Giving America a Reason to be more Expansionist/Imperialistic

Eurofed

Banned
Thinking about it, I am convinced that America can't take most of the British Empire in a single war.

There can always easily be another major war triggered by Entente revanchism. ;)

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.

A very valid point, but I do not see Germany, Italy, and Russia making major objections to the US annexation of Australia and New Zealand, either. Oceania is quite far from their geopolitical turf and close to the US one, and ditto as power projection goes. Brazil and South Africa can always be the affair of the Second Great War, esp. the latter. Fully agreed that Germany and Italy are going to make a feast of Anglo-French Africa.

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.

About the Philippines, a valid point to make the SAW earlier and separate from WWI, we shall see. As I said, the only issue about the SAW ITTL is to keep it from becoming WWI by keeping at least UK out of it. Quite doable, but it requires some butterfly management. Maybe a Franco-Spanish-American War, albeit it needs to be one that does not demoralizes France and Spain too much to fight a WWI later.

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

An intervention in Ireland is wholly WWII stuff, if ever, agreed.
 
There can always easily be another major war triggered by Entente revanchism. ;)

Very possible, but there would still remain the problem of the European Allies trying to take bits of a British Empire they "helped" defeat.


A very valid point, but I do not see Germany, Italy, and Russia making major objections to the US annexation of Australia and New Zealand, either. Oceania is quite far from their geopolitical turf and close to the US one, and ditto as power projection goes. Brazil and South Africa can always be the affair of the Second Great War, esp. the latter.

Sorta. Even if America already has Hawaii without the Philipines, New Zealand and Australia is only their geopolitical turf inasmuch as they are all part of the Pacific Ring of Fire. Without the Philippines, Oceania is too far from America and its interests to really be of great enough concern to the USA for it to try to annex them.

About the Philippines, a valid point to make the SAW earlier and separate from WWI, we shall see. As I said, the only issue about the SAW ITTL is to keep it from becoming WWI by keeping at least UK out of it. Quite doable, but it requires some butterfly management. Maybe a Franco-Spanish-American War, albeit it needs to be one that does not demoralizes France and Spain too much to fight a WWI later.

Perhaps you could have a similar causus belli to OTL Spanish-American War and have the US win fast enough for the Spanish to say they would have won if they had had time to prepare?

An intervention in Ireland is wholly WWII stuff, if ever, agreed.

Well, you could have it earlier if you choose the "help the IRA" path, but for America to actually be protecting a Protectorate of the Emerald Isle, it would need to control Iceland, and to do that they would need to control Greenland. And Denmark probably wouldn't be liking any of that.
 
Try this:

POD: Battle of Trafalgar.

The Brits still win, but it's marginal rather than crushing. The Franco-Spanish Fleet withdraws to Cadiz, and the Brits to Gib to lick their wounds.

Napoleon is convinced he's got the Brits on the ropes - and the RN's performance encourages others in Europe to think so as well. The Continental System becomes distinctly chilly to the British and much more widespread.

Unable to intervene more effectively in Europe, the British turn to further dismembering of the French and Spanish Empires outside of Europe, with more success than IOTL. However, they have very few trading partners, and the French Navy is growing. The British need raw materials and even shipyards to make good their naval losses, and turn to the United States - which is also taking a dim view of Napoleon's distinctly un-free trade continenal system.

Rapproachment between the British and the USA. Impressment ends. The British become much more cordial. Don't bend on idea of anti-slavery, but most of whom they're dealing with are New Englanders who are anti-slavery as well, so no big deal.

The war with Napoleon continues. The British continue fending the French Navy, but Napeleon still maintains control of Europe. British entrities to the Czar go no where - no French invasion of Russia. Continued warming of relations with the USA. More immigration from war-torn Europe to USA spurs faster westward expansion.

1830 - Missouri compromise. Missouri, Kansas admitted as free states. To balance them, the US buys Cuba and Yucatan from the Brits (seized by the RN from the Spanish) as slave states. Slave states overcome their scruples about Catholics and hispanics in favor of maintaining balance.

1848 - Mex American war ends quickly. Brit naval advisors have made USN more effective; land advisors help as well. OTL continental USA filled out as USA buys Oregon to 50th Parallel- Brits (with much larger Empire) happy to sell to maintain USA alliance.

1860 - 1863 - US Civil War. Much fast Union victory as no hope of British recognition for CSA. French do (to spite USA and Brits), but able to send only limited aid. Virginia stays in Union due to Brit investment in cotton-processing industries. Union General RE Lee leads to smashing, though bloody victories.
 

Eurofed

Banned
Very possible, but there would still remain the problem of the European Allies trying to take bits of a British Empire they "helped" defeat.

True, even if the basics of a partition settlement exist: Africa to Germany and Italy, Middle East to Russia, Oceania to America.

Sorta. Even if America already has Hawaii without the Philipines, New Zealand and Australia is only their geopolitical turf inasmuch as they are all part of the Pacific Ring of Fire. Without the Philippines, Oceania is too far from America and its interests to really be of great enough concern to the USA for it to try to annex them.

Very true, although my point here was that Euro powers don't have much geopolitical stake in contesting a US annexation of Australia, it is too remote from their turfs. But your point about the Philippines is very valid. I'll try and keep it into mid that the TL is more plausible if SAW precedes WWI and builds the uSA strong strategic foothold in the Pacific with the Philippines.

Perhaps you could have a similar causus belli to OTL Spanish-American War and have the US win fast enough for the Spanish to say they would have won if they had had time to prepare?

Well, given that ITTL America is, as a rule, rather more militarly prepared than IOTL, even taking its extra size and resources into account, this is wholly plausible. A relatively quick blitzkrieg war in the Caribbean and the Pacific, good idea.

Well, you could have it earlier if you choose the "help the IRA" path, but for America to actually be protecting a Protectorate of the Emerald Isle, it would need to control Iceland, and to do that they would need to control Greenland. And Denmark probably wouldn't be liking any of that.

Well, I think that eventually Denmark would realize that it is rather better to sell what would be otherwise seized by overwhelming force, sooner rather than later.
 
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.

I don't know anything about chief white eye. I can say that a Washington endorsed Hamilton Presidency gives him some legitimacy. True Point about the excecutive order, I was looking for a prop to use. He probably could have gotten enough votes for a look a bill in Congress. How many of these guys were Revolutionary vets? I'd say almost all of them. In addition he would have a lot of major New Englanders behind him. I think if there was a workable manumission plan, then we could have gotten rid of slavery much earlier. I was reading a ellis book were he was saying the window for manumitting was essentially closed by the 1810s because the southern economy was just married to it by then. So lets take my scenario and say instead of an executive to ban slavery. He comes up with an Assumption like plan. Hear me out: the fed govt. buys all the slaves and gives them land in say Ohio and in return the slaves give say half their produce to their former owners and these would help relieve the cost. just a thought. I dunno what that would do for manifest destiny. there is also the military service option but I don't see that being feasible, because i doubt the south would want their old property to have guns. but in order for the US to more imperialist you have to lose slavery early
 
Top