Realistic US Expansion: who else could join?

Yuctan actually asked the US to annex them twice I think. After WWI the US was offered a mandate over Armenia. It is possible that the mandate had been accpted then the Armenians would have decided to stay with the USA

The US would had never been able to maintain control over the Yucatan; it would be too much trouble (for little gain) to have it as a state or territory especially with the rebel Maya that caused trouble for the Yucatecos and the Mexican government who only had a handle of them in the 1930s.
 
It is possible that the mandate had been accpted then the Armenians would have decided to stay with the USA

No, it's not.

Aside from the fact the Armenians were very Nationalistic and wanted their own state the United States would not want a region that's not only over 5,000 miles (8,046 Km) away but landlocked as well nor could they stay with the United States as Mandates (and especially the kind Armenia would be) are not territories to be annexed, the entire mandate system was created so that certain conquered territories could be built-up to allow them be functional and stable states.
 
There's no way that Quebec would accept. They would want an independent state, with an alliance at best.

They might sign on with the Articles of Confederation, since those were quite loose; not all that much more than an alliance. But when it comes to the Constitution, things get veeeery interesting very fast. Provided that Quebec stays in, it's going to look quite different than OTL, and if it does look like OTL then I agree that Quebec isn't going to stay in (although other areas of Canada may; Nova Scotia is the obvious choice, quite possible Upper Canada).

Having Canada part of the United States, or at least independent but allied, means that the natives of the Northwest can't get supplies from Britain quite so easily, which itself could have interesting butterflies regarding the development of the area.

Another question in the American Canada scenario is what happens with British Columbia, Rupert's Land, and Newfoundland, since none of those are considered part of Canada at this time, and are mostly difficult or impossible to reach and hold and contain few if any permanent European settlements.
 
Which was part of Mexico's relatively recent population boom - in the 19th century there was little in the way of settlement. Mexico City didn't grant statehood until the 1950s.

Best bet is Baja is taken in 1848 as part of the California Territory. Which might encourage a north-south split of the area.
maybe i should have mentioned that, in the context of the TL, not all of Alta is take and part of OTL SoCal, including the areas of Los Angeles and San Diego, remain part of Mexico :eek:
 
They might sign on with the Articles of Confederation, since those were quite loose; not all that much more than an alliance. But when it comes to the Constitution, things get veeeery interesting very fast. Provided that Quebec stays in, it's going to look quite different than OTL, and if it does look like OTL then I agree that Quebec isn't going to stay in (although other areas of Canada may; Nova Scotia is the obvious choice, quite possible Upper Canada).

Other Anglo colonies like Nova Scotia could definitely join. In fact many Caribbean islands passed resolutions in sympathy with the American rebels (although they could never hope to gain independence against the Royal Navy).

However, I think it highly unlikely Quebec would even sign on to OTL Articles of Confederation. They banned the states from having their own military forces, which the Canadiens wouldn't hand over to an Anglo-dominated institution. I also imagine Quebec would want to be able to sign its own alliances.

Perhaps an ATL Articles could be much more limited and merely include a mutual defence pact, free trade, and, at a push, free movement of people.
 
Niagra?
I f I could add a few areas to the U.S. in would be Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Labrador, Chihuahua, Baja alifornia (Both States), Yucatan, and uba, that would make a n intersting expansion, yet remain somewhat realisti.
 
However, I think it highly unlikely Quebec would even sign on to OTL Articles of Confederation. They banned the states from having their own military forces, which the Canadiens wouldn't hand over to an Anglo-dominated institution. I also imagine Quebec would want to be able to sign its own alliances.

They technically banned military forces, but in reality between the toothlessness of the Continental Congress and the gaping exemption of, "but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition, and camp equipage" (that's from Article VI) means that Quebec could really do pretty much anything it wanted as far as land forces are concerned. (That's beside the fact that the regular army was tiny, so the institution wouldn't be all that important...or necessarily Anglo-dominated, if the Canadiens had made a significant contribution to the war) The Continental Navy OTL was retired for expense, apparently, so I don't know that Quebec, alone, could afford to maintain a navy.

And I don't really see what Quebec could possibly gain from being able to sign its own alliances. France is already an ally of the United States; Britain isn't going to ally itself with Quebec at this point, and in any case one would question the willingness of a no-Quebec Act Quebec to ally itself with Britain; and the thirteen or fourteen states closest to it are its allies by virtue of the Articles. So signing on has only upsides for Quebec (particularly since they would presumably be doing it during the ARW, not afterwards) in terms of alliances, while not signing on probably denies them alliances with the Anglo states (which have much greater manpower than Quebec, if funny ideas about how to run things) and gives them no real extra opportunities. Not to mention that it denies them a voice in how the war is being run.

EDIT: I'm not sure to what degree the well-known modern attitude of Quebec towards Anglo Canada influences our perceptions of historical Quebec's attitudes, but it does seem that as long as some regard was given to Quebec's "peculiar institutions" that there might be some arrangements that could be come to, just as Quebec was more or less peacefully part of Canada for a century with, so I understand, little separatist sentiment.
 
just as Quebec was more or less peacefully part of Canada for a century with, so I understand, little separatist sentiment.

They were kept part of Canada under threat of British military force. If they had a viable chance at independence without reprisals they would have leapt at it. Certainly if they had been declared a free and sovereign state, I can't imagine them handing it over to people they viewed with distrust and suspicion. It's possible Quebec could be conquered by American forces and a puppet government placed in charge. But once you start having elections, French Catholics are going to be jealous of their independence from English Protestant.
 
Top