the British-American War (Britain is also getting a kicking in Europe), conquering western Canada, Jamaica, Santo Domingo, Louisiana, the Guyanas, and French Caribbean. As a consequence, Manifest Destiny becomes an integral part of American patriotism and the US develop an integrationist attitude towards "civilized" Indians. Threfore, they intervene in the Wars of Independence of South America and assimilate Gran Colombia and Peru-Bolivia after a protectorate stage. Southern attempts to balance the growing dominance of free states with imperialist expansion later triggers the Mexican-American War, where American annexes northern Mexico and turns the rest into a protectorate. Southern filibustering later nets Central America, the South eventually realizes that imperialism is not enough to balance the growing dominance of the North and secedes. The ACW and radical Reconstruction uproot segregation and racism, allowing full social integration of Blacks, Indians, and Asiatic immigrants, and the annexation of southern Mexico.

In the meanwhile, Britain rebuilds a colonial empire in Argentina, Chile, Uruguay and southern Brazil. This ensures an enduring imperial antagonism with the USA, which later expands to the Pacific. Prussia and Naples unify Greater Germany and Greater Italy, Russia conquers the Balkans, the Habsburg Empire collapses. In the Alt-WWI America defeats Britain, France, Spain, Turkey, Japan, and Brazil with the help of Germany, Russia, and Italy, conquers British South America, Australia, New Zealand, Cuba, Philippines, Puerto Rico. Brazil and South Africa are assimilated then or soon thereafter after a second row of wars.
 
Wouldn't it make more sense if America already had the Philippines during the WWI equivalent? They had it OTL.
 

Eurofed

Banned
Wouldn't it make more sense if America already had the Philippines during the WWI equivalent? They had it OTL.

Quite possible, but the difficulty then lies in avoiding the Spanish-American War escalate into Alt-WWI when Britain and/or France intervene. Spain is the only really good ally the Anglo-French have in Europe (apart of Turkey of course, but its vitality in the face of Russian onslaught is questionable), it looks likely they would try to protect it if America makes a power-grab of its colonies.
 
Last edited:

Eurofed

Banned
your discounting butterflies too easily.

Given that my TL radically reshapes the map since early 1800s, and further developments are plausible consequences of TTL (geo)political trends, this statement has little sense.

Things that occur in a similar way (Mexican-American War, ACW, American conquest of Spanish colonies) ITTL and IOTL do because there are TTL good reasons to (in this case, Southern growing feeling of getting overwhelmed, triggering agrarian imperialism first, then secession, and US strong committment to Manifest Destiny). Grand socio-political, economic, and strategic trends can easily smother some butterflies out, even if some details may change (e.g. the Mexican-American War and the path to ACW occur a decade earlier in my TL).

Other things are radically different (ITTL there shall be a radical Reconstruction, owning to a stronger North, which stomps out segregation and builds a rather more left-wing USA with much more success for Progressives; earlier success in the 1800s sends Germany, Italy, and to lesser degree Russia towards a UK-like moderate liberal political trajectory; "civilized" Native Americans get a viable path to assimilation; political changes in Europe send Catholicism on a different development path).

Likewise, a WWI still occurs out of ongoing global imperialistic competition among the great powers, although the line-ups are totally different from OTL (UK-FR-SP-OT-JP vs. US-GE-IT-HU-RU), the outcome is the "new powers" total success, which makes a wholly different political path for Britain, France, Germany, Italy, and Russia in the 20th century.
 
Last edited:
Thinking about it, I am convinced that America can't take most of the British Empire in a single war. Unless it's a fiat acompili, the European allies of the US will be reluctant to give the US more than Newfoundland and British South America. Those areas fall under the natural preview of the USA, but Germany and Italy are going to want to take pieces out of British Africa, and both of those nations along with Russia are going to be extremely reluctant to let America have even more territory and power projection ability than it already has.

Basically, I don't see America taking most of the British Empire in a single war unless it takes and occupies all of those places itself, and I don't think think it has that kind of power projection until it has at least he Philippines.


Well, unless it can invade Great Britain directly, but unless they own Ireland or something that's highly unlikely.
 
Top