South and South east Asia were densely populated with diseases, same with Africa(well the Disease part). You either have to find a way around that or through it.In addition to the areas/territories which were the subject of large-scale settler colonialism in our TL, which additional areas worldwide could have realistically been targets of settler colonialism?
Any thoughts on this?
Didn't northern California experience massive population growth after 1850, though?Pretty much any where in Northern California. The Spanish laid claim but they only sparsely settled the area, The Presidio in modern day San Francisco was a joke, the only truly organized settlements were the Missions. The Russians actually had a settlement at Fort Ross, not too far from San Francisco. (Yerba Buena) and the Spaniards never even to my knowledge tried to oust them. Just a thought.
If the Europeans racism towards Africa is far more venomous in the 19th century you could have the continent feasibly depopulated.Outside of isolated locations borderline impossible barring industrial scale genocide which means you pretty much can't do it before the modern era and by then you'd get into massive domestic opposition as well
You could theoretically depopulate africa with bubonic plague early enough, but they lack the conditions to make it spread disastrously like it did in Europe and Asia, so that option is dropped
So, you can't
The continent was relatively depopulated compared to any other area in the world, less by genocides itself than by economic stagnation and low growth.If the Europeans racism towards Africa is far more venomous in the 19th century you could have the continent feasibly depopulated.
In that fact, my suggestion during the New Imperialism of the mid to late 19th Century doesn't fly. Yes, the Gold Rush of 1849 does bring a tsunami of people to Northern California. By then Spanish California had been taken over first in the 1820's by Mexico, and by conquest the United States in 1846-48. So my suggestion refers to Spanish, and for that matter Mexican California. It could not have applied to post Spanish/Mexican eras as no one was going to colonize territory of the United States by the 1850's.Didn't northern California experience massive population growth after 1850, though?
But each territory within the United States was a settler colony of Anglo-American settlers.In that fact, my suggestion during the New Imperialism of the mid to late 19th Century doesn't fly. Yes, the Gold Rush of 1849 does bring a tsunami of people to Northern California. By then Spanish California had been taken over first in the 1820's by Mexico, and by conquest the United States in 1846-48. So my suggestion refers to Spanish, and for that matter Mexican California. It could not have applied to post Spanish/Mexican eras as no one was going to colonize territory of the United States by the 1850's.
But not by 1850. The US would have organized the territories in preparation for possible statehood. By 1850, California did enter the union as a free non-slave state. (Google "The Compromise of 1850.")But each territory within the United States was a settler colony of Anglo-American settlers.
Every state and territory of the US was a settler colony. Anglo-American settlers were sent to colonize the west.But not by 1850. The US would have organized the territories in preparation for possible statehood. By 1850, California did enter the union as a free non-slave state. (Google "The Compromise of 1850.")
You may be referring to the original 13 colonies on the eastern coast. Most of them were settle by the English but some were settle by the Dutch and Swedes.
The whole point of the state-territory system was to send white settlers in until there was a large enough population for statehood. That is pretty much the definition of a settler colony.The US would not have thought that since the territories according too International understanding already belonged to them. Louisiana Purchase, the Mexican Cession, Alaska Purchase. Now that is a good argument for Hawaii, the Samoas, and other areas in the Pacific. etc.
I'm not saying that's the current purpose of the state-territory system. But for the whole of the 19th century, while the US was still conquering Native American tribes and still settling land, it was. Frederick Jackson Turner's and Josiah Strong's view were representative of much of the nation at the time. That doesn't mean I agree with them or their ideology.Good point. Frederick Jackson Turner and Josiah Strong would say you have a good point too.