US colonial empire

European nation created large colonial empires, while the USA mostly settled its continent, and grabbed a bunch of islands, most notably the Philippines. Is there any possible TL that leads to the USA having some large colonies, in the manner of Europe? Or is there no way that this can happen?
 

Saphroneth

Banned
I actually think the distinction between "expansionism" and "colonialism" is an artificial one - it sums to "Colonialism is something you do on a boat".

But if you're asking for more US overseas colonialism, I see two options.



Option one: less territory for the US on land.

This option means the US completes the "expansion" period earlier, in time to participate in something like the Scramble for Africa. This would be going after "uncivilized" areas.

Option two: US goes grabbing colonies in South and Central America.

This is going to need a US more willing to go to war - and, if it's not going to go unpleasantly wrong for them, a US more willing to maintain a large standing army and navy. The territory is there to take, if the US is willing to spend the money... but then again, the only real difference between "Most of OTL South America" and "Large chunks of the OTL British Empire" is that the Americans didn't colour the area they controlled the politics of in their colour on a map.
Most of South America OTL (the Banana Wars period) was basically US economic colonies.
 
Theoretically it is possible with the right PODs.

The US might decide to annex more territory in the Pacific and the Caribbean as Commonwealths (not necessarily going to become states, but protectorates with US bases and business interests established) in order to expand its trade and military interests in the region.

You would need some dominant competitors though IMO to make the need for annexation more real. Say there's another colonial power in South and Central America with big reach, or a more competitive hustle for islands in the Pacific.

OTL there just wasn't the will to enforce major annexations of non-majority white populations, hence why Cuba became an independent republic. The Philippines soured the US to costly colonial wars.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
If you mean "colonial empire" in the sense of a populated

European nation created large colonial empires, while the USA mostly settled its continent, and grabbed a bunch of islands, most notably the Philippines. Is there any possible TL that leads to the USA having some large colonies, in the manner of Europe? Or is there no way that this can happen?

If you mean "colonial empire" in the sense of a populated territory/society/polity being claimed and that claim being enforced by another polity, largely for economic or strategic reasons (real or perceived), as opposed to territory (populated or not) being claimed and "settled" by a separate polity, then:

No.

If, for example, you're speaking of the difference between (say) New France and Indochina in your "large colonies in the manner of Europe" comparison, then something to keep in mind is that the US - like the other "settler" societies/Little Europes/"daughters" (i.e. Argentina, Australia, Canada, Chile, etc.) - had plenty of space for economic and territorial expansion on their (respective) continents, and because of the undeniable demographic collapses of the (native) peoples of those same continents (largely in the era before any of the "settler" societies had developed as such).

The European powers were in a very different geo-strategic space in the Nineteenth Century than, for example, the US, Argentina, Australia, Canada, Chile, etc.

For the US, overseas imperialization was - as a matter of national policy - largely an afterthought, not unlike those of Germany in the late Nineteenth Century.

Very different situation then the British and French in Africa and Asia.

Best,
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Your understanding of South American history is

... but then again, the only real difference between "Most of OTL South America" and "Large chunks of the OTL British Empire" is that the Americans didn't colour the area they controlled the politics of in their colour on a map.
Most of South America OTL (the Banana Wars period) was basically US economic colonies.

Your understanding of South American history is, um, interesting.:rolleyes:

Please name the South American countries that were involved in "the Banana Wars" and define such.

Central America and the Caribbean is not the same as South America.

Best,
 
The US can go for DEI. You must butterfly this away including the psyche that lead US to court room:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_of_Palmas_Case

The US can also push for North Borneo by right of Sultanate of Sulu. The primary reason why Philippines pushed for North Borneo was due to F.B. Harrison.

Making US psyche as aggressive like in 1890s, more Theodore Roosevelt type presidents.
 
Theoretically it is possible with the right PODs.

The US might decide to annex more territory in the Pacific and the Caribbean as Commonwealths (not necessarily going to become states, but protectorates with US bases and business interests established) in order to expand its trade and military interests in the region.

You would need some dominant competitors though IMO to make the need for annexation more real. Say there's another colonial power in South and Central America with big reach, or a more competitive hustle for islands in the Pacific.

OTL there just wasn't the will to enforce major annexations of non-majority white populations, hence why Cuba became an independent republic. The Philippines soured the US to costly colonial wars.

Cuba, non-majority white? Huh?
 

TFSmith121

Banned
A Dutch-American war in 1928 over a small island in the

The US can go for DEI. You must butterfly this away including the psyche that lead US to court room:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_of_Palmas_Case

The US can also push for North Borneo by right of Sultanate of Sulu. The primary reason why Philippines pushed for North Borneo was due to F.B. Harrison. Making US psyche as aggressive like in 1890s, more Theodore Roosevelt type presidents.

A Dutch-American war in 1928 over a small island in the western Pacific seems rather unlikely.;)

The North Borneo thing was, like the Bonins, one of those oddball things that happened on the peripheries of an age where shipping allowed such things, but it would have taken butterflies the size of a pteranodon to get US policymakers to care.

The guano islands were (generally) uninhabited rocks; Hawaii makes strategic sense as the apex of the Alaska-Hawaii-Panama defensive triangle; Samoa and Guam were coaling stops in the era before oil; and the PI was stupid and brutal on the part of the US, but was also rapidly seen as not a great idea... and IIRC, the Philippines was the first "colony" seized as such in the Nineteenth Century to gain its independence. The US was on the way out from (at least) the passage of the TM Act in 1934.

Puerto Rico and the USVI were - basically - strategic decisions, although PR was pretty stupid as well.

None compared with - say - the results of the scramble for Africa.

Best,
 
The US can go for DEI. You must butterfly this away including the psyche that lead US to court room:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_of_Palmas_Case

The US can also push for North Borneo by right of Sultanate of Sulu. The primary reason why Philippines pushed for North Borneo was due to F.B. Harrison.

Making US psyche as aggressive like in 1890s, more Theodore Roosevelt type presidents.

North Borneo was not claimed through the annexation of Sulu to the Philippines; that was how the Philippines maintain their claim.

It was through a lease arranged by the US Consul to Brunei (Charles Lee Moses) with the Sultans of Brunei & Suluto the sum total of territory in North Borneo. Moses then transferred the lease to Joseph Torrey who assumed the title of Rajah of Ambong and Maroodoo. The American colony at Kimanis (Ellena) lasted for a year before folding. From the (likely embellished) reports of the sole eyewitness to the colony along with a few other records, Moses and others got along with the natives fairly well and made a point of attending many various native events (weddings, etc).

However, the colony soon fell into debt that Torrey couldn't repay, and he and Moses fell into conflict that soon resulted in the end of the colony. (Pirate raids were involved). As such, the lease then passed on to the American Trading Company in Hong Kong and eventually ended up in the hand of the British. The rest is history.

Granted, this could be a good flashpoint for an eventual earlier Spanish-American war: the English translation of the lease gave the US the lease over Balabac and Palawan islands via a transfer from the Sultan of Sulu. These, of course, belong to Spain.

So, have a more competent colonial manager acquire the lease (rather than a Consul trying a get rich scheme) that has an accommodating attitude to the populace (as was reportedly shown OTL) might be able to create an economic colony.

Of course, the reason for the lease in the first place was because the Sultan of Brunei desired American protection against Sarawak. He thought that he had acquired that through the lease, but Moses acted on his own. To get it to be anything but an economic colony in the first few years would require a change in Washington's priorities (or, at least, a less exhausting Civil War) would probably be required for it to become much larger. So, to that end, you could see a multipolar Brunei coming into existence. (Sarawak, Brunei, Ambong & Maroodoo, a little sliver of Sulu, and Dutch Borneo) Or you could see Brunei subsumed between Sarawak and Ambong & Maroodoo if the latter colony manages to establish itself with any sort of support... or just the ambitions of a charismatic adventurer.
 

Sabot Cat

Banned
I think the US could have gotten the Congo if it participated in the Berlin Conference. But the Congo probably wouldn't be an actual "colony". More like a replacement of the Congo Free State from Leopold's control, except hopefully less brutal.
 
A Dutch-American war in 1928 over a small island in the western Pacific seems rather unlikely.;)

The North Borneo thing was, like the Bonins, one of those oddball things that happened on the peripheries of an age where shipping allowed such things, but it would have taken butterflies the size of a pteranodon to get US policymakers to care.

The guano islands were (generally) uninhabited rocks; Hawaii makes strategic sense as the apex of the Alaska-Hawaii-Panama defensive triangle; Samoa and Guam were coaling stops in the era before oil; and the PI was stupid and brutal on the part of the US, but was also rapidly seen as not a great idea... and IIRC, the Philippines was the first "colony" seized as such in the Nineteenth Century to gain its independence. The US was on the way out from (at least) the passage of the TM Act in 1934.

Puerto Rico and the USVI were - basically - strategic decisions, although PR was pretty stupid as well.

None compared with - say - the results of the scramble for Africa.

Best,

Oh, but I am not basing on a pod OTL 1928 or 1934 otl point of view. This before 1900 after all.

If I am going to put pod 1928, yes I would agree with you. But I wouldn't put my pod on 1928 to achieve such goals.

North Borneo was not claimed through the annexation of Sulu to the Philippines; that was how the Philippines maintain their claim.

It was through a lease arranged by the US Consul to Brunei (Charles Lee Moses) with the Sultans of Brunei & Suluto the sum total of territory in North Borneo. Moses then transferred the lease to Joseph Torrey who assumed the title of Rajah of Ambong and Maroodoo. The American colony at Kimanis (Ellena) lasted for a year before folding. From the (likely embellished) reports of the sole eyewitness to the colony along with a few other records, Moses and others got along with the natives fairly well and made a point of attending many various native events (weddings, etc).

However, the colony soon fell into debt that Torrey couldn't repay, and he and Moses fell into conflict that soon resulted in the end of the colony. (Pirate raids were involved). As such, the lease then passed on to the American Trading Company in Hong Kong and eventually ended up in the hand of the British. The rest is history.

Granted, this could be a good flashpoint for an eventual earlier Spanish-American war: the English translation of the lease gave the US the lease over Balabac and Palawan islands via a transfer from the Sultan of Sulu. These, of course, belong to Spain.

So, have a more competent colonial manager acquire the lease (rather than a Consul trying a get rich scheme) that has an accommodating attitude to the populace (as was reportedly shown OTL) might be able to create an economic colony.

Of course, the reason for the lease in the first place was because the Sultan of Brunei desired American protection against Sarawak. He thought that he had acquired that through the lease, but Moses acted on his own. To get it to be anything but an economic colony in the first few years would require a change in Washington's priorities (or, at least, a less exhausting Civil War) would probably be required for it to become much larger. So, to that end, you could see a multipolar Brunei coming into existence. (Sarawak, Brunei, Ambong & Maroodoo, a little sliver of Sulu, and Dutch Borneo) Or you could see Brunei subsumed between Sarawak and Ambong & Maroodoo if the latter colony manages to establish itself with any sort of support... or just the ambitions of a charismatic adventurer.

But you didn't see the name F.B. Harrison. All the rationality of the Philippines to claim north Borneo was thru suggestion and advice of an American. Which could be in an ATL be an American policy since we have a pod before 1900. The government of aguinaldo/Philipines before American period had no plans nor ambitions whatsoever for north Borneo.

You can say the Americans can claim north Borneo if they wanted to. But chose not to in OTL.
 
But you didn't see the name F.B. Harrison. All the rationality of the Philippines to claim north Borneo was thru suggestion and advice of an American. Which could be in an ATL be an American policy since we have a pod before 1900. The government of aguinaldo/Philipines before American period had no plans nor ambitions whatsoever for north Borneo.

You can say the Americans can claim north Borneo if they wanted to. But chose not to in OTL.

By the time the US had acquired the Philippines, the British had already possessed North Borneo for two decades. And, frankly, the Philippines didn't have the claim until they absorbed Sulu even later. You have an interval of nearly four decades between the acquisition of North Borneo by the British and the Philippines. And, at the same time, consider the extremely low chances for the US to go to war with the British... for North Borneo.

The best way for the US to get any influence on the island is to simply beat the British there in the first place, especially if it occurs before the Anglo American Reconcilliation.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Fair enough ... it's worth noting, of course, the

Oh, but I am not basing on a pod OTL 1928 or 1934 otl point of view. This before 1900 after all. ... If I am going to put pod 1928, yes I would agree with you. But I wouldn't put my pod on 1928 to achieve such goals.

Fair enough ... it's worth noting, of course, the US was fairly reluctant (for internal political reasons) to get real deep into the "claim an island" racket much before the 1880s (Guano islands being excepted), largely because despite however fervent some people got for Manifest Destiny west of the Continent, there were a lot more who saw little gain and much expense in such activities...

Best,
 
Last edited:
OTL there just wasn't the will to enforce major annexations of non-majority white populations, hence why Cuba became an independent republic.
That had little to do with race and much more to do with the fact that it would hurt American sugar companies as it would suddenly make Cuban sugar no longer suffer from American tariffs and as a result they would have to face stiff economic competition from cheaply Cuban sugar.
 
That had little to do with race and much more to do with the fact that it would hurt American sugar companies as it would suddenly make Cuban sugar no longer suffer from American tariffs and as a result they would have to face stiff economic competition from cheaply Cuban sugar.

the Platt Amendment is very relevant to American Colonial aspirations ... there were a great number of Americans who were firmly against naked colonialism and imperialism throughout our history. Lincoln and Grant were both firmly against the Mexican War (for example), while popular support for annexing Canada in the War of 1812 was extremely limited too. Even the Indian Removal Act was resisted including by the Supreme Court.

American Imperialism has never had a broad base of support... even the conquest of the West was more about individual settlers and corporations and less about official policy (although there was some of that too)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platt_Amendment
 
The U.S. could easily have more colonies than it did in OTL, but something on the scale of the UK is virtually impossible. There wasn't much of a desire for oversea colonies. Indeed there was a good deal of outright hostility to it. Probably the most oversea colonies you could get would be some strange scenario where the U.S. sides with the Central Powers in a great war analogue and gobbles up the British and French possessions in the Caribbean and Pacific like in TL 191. However this is extremely unlikely.
 
One thing that is forgotten; the US did own the Marquesas islands for a short time span by de facto control in 1813 along with a claim that was never ratified. Again, part of it was because Porter never had a chance to return and solidify the claim.

This would probably be a good one as the islands suffered an epidemic later on that claimed a large portion of the native populace. If I recall correctly, it was due to some missionaries from Peru, but I'm not sure. Either way, US ownership might forestall that and the Marquesas islands might maintain their earlier (larger) population.

Have the colony ratified and have its rule go fairly smoothly, and you might warm the US to the thought of a largeish Pacific Empire; at least, they might start pressing earlier for other pieces. I know that part of the guano island claims encompassed quite a large portion of the Line Islands (if not all of them) and, with the Marquesas Islands, they'd make more sense if you wished to develop a line of control. Although, note that Great Britain claimed the islands late in the 19th century to lay an underwater cable; until that point, no one wanted them.

...Heh. Granted, it's from Wiki, but they point out that a US sailor named the Marquesas Islands the Washington Islands in 1791. It'd be amusing if, sometime down the line, that a large group of Pacific Islands south of Hawai'i managed to become a state of Washington. That'd be something to see.
 
The U.S. could easily have more colonies than it did in OTL, but something on the scale of the UK is virtually impossible. There wasn't much of a desire for oversea colonies. Indeed there was a good deal of outright hostility to it. Probably the most oversea colonies you could get would be some strange scenario where the U.S. sides with the Central Powers in a great war analogue and gobbles up the British and French possessions in the Caribbean and Pacific like in TL 191. However this is extremely unlikely.

That is a discussion for another thread. Probably in ASB.
 
OTL there just wasn't the will to enforce major annexations of non-majority white populations, hence why Cuba became an independent republic.

Thats not the situation with Cuba. We went in with the express aim of helping Cuba attain their independence. It was the entire reason the war started (the Maine was in Havana for a reason). The Cubans were considered, by and large, white. Mainly because, by and large, they were white (modern day Cuba is, according to their statistics, 65% white).

But don't take my word for it: Just look at I Love Lucy. If you don't immediately see my point (without trying to google any behind the scenes info), then my point is made. Most Americans considered Cubans white.
 
Top