Grand Registry of Possible U.S. Expansion

From what I've been able to find in the past Kamchatka wan't part of the Alaska purchase though during the late 1890's early 1920's several prominent people proposed to sell Kamchatka to the US as a way of intimidating Japan though Mckinley's assassination derailed these plans but unforyunately I can't find any sources yet but will keep looking.

Found New York Times articles from 1917-1920 on this. (For some reason, it won't let me read it.)

1. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstra...D6CF&scp=1&sq=kamchatka+american+bidders&st=p

2. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstra...9D946195D6CF&scp=5&sq=kamchatka+american&st=p

I also found what Marxists wrote about the lease, and it seemed to be an attempt by the communists to foment a Japanese-American war so the capitalist world would continue to fight.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/dec/06.htm
 
Last edited:
I thought New Brunswick was out of the question, what with the British fort in Halifax not too far off and all, but the lands south of the St. Lawrence River thing: interesting, why didn't that happen in OTL? Rivers make such nice borders...

The St. Lawrence dosen't. It's a relatively narrow plain between a range of mountains to the South (where the current, much more sensible border is), and the hills, tundra and forests to the north. The river itself is the best route of communications, and in war would be utterly undefendable from the Royal Navy. The Southern part of the river is economically dependent on the northern part, and said range of mountains means that geographical and linguistical isolation will combine to create a situation where it is as culturally different from the rest of the US as West Virginia was from Virginia, with it highly likely that the same result occurs if the capture is in the early years.
 
I'll be using this thread for my Ameriwank thread (The largest plausible Ameriwank project) of mine which can be seen in my sig. Thank you so much for the ideas here. :)
 
Let´s be real, it will not happen, I doubt any state outside the Pacific Islands or the Americas would become a state of the US and I doubt even South American naiton would be easily assimilated.
 
The U.S. had a lease over North Borneo in 1865. wtf.

Source:
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=211404

I have the book on this, source being The United States Consul and the Yankee Raja if you want a paper source. The US did not have a lease on the islands - the American Consul to Brunei arranged for the lease personally, allowing his fellow schemer to assume the title of Raja of Ambong and Maroodoo.

The colony failed after 9 months and was pointedly disavowed by the US government, though Charles Moses (the Consul) portrayed himself as having US backing and desperately tried to achieve it in his short tenure.

The entire independent entity (such as it was) was named Ambong and Maroodoo, while the main city was named Ellena after Raja William Torrey's daughter.

The claim is something I've posted in another map. Lemme remove the AH contents... Sec...

Yellow area is territory leased from the Sultan of Brunei; the pink area is territory leased from the Sultan of Sulu. Note that in the Jawi Script of the copy kept by the Sultans, Palawan was not leased by the Sultan of Sulu to the Raja. That is one of the discrepancies found.

Ambong&Maroodoo_Revised.png

-

Also, I only have a Wikipedia source for this, but it's the earliest US annexation of a Pacific Island - the Washington Islands (OTL: Marquesas Islands)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Porter_(naval_officer)#War_of_1812

Info at the link. I've read it elsewhere, but to summarize, the islands were claimed by David Porter, who used it as a base of operations during the War of 1812. He stored British prisoners on the island, until they broke free and imprisoned the Americans. If I recall correctly, the Americans broke free and reimprisoned the British, and the British burnt down the prison, and the Natives had enough and drove them from the island.

David Porter, after returning to the US later, swore that he would go to reclaim the islands (a bill was actually placed in Congress to annex the islands, but the US refused to do so without actual possession), but with the war over, he never had the chance.
 
Last edited:
How big a deal was the 'Manifest Destiny' and 'Sea to Shining Sea" ideology in all this? I heard mention somewhere that that is why the US fought a war for all the lands west of Florida, but also never incorporated Cuba and Puerto Rico despite winning a war there.
 
How big a deal was the 'Manifest Destiny' and 'Sea to Shining Sea" ideology in all this? I heard mention somewhere that that is why the US fought a war for all the lands west of Florida, but also never incorporated Cuba and Puerto Rico despite winning a war there.

Granted, Cuba was the target of expansionist attempts for... oh, a good portion of the 19th century. However, by the time the US got around to actually projecting power and making a significant attempt to claim it, the natives were already trying to establish an independent republic (and they were seen as legitimate). So, the US was able to essentially reap the benefits of putting Cuba in its sphere, and not have to deal with the overhead.

If Cuba had been annexed earlier in history, then it almost certainly would have become a state. Just by the time it had, it wasn't.

Puerto Rico has been kept, just not as a state. With upsides (lower taxation) and downsides (lack of representation). It's a complicated story

Also, to be technical, the US didn't fight a war for the lands west of Florida. The only thing it fought a war for was the Southwest, as it were - Louisiana, Oregon, and Florida proper were all purchases.

Manifest Destiny I feel is best translated as domination of the continent. That means priorities in this order:

1. Domination of the Mainland, which it achieved after the Mexican-American War and the reduction of both neighboring nations to a weaker status. (Enhanced by further actions later).
2. Domination of the Caribbean and Central America, which it achieved, at earliest, in the Spanish-American War (and arguably later). This secures the soft underbelly, and prevents foreign nations from establishing new bases to threaten the mainland.
3. Domination of the Pacific, to guard the flanks to the West Coast and to secure trade with Asia.

And that's basically the order of importance. It's why any American interest in Africa, for example, is hard to engender and has to have itself inserted into the American strategic doctrine earlier so it can blossom into an interest later on.
 
I think @Luminous hits the nail pretty much on its head with his assessment of American priorities. There's this sense that Americans would want to expand as much as possible based on an idea of Manifest Destiny that mostly developed after the US took all the land that they did. Sure, there were all kinds of individuals who wanted to expand into one region or another. But if you look back at the US in the 19th century, Americans were pretty damn satisfied with the amount of land they got- as well they should be.

Furthermore, in the case of annexing places like Cuba, Northern Mexico, the Yucatan, etc- you can't just ignore that granting statehood to these areas would be met with opposition both due to racism and anoi-catholic bigotry. And not wanting to grant statehood will eventually lead to the areas being given autonomy or independence, when the inherent contradiction against American ideology resolves itself. Cases like Puerto Rico would, I think, be the exception.

Point is, as long as the continental heartland is secure and Americans have the bases from which to trade with the large markets in Europe and East Asia, why should they desire expansion?
 
@TheByzantineOttoman

I was trying to keep it short, but I rambled a bit. XD Reply is in spoiler tag (I don't want to clog up the thread).

I feel that the objectives of the US are not set in stone in total, but they are hard to change. We should never overlook the fortunes of random chance, regardless of how likely they are. I refer you to the Marquesas example - if the US forces never lost control of the islands, then they would have kept de facto possession through the end of the war, and de jure protectorate later on. This would lead to American presence in Polynesia nearly a century ahead of the OTL schedule, which will do quite a bit to change the mindset of the American public. It is on the bottom end of the priority list, but it gets added to the list. One could say the same thing about Liberia if it somehow became an official government project - if the US has a small presence in Africa in 1820, by the 1870s, the US would have maintained that presence for 50 years, leading it to be a traditional region of interest, and it'd be added to the (bottom) of the list, which could make further expansion proceed in the region viable.

Or, instead, look at the Mexican-American war: The US provided the negotiator a certain amount of money (12 million, I think? been a while) to purchase all of Texas's claims, New Mexico, and Alta & Baja California, while appropriating a smaller amount (6 million) for additional gains afterwards. OTL, the US Negotiator, Trist, was opposed to major expansionism and didn't even go for the minimum amount in his instructions, and he couldn't be replaced as Polk wanted this done under his term. But if a more expansionist US negotiator, combined with a poorer Mexican one, could easily lead to more land being ceded. Parts of Sonora/Chihuahua, and maybe even more. It's similar to how the US originally only desired Luzon, but bumbled its way into a victory that lead to them taking the entire island chain. fortuitous circumstances can put to rest even the best-laid plans.

Cuba, I feel, is between 1 & 2 on my list, as it was considered vital for the defense of the Heartland, as its possession would protect the routes to New Orleans and the Mississippi. Combine that with the Yucatan, and you have US possession of all land bordering the channels leading to the Gulf of Mexico, and you've made it, practically, an American lake. I would not understate the value of that. Digressing, Cuba would be annexed pretty early on, as it did have a very large European population and if it did join, it'd be the most easily integrated possession in the area. You're correct on the anti-Catholic bias, but considering the cost/benefit of integrating the island, it would be the one state that could most easily overcome that concern.

Many of these proposed annexations are longshot (looking especially at you, Albania. So long a shot it doesn't fit on the screen), and do not fit well into OTL priorties for the US. However, they are great to have compiled into a single list to show all that were even considered by adventurers (whether or not they actually had a chance to succeed). And, for most of these, a timeline could emerge where securing one of the listed possessions might actually fit into US territorial interest.

-

I'd also point out that, just as the US was starting to fill out its continental boundaries and begin to look overseas, they suffered from the Civil War and, as a result, lost more men as a percentage than the British did in WW1. They were devastated by the war and had to take time to recover, hence the US drawing into itself for a few decades. Avert the massive casualties, and you could (important word, not would) find a world where the US is much more assertive in the 1860s-1880s. That alone would alter the fabric of the country's conscious as well, so the results would be immense, either way.
 
Top