PC/WI: The U.S. Invades the Canary Islands in 1898?

CaliGuy

Banned
Would it have been plausible for the U.S. to invade the Canary Islands during the Spanish-American War in 1898?

If so, what exactly would the consequences of this have been?
 
You have to create a reason for the US to want to intervene in Europe. I know I spoke on this on another thread somewhere, and who it was I was discussing with did point out that the US attacking the Spanish possessions in the Pacific were thought, by some, to be a US violation of the Monroe doctrine, as they fought outside of the western hemisphere. While it wasn't a major concern, the US intervening against the Spanish there was thought to have the chance of giving Europe a free hand.

In that same vein, attacking the Canary islands would be a direct assault on the Spanish metropole. While technically in the western hemisphere, this would be the US invading the homeland of a European country, and would have risked escalating the war. So, you'd need a reason for the US have gone that far.

Which, frankly, aren't many. This would be a US that had completely succeeded in the Caribbean and the Pacific. There wouldn't be much of a Spanish fleet left. I guess if you stretched it to the point that the Spanish fleet managed to escape and were preparing a counterattack and the US decided to launch a preemptive strike? Highly doubtful for the US to operate that far from its supply lines against Spain's strongest fleet.

The other option is to have the US interested in attacking the Spanish Sahara (I did outline the scenario in the prior case) and as such be forced to at least subdue the Canary Islands. This doesn't necessarily mean invasion, just the blockade of the port and sinking Spanish ships.

There simply wouldn't be a need. A US that would even contemplate that has already secured Spanish possessions in the Pacific and the Caribbean. A recalcitrant Spanish government may refuse to surrender, but with the situation having unfolded as such on the ground, it'd sound better to just sit on it and try to get other nations to put pressure on the Spanish government while integrating the territories.

Here's the thread I'm referencing:
https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/ah-challenge-usa-in-the-old-world.406502/
 

CaliGuy

Banned
You have to create a reason for the US to want to intervene in Europe. I know I spoke on this on another thread somewhere, and who it was I was discussing with did point out that the US attacking the Spanish possessions in the Pacific were thought, by some, to be a US violation of the Monroe doctrine, as they fought outside of the western hemisphere. While it wasn't a major concern, the US intervening against the Spanish there was thought to have the chance of giving Europe a free hand.

Can you please elaborate on the "free hand" part here?

In that same vein, attacking the Canary islands would be a direct assault on the Spanish metropole. While technically in the western hemisphere, this would be the US invading the homeland of a European country, and would have risked escalating the war. So, you'd need a reason for the US have gone that far.

What about a U.S. desire to establish a military presence--even a small one--near Europe?

Which, frankly, aren't many. This would be a US that had completely succeeded in the Caribbean and the Pacific. There wouldn't be much of a Spanish fleet left. I guess if you stretched it to the point that the Spanish fleet managed to escape and were preparing a counterattack and the US decided to launch a preemptive strike? Highly doubtful for the US to operate that far from its supply lines against Spain's strongest fleet.

Didn't the U.S. completely succeed against Spain in the Caribbean and Pacific in our TL, though?

The other option is to have the US interested in attacking the Spanish Sahara (I did outline the scenario in the prior case) and as such be forced to at least subdue the Canary Islands. This doesn't necessarily mean invasion, just the blockade of the port and sinking Spanish ships.

Couldn't the U.S. want the Canary Islands as a supply base if it also wants the Spanish Sahara, though?

There simply wouldn't be a need. A US that would even contemplate that has already secured Spanish possessions in the Pacific and the Caribbean. A recalcitrant Spanish government may refuse to surrender, but with the situation having unfolded as such on the ground, it'd sound better to just sit on it and try to get other nations to put pressure on the Spanish government while integrating the territories.

Integrating its newly acquired Caribbean and Pacific territories, you mean?


Thanks! :D
 
Can you please elaborate on the "free hand" part here?

The thread describes it better, but the free hand was as thus: the Monroe doctrine prohibited European expansion of empires in the New World, but could be read to include the qualifier "so long as the US acts only in the New World". As such, if the US started playing around in Europe's sphere, they might give the European nations a reason to start fighting in the Caribbean or the Americas in General. If the US started messing around in Europe proper... That gives an even greater reason for the various Empires to mess around in the New World.

What about a U.S. desire to establish a military presence--even a small one--near Europe?

Nonexistent. The US goals to expansion, historically, have been in the Caribbean as the primary one, and secondarily in the Pacific. If you want the US to make noise in Europe, it would have to happen incidentally.

Didn't the U.S. completely succeed against Spain in the Caribbean and Pacific in our TL, though?

They defeated the Spanish Fleets and managed to occupy the key points. Here I mean that the US would, instead, have occupied every bit of Spanish Territory and completely ended any resistance, and even at that point Spain wouldn't surrender.

Couldn't the U.S. want the Canary Islands as a supply base if it also wants the Spanish Sahara, though?

My thought wasn't that the US would keep the Spanish Sahara in that thread, more that they would be keep Ifni as a naval base. The US doesn't want the Spanish Sahara for any reason (as it was just leftovers from the Scramble for Africa); only Spain, Morocco, and France does. My theory in that thread was (after a PoD a few decades earlier changing a few things) the US ends up officially making Morocco a protectorate (with Ifni serving as an alternate Guantanamo), but would leave the Spanish Metropole Alone.

Integrating its newly acquired Caribbean and Pacific territories, you mean?

Correct; sorry.


No problem.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
The thread describes it better, but the free hand was as thus: the Monroe doctrine prohibited European expansion of empires in the New World, but could be read to include the qualifier "so long as the US acts only in the New World". As such, if the US started playing around in Europe's sphere, they might give the European nations a reason to start fighting in the Caribbean or the Americas in General. If the US started messing around in Europe proper... That gives an even greater reason for the various Empires to mess around in the New World.

OK; understood.

Nonexistent. The US goals to expansion, historically, have been in the Caribbean as the primary one, and secondarily in the Pacific. If you want the US to make noise in Europe, it would have to happen incidentally.

How would you make it happen incidentally?

They defeated the Spanish Fleets and managed to occupy the key points. Here I mean that the US would, instead, have occupied every bit of Spanish Territory and completely ended any resistance, and even at that point Spain wouldn't surrender.

Spanish territory in Spain proper?

My thought wasn't that the US would keep the Spanish Sahara in that thread, more that they would be keep Ifni as a naval base. The US doesn't want the Spanish Sahara for any reason (as it was just leftovers from the Scramble for Africa); only Spain, Morocco, and France does. My theory in that thread was (after a PoD a few decades earlier changing a few things) the US ends up officially making Morocco a protectorate (with Ifni serving as an alternate Guantanamo), but would leave the Spanish Metropole Alone.

Wouldn't the U.S.'s hostility to imperialism make it more likely to support an Open Door policy in Morocco (a-la China)?

Correct; sorry.

OK.

No problem.

Good. :)
 

Wallet

Banned
Spain only agreed to peace once Britain and France stepped in and told them enough was enough. Neither of them were happy with Spain's dying empire. The US was happy, because they were afraid of German intervention helping Spain. Germany had attacked Venezuela earlier.

If it appears the US is messing in the European mainland, Germany might certainly intervene. I don't know how that would affect the war. Britain and France wouldn't like it though, but they might not be so willing to see the US gain so much.
 
This is a stretch but if the reverse African American migration to Liberia & Sierra Leone had been larger, with stronger ties to the US, then perhaps, the old USN North African Station would become a quasi naval base ashore, ect... In that case controlling the Canaries might fit the ideas of the Jingoists, United Fruit, a African caucus, & other associated US groups. Some African states might see this as a good thing, thinking the US a ally or counter to European colonization.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
This is a stretch but if the reverse African American migration to Liberia & Sierra Leone had been larger, with stronger ties to the US, then perhaps, the old USN North African Station would become a quasi naval base ashore, ect... In that case controlling the Canaries might fit the ideas of the Jingoists, United Fruit, a African caucus, & other associated US groups. Some African states might see this as a good thing, thinking the US a ally or counter to European colonization.
United Fruit?
 
How would you make it happen incidentally?

Basically, the US doesn't naturally have a drive towards Europe; we've seen this OTL. You have to make any actions from the US consistent with its prior ones.

For example, in the other thread, I outlined a path that would perhaps lead to the US maneuvering into Africa. Liberia starting out as a small, government-sponsored endeavor instead of a private one spiraling into Liberia becoming a small US territory in Africa. (This happened prior to the Monroe Doctrine OTL, so if a similar Doctrine evolves, likely, the African colony would be grandfathered in). Continue this on for a while, making Liberia the homestead for free blacks and, after the Civil War (practically inevitable), allowing them to immigrate there and settle the territory.

Or, if you want fewer butterflies, have everything continue as per OTL, but with a shorter war, the US doesn't suffer nearly as terribly in terms of demographics (2% of the prewar population died during the Civil War). The US wouldn't be as isolationist after the war; failing the Santo Domingo annexation, perhaps a deal is worked out with Liberia so that freed slaves are allowed to immigrate there as well, with guaranteed land and provisions to settle, with the end result being that Liberia ends up as a US territory.

However you make it work out, that is a requisite step.

From there, the US (healthier from the war not being as terrible), ends up a little better prepared during the war, which acts out the same, save the addition of a US African Squadron which carries out operations in Spanish African colonies (for ease, I'd say Equatorial Guinea and Western Sahara, but there have certainly been enough butterflies to change the scramble). Here, the US is faced with a bit of a conundrum; with so many African territories, a good naval base wouldn't be terrible, and Ifni isn't a bad location. Morocco wants it back, but they'd also like the Sahara, the US manages to dismantle that as well.

Spanish territory in Spain proper?

No. All of the territory in the Philippines, along with every single island in the Pacific, and all that be completely occupied. The US is relatively safe at this point, as any Spanish Fleet would have to sortie out and either meet the US in relative neutral grounds favoring the US (the Philippines) or on their home turf (the Caribbean). There's no point to driving and taking land overseas, as the US certainly doesn't desire or need it in Africa absent any other changes from OTL.

Wouldn't the U.S.'s hostility to imperialism make it more likely to support an Open Door policy in Morocco (a-la China)?

Basically, such a protectorate, I envisioned, would be based on the semblance of Morocoo deeming the US as the one great power that could be neutral in its affairs, compared to Germany and France and all of the eyes looking jealously at it, especially as the US would mainly be there in a relatively undeveloped naval base on the fringe of its territories. That's the only reason to go with it; if anything, consider it an extension of the US repaying the favor offered by Morocco back during the Barbary Wars, where they freed US sailors and ordered their pirates to cease hunting American ships (something the other states refused). Here, they end up shielding Morocco from a world away and allow them quite a bit of autonomy in the meantime. Frankly, they'd likely take the hands off approach outside of Ifni.

That would definitely earn the enmity of some European nations, but if it is presented as a fate accompli (and if the US has a stronger navy, Germany/France/the colonial flavor of the day would be less likely to intervene).

Call it the Swiss solution: no one really is happy (US is unsure about establishing protectorates, general populace would be iffy no matter what) (European countries would be worried about encroaching US influence and not getting what they want) (Morocco still doesn't like admitting to any sort of protectorate, no matter how light it is.) Therefore, it is the correct solution.

United Fruit?

United Fruit Company. Had huge interests in Central American nations. Monopolies. Quite nasty.
 
...
United Fruit Company. Had huge interests in Central American nations. Monopolies. Quite nasty.

The Maines had a cynical saying in the 1920s: 'Making Latin America safe for United Fruit'. Variants substituted Carribean, Nicaragua, Haiti, Santa Domingo, ect... for Latin America. "Banana Wars" was another cynic appeliation for the 30+ years of Marines intervening in Latin America. This is what Marine General Smedley Buetler was refering to in his speech on how his career was that of a "gangster". A enforcer or thug for the interests of big business.
 
The Maines had a cynical saying in the 1920s: 'Making Latin America safe for United Fruit'. Variants substituted Carribean, Nicaragua, Haiti, Santa Domingo, ect... for Latin America. "Banana Wars" was another cynic appeliation for the 30+ years of Marines intervening in Latin America. This is what Marine General Smedley Buetler was refering to in his speech on how his career was that of a "gangster". A enforcer or thug for the interests of big business.
Yeah... that lady on the Chiquita banana is such a gangsta... haha (Chiquita is the name United Fruit goes by today)
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Basically, the US doesn't naturally have a drive towards Europe; we've seen this OTL. You have to make any actions from the US consistent with its prior ones.

OK.

For example, in the other thread, I outlined a path that would perhaps lead to the US maneuvering into Africa. Liberia starting out as a small, government-sponsored endeavor instead of a private one spiraling into Liberia becoming a small US territory in Africa. (This happened prior to the Monroe Doctrine OTL, so if a similar Doctrine evolves, likely, the African colony would be grandfathered in). Continue this on for a while, making Liberia the homestead for free blacks and, after the Civil War (practically inevitable), allowing them to immigrate there and settle the territory.

Why exactly would the U.S. government want to keep control over Liberia, though?

Or, if you want fewer butterflies, have everything continue as per OTL, but with a shorter war, the US doesn't suffer nearly as terribly in terms of demographics (2% of the prewar population died during the Civil War). The US wouldn't be as isolationist after the war; failing the Santo Domingo annexation, perhaps a deal is worked out with Liberia so that freed slaves are allowed to immigrate there as well, with guaranteed land and provisions to settle, with the end result being that Liberia ends up as a US territory.

Again, what exactly would the U.S. government want to establish control over Liberia in this TL?

However you make it work out, that is a requisite step.

OK.

From there, the US (healthier from the war not being as terrible), ends up a little better prepared during the war, which acts out the same, save the addition of a US African Squadron which carries out operations in Spanish African colonies (for ease, I'd say Equatorial Guinea and Western Sahara, but there have certainly been enough butterflies to change the scramble). Here, the US is faced with a bit of a conundrum; with so many African territories, a good naval base wouldn't be terrible, and Ifni isn't a bad location. Morocco wants it back, but they'd also like the Sahara, the US manages to dismantle that as well.

OK; however, I just want to clarify something--the U.S. acquires both Infi and the Canary Islands in this TL, correct?

No. All of the territory in the Philippines, along with every single island in the Pacific, and all that be completely occupied. The US is relatively safe at this point, as any Spanish Fleet would have to sortie out and either meet the US in relative neutral grounds favoring the US (the Philippines) or on their home turf (the Caribbean). There's no point to driving and taking land overseas, as the US certainly doesn't desire or need it in Africa absent any other changes from OTL.

Why exactly does every single Spanish island--even small ones--in the Pacific need to be occupied by the U.S. in this TL, though?

Basically, such a protectorate, I envisioned, would be based on the semblance of Morocoo deeming the US as the one great power that could be neutral in its affairs, compared to Germany and France and all of the eyes looking jealously at it, especially as the US would mainly be there in a relatively undeveloped naval base on the fringe of its territories. That's the only reason to go with it; if anything, consider it an extension of the US repaying the favor offered by Morocco back during the Barbary Wars, where they freed US sailors and ordered their pirates to cease hunting American ships (something the other states refused). Here, they end up shielding Morocco from a world away and allow them quite a bit of autonomy in the meantime. Frankly, they'd likely take the hands off approach outside of Ifni.

That would definitely earn the enmity of some European nations, but if it is presented as a fate accompli (and if the US has a stronger navy, Germany/France/the colonial flavor of the day would be less likely to intervene).

Call it the Swiss solution: no one really is happy (US is unsure about establishing protectorates, general populace would be iffy no matter what) (European countries would be worried about encroaching US influence and not getting what they want) (Morocco still doesn't like admitting to any sort of protectorate, no matter how light it is.) Therefore, it is the correct solution.

Wouldn't genuine independence with U.S. protection be better for Morocco, though?

United Fruit Company. Had huge interests in Central American nations. Monopolies. Quite nasty.

OK; however, what exactly does this have to do with Africa?
 
The only way you'll get the USA to attack the Canaries is if the war goes on longer. Until Cuba is totally under US control the US Navy is tied up with dealing with Spanish ships there, escorting traffic from the US to Cuba (and Puerto Rico). If, after the victories in Cuba and the Pacific Spain has not sued for peace, as they did OTL, then the US Navy can turn its attention eastward. seizing the Canaries then makes sense as a forward base for a blockade of Spain, the USN will need a coaling station and cannot count on France or the UK allowing blockading ships to coal there.
 
Why exactly would the U.S. government want to keep control over Liberia, though?

That's the kicker. I would give two different answers based on two different settings.

With the earlier setting, with the change in the American Colonization Society, it would be a lot more difficult; you'd have to have a desire for the US to have a proper basing station for anti-slave trade operations instead of sharing with the British. Perhaps the

With the later setting, which I find more easily believable, would come about as results of the US wanting to create a black-majority territory for the former slaves to emigrate to. (this was the reason behind the OTL annexation of Santo Domingo that fell through). My reasoning is that, with a less destructive Civil War, the US wouldn't withdraw into the same level of isolation as OTL and the concept of a black territory might state afloat. The South wouldn't be so damaged and thoroughly defeated, and might be against the 13-15th amendments, but would be more in favor of having a black territory where they would be out of sight (and not influencing their politics) With that in mind, and with Liberia being a settler state (just a black, African American one instead of a white, European one akin to South Africa) that would greatly like having a larger settler population, a deal would eventually be reached between the two governments where the US would help former slaves immigrate to Liberia. The result would end up being that newer settlers would eventually outnumber the originals, and Liberia slowly becomes more tightly integrated as the US has to look after their citizens that are settling in Africa.

Liberia wouldn't even become a territory until about a generation or so after the PoD, with it instead being slowly subsumed into the US through natural political drift.

This is the hard part about PoDs, though; technically, everything is ASB, as it involves someone making a decision they didn't make OTL. I just find that a lot more believable for small changes from OTL to build up than for one big decision at one time.

OK; however, I just want to clarify something--the U.S. acquires both Infi and the Canary Islands in this TL, correct?

No. Just Ifni because it isn't considered part of Spanish Metropole. (Granted, Spain considered Cuba part of the Metropole, but it was across the Atlantic Ocean. That loss is much easier to swallow.)

Why exactly does every single Spanish island--even small ones--in the Pacific need to be occupied by the U.S. in this TL, though?

Historically, the US has shown a much larger drive towards the Pacific and has never had a desire to maintain territory in Europe. Plus, it isn't advantageous to the US to go striking towards Spain proper when it still hasn't fully pacified the Philippines and Cuba. Those are the real prizes; the longer it takes for Spain to make a counterstrike, the longer the US has to fortify and consolidate holdings.

And maybe not the smallest atolls, but every single island with a significant population would need to be occupied, or at least checked. And considering the scale of the Filipino-American war, many forces are going to be tied down there.

Wouldn't genuine independence with U.S. protection be better for Morocco, though?

That's basically what it is. It's not the same vein as Cuba being an American territory for ten years; there's no change in government in Morocco.

It's a way to put it that avoids calling it an alliance (US hates entangling foreign alliances at this time) as it isn't an agreement for the US to come assist Moroccan aggression in the future. It would be more a guarantee of their territorial integrity and insurance against their trade being monopolized by their nearby powers (probably with a few concessions to the US)

Hence, why I would categorize it as a protectorate. Although, perhaps Associated State or just in the US sphere would work as well, but I fell that puts it best considering the time and environment.

OK; however, what exactly does this have to do with Africa?

I was clarifying based on your other post.
 
I'm not arguing the US would seize the Canaries, but I am going to give reason why they MAY for those who seem to be so adamant about the US having no reason. Historically the US had economic, diplomatic, and military interests in the Mediterranean. I assume we all know Morocco and the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies was two of the first to recognize the USA, we know the Barbary Wars, the British forcing the US to be involved with the elimination of the African slave trade. And then there is the more important triangle trade, the one they don't teach in high school (because it's better to agree to teach our kids about the evils slavery than about the US being a drug dealing asshole), trade to the Ottoman Empire and then opium from there to China for porcelain and fine merchandise for and back home. The trade with the Ottoman Empire is what caused Monroe to make a speech saying "we shouldn't get involved in the Greek independence movement" and the British said "while making that speech, add in that you don't want Europeans involved in the Americas, dont worry, we'll enforce it for you". So it is not ASB to say the US gets involved in Greece (as much as they did in Tripoli) and after that continue to be involved in current and former Ottoman territories; stay involved in North Africa, work with the French interests in Lebanon regarding Christians, treaties and joint maneuvers with Morocco. 1898 comes along and the Canaries look like a good base for keeping a naval presence for Mediterranean trade, perhaps a united Italy is causing problems with US ships (US continued interest in Tripoli could be the cause), Spain may have caused trouble with Morocco or being our ally Morocco started a war that is going bad and need our help, we grab Canaries just 'cuz. There's plenty of real cause for the US to get it, but you need an early POD.
 
If the United States was going to invade or attack the Canaries, wouldn't it have been very early in the war when the Assistant Secretary of the Navy, the avowed Mahan and Imperialist follower Theodore Roosevelt was still in office? After all it was while he was temporarily in charge of the Navy due to the absence of his boss that he ordered Commodore George Dewey to attack the Spanish fleet in the Philippines. The war which was supposed to be about Cuba and its plight as well as revenge over the Maine did not stop Roosevelt from using the navy to expand US power in the Philippines which was not originally on the radar for the call to war with Spain. Once he resigns to join the army, no one would have had the gumption to order an attack on the Canaries.
 
Yeah... that lady on the Chiquita banana is such a gangsta... haha (Chiquita is the name United Fruit goes by today)

Who could not like Chiquita, that nice Senora who provides the tasty bananas & pineapples.
I'm not arguing the US would seize the Canaries, but I am going to give reason why they MAY for those who seem to be so adamant about the US having no reason. Historically the US had economic, diplomatic, and military interests in the Mediterranean. ... ... Spain may have caused trouble with Morocco or being our ally Morocco started a war that is going bad and need our help, we grab Canaries just 'cuz. There's plenty of real cause for the US to get it, but you need an early POD.

& as I pointed out earlier the US had historical interests in Liberia & Sierra Leone. Its was not for spurious reasons the USN kept returning to the 'North African Station in the 19th & 20th Centuries.
 
Top