US annexes Barbary States in 1823

Is there somewhere else that the US could conceivably set up early 19th century colonies? Maybe in West Africa, with a stronger South looking for a loophole to the "no importing slaves" portion of the Constitution?

Well, Liberia comes to mind; perhaps the US decides to keep a bit more of a presence there and eventually expand it.
 

Keenir

Banned
Okay so reading over the previous posts I've seen several recurring problems.

2. American domestic opposition: This is probably the biggest hurdle, but I don't think an insurmountable one. New England mercantilists wouldn't mind an overseas empire to trade with and dominate economically. Mid-westerners cold see a market for their agricultural products. I think this plan could find a home in the emerging Whig party.

*nods* This is, after all, the time of great eastern forests & the sky-darkening flocks of Passenger Pigeons and Woodland Bison, so food and resources aren't going to be a problem.

3. Military capacity: This poses a problem as the US probably couldn't subdue the vast interior but the US could given popular backing subdue the coastal regions.

*nods* Agreed. and the coastal emirs would keep an eye on the interior for the US.

Hrm.... Thriving on bison and elk. Upper hand? Empire of their own?!? What exactly are you referencing for this discussion, Crazy Horse's diary?

Something published by a reservation press, perhaps?

book "The Commanche Empire" by...and I'm not sure how to spell the guy's name.

EDIT: Pekka Hamalainen

Both were done in the era (1898) of steamships and telegraph which significantly shortened transportation and communication.
Quite significantly different than the Barbary Coast of the 1820s.

...where the US had to build a Navy almost from scratch, just to put a stop to something that was pestering other nations more than the US -- and there wasn't even full agreement in Congress over whether or not to build a fleet to get rid of the Barbary Pirates.
 
...where the US had to build a Navy almost from scratch, just to put a stop to something that was pestering other nations more than the US -- and there wasn't even full agreement in Congress over whether or not to build a fleet to get rid of the Barbary Pirates.

You talk about that like if it was an incredible feat, but the only reason why the USA had to send warships to the region was because Spain and France did not longer protect American ships because of the Napoleonic Wars. By that time the Barbary pirates were just an anachronistic annoyance at best, not a real treat to European nations.
 

Keenir

Banned
You talk about that like if it was an incredible feat, but the only reason why the USA had to send warships to the region was because Spain and France did not longer protect American ships because of the Napoleonic Wars. By that time the Barbary pirates were just an anachronistic annoyance at best, not a real treat to European nations.

doesn't matter -- at the time, we didn't have warships. we didn't have a fleet. that's why the debates in Congress were whether we should spend money paying for the hostages, or spend money and build a fleet of warships from scratch.

(yes, we had a few fighting ships from the Revolutionary and 1812 wars...but no fleet per se)
 
You know another interesting scenario would be during the Spanish-American War. WI the US tried to blockade Spain or barring that Spain attempted to sieze Tunis or Algiers?
 
Top