United States's Empire.

Every single time this comes up I have to ask this question.

Why on earth do some of you guys really and honestly believe significant proportions of Black Americans 1. could be forced to migrate 2. Would want to migrate or 3. would be submissive about their planned expulsion from the United States to not fight back?

Because they were slaves? Because the same thing happened when they were brought over in the first place? Because the prospect of returning might be well received?

Maybe a State of the United States overseas (not a "colony" in the European sense) with a majority of Afro-Americans could be desiderable in a age of racism and segregation.
 
If I recall correctly, the spanish american war is covered in High School pretty much the same as most history: here's a timeline, here's some stuff that might be on a test. It's not as cool a war as WW2. WW1: totally boring for a high school student. It's covered about the same as the Korean War. KW had the advantage of having MASH be a popular tv show, so old geezers like me (55) know about it. S-A is known mostly for Teddy's ability to steal a headline.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Did you go to high school in New York?

If I recall correctly, the spanish american war is covered in High School pretty much the same as most history: here's a timeline, here's some stuff that might be on a test. It's not as cool a war as WW2. WW1: totally boring for a high school student. It's covered about the same as the Korean War. KW had the advantage of having MASH be a popular tv show, so old geezers like me (55) know about it. S-A is known mostly for Teddy's ability to steal a headline.

Did you go to high school in New York?

Best,
 

Benevolent

Banned
Maybe a State of the United States overseas (not a "colony" in the European sense) with a majority of Afro-Americans could be desiderable in a age of racism and segregation.

Black. Americans. Are. Americans.

They have more of a birthright to be here than any willing immigrant group in this nation's history. Why do you think in spite of all of the discrimination, terrorization, violence and oppression by and large we remain here?

Liberia is a great example of that, a fraction left and many returned to the U.S. and even then they identified with their nation of origin by and large.
 
Agreed with the above. There would be no point for such an activity, and I doubt the political will could be drummed up even if agitated for. It's their country as well. After just going through a war and shedding so much blood to free them, why would the political party in power turn around and kick them out?

If any colony is established in Africa, and it manages to remain in the US for whatever reason, there will be a separation between blacks born in North America and those in Africa. There would be two separate identities between the two.

How to get there? There has to be a US interest in colonization. After the Civil War IOTL, there was no interest for overseas adventures. The US was focused on internal expansion at that time and recovering from the war. See the North Borneo lease expiring: The US had no desire to pursue a colony in its own backyard, much less one in Africa in terrain that would be just as inhospitable.

I think that for this to actually occur, the US would have to have a POD before or during the Civil War. Limit the casualties and the destruction inflicted. If the North Borneo lease is acquired at about the same time as OTL, the US would have a few years to drift into peace and expeditions may be mounted to actually make North Borneo a colony. If that takes place (big if), and the US takes an outward looking viewpoint along with continuing to maintain the Navy at higher standards (after all, they have to defend that colony somehow.

Then, after that, you have the Spanish-American war start early (disputes over the Sultanate of Sulu's territory?) roundabout 1880. And, with that, the US somehow manages to get ahold of Equatorial Guinea in the peace deal. There are a lot of long odds in that entire sequence. The other option is that, after beating the Spanish, the US is seen as a respectable power that could at least serve as a neutral buffer between two other colonial powers? I doubt that would happen; the US has little interest in European affairs at this point. At best they'd take on the role of Belgium or something similar.

In the end, Africa will be an afterthought to the US. Their focus is on the Pacific. Any claims they do have in Africa would probably exchanged for concessions in the Pacific. The only way it wouldn't work is if such a deal fell through. If the US tries to trade Equatorial Guinea for, say Samoa, later on (Or Kaiser Wilhelm's Land, but that would take something far more substantial) and the deal falls through, the US would end up with a commitment in Africa. But I'm not sure whether that would work or not.

Edit: Another idea. Say that the US does go through an earlier Spanish-American and somehow manages to get the rights to Equatorial Guinea in the resulting treaty. That would probably imply that the original Treaty of El Pardo borders for Equatorial Guinea would apply. That would overlap claims with Great Britain and France - Additional points of conflict for both. Just tossing it out.
 
Last edited:
Black. Americans. Are. Americans.

They have more of a birthright to be here than any willing immigrant group in this nation's history. Why do you think in spite of all of the discrimination, terrorization, violence and oppression by and large we remain here?

Liberia is a great example of that, a fraction left and many returned to the U.S. and even then they identified with their nation of origin by and large.

I think I'll play devil's advocate and say that this actually belongs to native Americans.
 
Maybe a State of the United States overseas (not a "colony" in the European sense) with a majority of Afro-Americans could be desiderable in a age of racism and segregation.

A colony by another name is still a colony. Even if you give a name (Liberia) and proceed to ignore it, claiming it is now independent. It was still carved out of territory belonging to someone else and colonised with settlers (voluntary or not).
 
What if after the civil war,in 1868-1879 period,the United States had partecipated to partition of Africa getting some colonies on african atlantic coast?

That map in the OP has French control of the Western Sahara mixed up with Spanish Control and vice versa in Mauritania.
 
Black. Americans. Are. Americans.

They have more of a birthright to be here than any willing immigrant group in this nation's history. Why do you think in spite of all of the discrimination, terrorization, violence and oppression by and large we remain here?

Liberia is a great example of that, a fraction left and many returned to the U.S. and even then they identified with their nation of origin by and large.

I agree,
But if a "greatest Liberia" was America?
A State like afterwards Hawaii or Alaska.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
There's also the minor point that

Black. Americans. Are. Americans.

They have more of a birthright to be here than any willing immigrant group in this nation's history. Why do you think in spite of all of the discrimination, terrorization, violence and oppression by and large we remain here?

Liberia is a great example of that, a fraction left and many returned to the U.S. and even then they identified with their nation of origin by and large.

There's also the minor point that by the end of the Civil War, something like ~200,000 men of (identifiably) African ancestry had served in the Army and Navy as volunteers, and some ~37,000 USCTs had died in service to their country.

Sort of difficult to expect those who remain will accept exile.

Best,
 
There was a great deal of debate in the USA at the time of the Spanish-American War about whether or not to acquire any of the Spanish Empire. Puerto Rico was acquired by default, and it was close to the USA. Hawaii had been annexed totally separately at that time and Guam as an afterthought from Spain, mostly as a coaling station for the Navy. The US in the late 1880's had acquired part of Samoa, and there were a few random bits (Wake, Midway, Johnston Island etc) the US owned by 1900. The big issue was the Philippines. They were acquired partially to keep them out of the hands of other European powers who were willing to scoop them up (Germany being one), as a stepping stone to China and increasing China trade, and in part to "elevate" the locals. In any case except for the most ardent imperialists the USA never intended to keep the PI forever. The reality was that, unlike the other acquisitions which had relatively small populations and were partially or mostly "white" in the case of Hawaii (lots of white immigrants) or Puerto Rico, the PI was full of "our little brown brothers" who would not be desirable as US citizens no matter how "elevated" they were.

By the second half of the 19th century it was clear that if you "owned" a colony, that sooner or later at least some of the locals would be coming to the metropole - happened in the UK, France, even Germany. The last thing the USA of the post Civil War era wanted was a mechanism that would bring MORE Africans to the USA. The voluntary repatriation schemes for blacks never amounted to much, and even the racist USA of the late 19th/early 20th century would not have been able to deport large numbers of citizens to Africa. Aside from resistance of the black population, many whites who would not go for this, there is the reality that this simply can't be done legally unless you pass an amendment to the Constitution to do so and this would not happen.

The reality was there was nothing in Africa the USA wanted in the late 19th/early 20th century. Any raw materials were available in the USA or closer, there was really no "market" for US goods, and more. I really can't see the USA getting seriously involved.
 
Every single time this comes up I have to ask this question.

Why on earth do some of you guys really and honestly believe significant proportions of Black Americans 1. could be forced to migrate 2. Would want to migrate or 3. would be submissive about their planned expulsion from the United States to not fight back?

Because History is filled with examples of forced population relocation.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Generally not including those on the winning side, however...

Because History is filled with examples of forced population relocation.

Generally not including those on the winning side, however... and these men were definitely on the winning side:



Deporting the ex-rebels to Europe would be more likely.

Best,
 
Top