How would this change US/Caribbean history? Would this totally butterfly away the Spanish-American War or set the stage for further US expansion into the Caribbean?
In 1871 when the proposal went off? c. 350K inhabitants. And now you have a state/territory that's majority mixed race and less than 10% white.What were the demographics of Santo Domingo (/The Dominican Republic) like at the time? How much of an impact would that have had upon the demographic of the USA? And what sort of shifts in US policy and popular sentiment might we expect to see as a result?
When exactly would this annexation happen?
You'd get non stop low intensity revolt until the area is pacified and thousands are dead; basically a preview to the Philippines.
In 1871 when the proposal went off? c. 350K inhabitants. And now you have a state/territory that's majority mixed race and less than 10% white.
1870, when the "President" (dictator) of Santo Domingo requested annexation by the US. Congress almost passed it, too.
It would definitely not be a state right away. And everything hinges on how much effort the US is willing to put in to destroy the revolt. If the US sends enough troops and settlers, the "revolt" could be pacified within 10-20 years. But I doubt the US would be willing to waste thousands of soldiers for half an island.
So- what would happen to Haiti then? Because if the Americans decide to go the whole hog, and try to take the whole of Hispaniola, it'll be a nightmare for them. That's some bad Voodoo right there...
The DR is treated slightly worse than Puerto Rico. I doubt they'd gain statehood.
I need a brush up on the reasons for Hawaii's annexation.
Nope. The elites hated the idea of government rule over them. Now you're replacing the weak government they're used to dealing with, with an even far stronger one? One that's probably going to settle their place with all these strange Blacks and Anglos, who don't speak their language, don't share their religion and don't give a shit about their interests?Revolts happen if the elites want to revolt. Ordinary campesinos won't care unless it means even worse exploitation (which it probably won't). Presumably, annexation to the US won't be significantly opposed by most elites.
They don't care. "Better to rule in hell than serve in heaven as the phrase goes." The Dominican elite who ran the plantations were as rich as their counterparts in the US, thanks to all that corruption and concentration of wealth.Those with economic power probably see significant advantages to being part of the US.
No, they'd fight tooth and nail like they did with the Spanish occupation of the island during the Restoration war.Political elites will be a little different, but it is the leader of the country who is requesting annexation, and as long as people already holding office are able to retain their offices or be given other considerations, they'll probably be peaceful.
Liberal elites would chafe at how conservative some parts of the US would be, and IOTL were huge proponents of Dominican sovereignty, usually being the ones to organize the rebellions.Liberal elites might even welcome US annexation because it means their political ideals will be more successfully implemented than otherwise.
Not in Dominican Republic. A very strong national identify formed in response to the Haitian occupation, which would become a prominent theme in Dominican self identity and writings from this time period to the first decades of the 20th century.Nationalism was not very strong in the Caribbean at this time.
Uh, Hispaniola had been fighting with the Spanish for well over a century to try to get self rule. There was a very strong desire to kick out the Spanish and do things by themselves, and a proto-natiolistic movement had been growing for a very long time, which exploded after the Haitian invasions of the Eastern two-thirds of the island as the Spanish population tried to separate themselves from the Haitians.It had only been a few decades since independence from Spain, and that was because the elites grew accustomed to self government during Napoleon's occupation of Spain. National identity was very weak and would be for several more decades.
I do. The island simply didn't want to be ruled by anyone else. In the eyes of the vast majority of the inhabitants, the US annexation is nothing more than a repeat of what Spain did a decade ago, and the Restoration War is fresh in everyone's mind.I don't foresee too many problems than what the US experienced during the Mexican Cession in 1848 or in conquering Puerto Rico in 1898. That is more analagous to a US annexation of Santo Domingo than the US experience in the Philippines where an existing anti-colonial movement already existed.
Leaders is the right keyword, as in it boils down to two men wanting to have the country bid off to another power. Those men are Pedro Santana (who wanted a return to Spanish rule) and Buenaventura Baez (who just wanted to secure power.) Both men had strong armies on their payroll and were able to enforce their rule.Well, I don't know enough about the internal politics of Santo Domingo to know if the elites were willing to risk their lives to drive off the US. I'd presumed they did not, but admit I can easily be wrong.
However, despite the excellent points you made, there has to be something very fragile of Dominican nationalism in this period if its leaders kept petitioning outsiders to come in and rule them.
Actually, the Spanish did rule fairly even evenhandedly. But as soon as they tried to actually enforce things and crack down on corruption, revolt sprung up. (Although it must be mentioned that there was already a simmering feeling of revolt building up and would have exploded one time or another. The Haitian occupation lasted 22 years mind you, even though there was talk of revolt the year after Haiti invaded!) Its most likely the rebels were simply biding their time.That the Restoration War didn't start for two years after the Spanish came back to rule indicates that Spanish rule might have become acceptable provided they ruled well.
Again, the Spanish were pretty even handed and progressive, investing in the island and what not.To me, this indicates an identity in flux and that American rule might have been acceptable provided it was seen as beneficial. Despite the attitudes of the Americans, would it really be in the same category as rule by the Haitians or Spanish, or might we expect a more progressive approach?
I doubt that. Unlike the Spanish, the Americans are "The Devil you don't know", with a different language and religion, and the one who took a huge chunk of Mexico, so there's points off already.I think there is a good chance of a honeymoon period of 2-3 years before the elites would decide it was worth fighting another war.