US conquers Barbary States?

How and why would the US conquer the Barbary States around 1800, during the Barbary Wars? What would be the implications of that area as US states?
 
First, they would need a large professional standing army, and a navy capable of transporting that army to North Africa. They didn't have either of these things, and the kind of central government necessary to create them would have scared the hell out of Americans in 1800.
 
It’s utterly ASB unless they become the complete, singular focus of the nation. And there’s absolutely no reason for that when we have all this lush land between the Mississippi and Appalachians to fill out. Better just to have trade unimpeded than to do the equivalent of a full occupation with insurgent matters for decades.
 
How and why would the US conquer the Barbary States around 1800, during the Barbary Wars? What would be the implications of that area as US states?

Around 1800?

Wasn't the US Navy like two row boats and a dinghy at that point? It may have been sufficient to combat the pirates, but to move enough troops over to conquer the area?

Also wasn't the army just a loose confederation of state militias as they didn't want to pay for a proper one?

How are they going to go about conquering much of anything? (Excepting nearby indigenous peoples)

Sorry to be flippant, but how would the US manage it? How would they sustain an occupation? Perhaps most importantly why would they bother? It would be incredibly expensive for little material gain. Unless of course they took over the piracy themselves. Then they might make some money. Along with angering all of europe and bringing the RN down on them.
 
Last edited:
Around 1800?

Wasn't the US Navy like two row boats and a dinghy at that point? It may have been sufficient to combat the pirates, but to move enough troops over to conquer the area?

Also wasn't the army just a loose confederation of state militias as they didn't want to pay for a proper one?

How are they going to go about conquering much of anything? (Excepting nearby indigenous peoples)

Sorry to be flippant, but how would the US manage it? How would they sustain an occupation? Perhaps most importantly why would they bother? It would be incredibly expensive for little material gain. Unless of course they took over the piracy themselves. Then they might make some money. Along with angering all of europe and bringing the RN down on them.

Well, the OTL First Barbary War had the US win - with 12 Frigates, some smaller vessels, 54 Marines and a bunch of mercenaries. (Also, the Swedish navy with 3 frigates).

So, the Navy was up to OTLs task, hardly 2 rowboats.

However, the rest of your points are certainly valid. There is no conceivable way the US could get the ground troops to occupy the area, and no way to hold them to any kind of long term agreement.
 
Well, the OTL First Barbary War had the US win - with 12 Frigates, some smaller vessels, 54 Marines and a bunch of mercenaries. (Also, the Swedish navy with 3 frigates).

So, the Navy was up to OTLs task, hardly 2 rowboats.

However, the rest of your points are certainly valid. There is no conceivable way the US could get the ground troops to occupy the area, and no way to hold them to any kind of long term agreement.

The rowboats were a joke. I was more pointing out that the US navy was nowhere near large enough to be going on frivolous excursions to occupy territory that they would have no hope of keeping should any european power decide to take it. Against the Royal Navy in the Med for example those Frigates start to resemble row boats - they will be about as useful.

The barbary wars were fought with very specific goals in mind, and very realistic ones at that. Prevent the corsairs raiding the US merchant marine. (Better a million in defense than one cent in tribute and all that) I'm fairly sure that anyone suggesting annexing the barbary coast would be institutionalised. Why would the US waste money and men on such a ridiculous scheme, especially when they do not have masses of either.
 
Assuming the weird and unlikely situation where it happens, I see no reason why the Barbary Coast wold be aadmitted as states. The US already had land that was not yet admitted as states so the precedent for non-state US territory already existed. If the US manages to hold it, eventually they may become states but it will be a long time and holding them ththat long is even more un likely than a short term conquest.

This probably inspires fear and anger in Europe. The US would be a Republican power conquering old world land at the same time that Republican France is tearing through Europe. While most, if not all, European powers have bigger fish to fry and can't deal with it for a while, the post-Revolution backlash will probably include at least economic attacks on the US.

In an alt-1812 War(which IMO is even more likely since the US will have even more reason to believe it's strong enough to invade and conquer Canada) the US is guaranteed to lose the Barbary Coast to the Royal Navy.

If by some miracle the Coast survives in the US in to the 1900s and makes the jump to being admitted in to the Union (dubious), we will obviously see major butterflies but decolonization will happen eventually regardless and the complications of admitted states attempting to leave during decolonization will be large. Think Algeria and France.

This is, of course, all horribly unlikely, but it would definitely create a different world. Likely a more aggressive US (unless they get slapped down too hard by the British at some point) and a larger fear of/anger towards the US/Republicanism in Europe in general.
 
Assuming the weird and unlikely situation where it happens, I see no reason why the Barbary Coast wold be aadmitted as states.

Certainly not at time of annexation, but eventually. They’d be territory just like that out west.

the post-Revolution backlash will probably include at least economic attacks on the US.

Indeed, but what could they do? The biggest threat I could see is being able to stop trade between North African ports and North American ports, but if the US can keep that open...

In an alt-1812 War(which IMO is even more likely since the US will have even more reason to believe it's strong enough to invade and conquer Canada) the US is guaranteed to lose the Barbary Coast to the Royal Navy.

Ah, but since annexation (and retention) of North Africa would require the buildup of a navy to match...

If by some miracle the Coast survives in the US in to the 1900s and makes the jump to being admitted in to the Union

Why would it take a century?

decolonization will happen eventually regardless

No... Even ignoring all butterflies but the fact that US states don’t leave the Union, period.

and the complications of admitted states attempting to leave during decolonization will be large.

Which is why it won’t happen. We’re talking a huge pre-Civil War change, even. Pre-War of 1812, even. There will BE no WWI or WWII and no decolonization as per OTL.
 
Certainly not at time of annexation, but eventually. They’d be territory just like that out west.

Right. That's essentially what I was referencing.

Indeed, but what could they do? The biggest threat I could see is being able to stop trade between North African ports and North American ports, but if the US can keep that open...

Well, yeah, stopping trade between North America and North Africa would be pretty easy for Portugal, France, Spain, Britain, and essentially anyone else who wanted to. I find it hard to think the US would be able to really stop it. On top of that, the early US traded very heavily with Western Europe, so there's a lot of ways they could do this.

Ah, but since annexation (and retention) of North Africa would require the buildup of a navy to match...

I don't think it's reasonable for the US to build up a navy large enough to fight the Royal Navy in the early 1800's. Even if they were willing and able to spend the money on ships that could technically match the Navy, which I don't think is possible, the experience and skill of British sailors is going to make mincemeat of the shiny new American navy. The US has had a naval based military for most of its history and still took many many years to outpace the Royal Navy, and there's good reasons for that which are unchanged by this POD.

If, however, another POD has the Royal Navy somehow meet disaster in the French Revolutionary/Napoleonic Wars, then this all changes. And that's not impossible.

Why would it take a century?

Because the Barbary Coast is mostly made up of non-white Muslims. Americans were largely Protestant at this point. Anti-Catholic sentiment was large in the nation, Anti-Muslim sentiment would be a thing just as much. By a century later, the area would probably be mixed between Protestant and Muslim people, the Muslims may be slightly more accepted, and there will probably be a large amount of immigrants to the Barbary US land that makes the demographics more acceptable to the Continental US.

No... Even ignoring all butterflies but the fact that US states don’t leave the Union, period.

In 1861, we know this to be true. US States do not leave the Union period. This POD predates that. I didn't even bring up the complications this would have on an alt-Civil War. It's reasonable to assume the Slavery Question will come to a head still in this world, and things we know about the US post-Civil War may not be the same things we know about the US in this timeline.

Which is why it won’t happen. We’re talking a huge pre-Civil War change, even. Pre-War of 1812, even. There will BE no WWI or WWII and no decolonization as per OTL.

There will be no WWI, WWII, and decolonization as we know it. But I don't see anything in this POD that prevents Europeans from eventually conquering much of Africa, this was already starting at the time. It may not be as extensive and it will certainly have different powers in different places, and it's entirely possible that no major war drains the European countries enough to cause those colonies to eventually be able to break away.

But I think the more likely possibility is that Africa is conquered in some measure by European powers and that the colonial empires will eventually collapse. No question it will look very different on both counts than OTL, but the overarching idea of decolonization in Africa will likely happen. If the US Barbary States are admitted states at that point, the revolutions may spread there and who knows how it could go. They may not spread as well, the states might be integrated well enough by that point, especially if it's much later than OTL, that they feel they are already a part of the nation they belong in and will not seek to leave the US while other African peoples are striking out against their overlords. If the US treats the Barbary States equal to other US states on admission, they would have a pretty good argument that the Continental US is not the overlord of the Barbary people, but that they are instead just brothers in the nation.
 
Ok, this is basically ASB unless some very early (ARW times?) POD is used, and probably even in that case.
But let's handwave that for a minute.
The US intend to control a large part of the Mediterranean coast that notionally belongs to the Ottoman Empire. The Porte might not be in the best position to challenge that, but I suppose that the Ottoman navy could still mop the floor with whatever force the US in this age could be able to project into the Med. And the Ottomans were engaged in the European alliance system during the Napoleonic war, at first against the French, later on the French side. If the US, for some crazy reason, intend to keep North Africa, they'll be entangled into the European conflicts. Either they are fighting France and end up among the victors sitting in Vienna, or they back France and that somehow spirals into Napoleonic lasting victory. Perhaps Russia, France and America choose to partition the Ottoman Empire between themselves, there's no Napoleonic campaign in Russia and Britain gives in at last -possibly losing parts of Canada too. This is incredibly unlikely though.

However, it'll be a quickly world-changing POD.
 
taking the Barbary Coast is not a good idea even if they somehow could. However if they could take and hold 1 port city to base a small Med fleet in might be a good idea.
 
Because the Barbary Coast is mostly made up of non-white Muslims. Americans were largely Protestant at this point. Anti-Catholic sentiment was large in the nation, Anti-Muslim sentiment would be a thing just as much.

Viewing Arabs (especially coastal Northern Africans) as not white is a very modern thing (though over time they'd probably become seen as an 'other' since they would'nt be really on either side/both in the slave issue), there is a reason afterall that the United States government (Census and various agencies requiring definitions) have included North Africa in the definition of White for a very long time; as to anti-Muslim sentiment, well that's again a very modern thing, indeed historically (and I mean even during the time period we're talking about) America has had a very positive view of Islam and Muslims.
 
I wonder about the goodwill between the US and Morocco at this time, too. How would that play in to US-owned land over there?
 
Viewing Arabs (especially coastal Northern Africans) as not white is a very modern thing (though over time they'd probably become seen as an 'other' since they would'nt be really on either side/both in the slave issue), there is a reason afterall that the United States government (Census and various agencies requiring definitions) have included North Africa in the definition of White for a very long time; as to anti-Muslim sentiment, well that's again a very modern thing, indeed historically (and I mean even during the time period we're talking about) America has had a very positive view of Islam and Muslims.


They didn't have a very positive view of the US, however. The response that was given to the US by the Trioplitanian Envoy summed up their mindset:

It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once. It was the opinion of this enlightened public functionary that the Devil aided his countrymen in these expeditions, for they were almost always successful.
Although, it is irresponsible, as always, to label a large group as unitary. Morocco was the first state to recognize the US, which lead to good ties and the eventual treaty in 1786. Assuming such a scenario proceeded forthwith, Morocco might side with the US and take a piece of the Algerian pie. The US could possibly lease a port on the Moroccan coast (Ifni?) Assuming that they somehow manage to conquer half of North Africa with a relatively nonexistant military force, and ignore the larger, closer lands to the west.

And, of course, it might bring them into conflict with a Spain that rules half of the Americas, at least.
 
Viewing Arabs (especially coastal Northern Africans) as not white is a very modern thing (though over time they'd probably become seen as an 'other' since they would'nt be really on either side/both in the slave issue), there is a reason afterall that the United States government (Census and various agencies requiring definitions) have included North Africa in the definition of White for a very long time; as to anti-Muslim sentiment, well that's again a very modern thing, indeed historically (and I mean even during the time period we're talking about) America has had a very positive view of Islam and Muslims.

Not entirely true. Part of the reason "freedom of religion" provisions were debated over was that people pointed out that with freedom of religion, Islam would be permitted. A lot of the statements at the time concerning religion would say things like "Even a Mohammedean could worship freely..." Anti-Islam sentiment was alive and well, even though there were no Muslims to speak of. The fact that Islam was viewed as the potential exception to free religion shows how otherized it was, if not disliked.
 
Not entirely true. Part of the reason "freedom of religion" provisions were debated over was that people pointed out that with freedom of religion, Islam would be permitted. A lot of the statements at the time concerning religion would say things like "Even a Mohammedean could worship freely..." Anti-Islam sentiment was alive and well, even though there were no Muslims to speak of. The fact that Islam was viewed as the potential exception to free religion shows how otherized it was, if not disliked.

That would not be anti-Islam though, but anti-everything that is'nt 'our' version of Christianity; do remember that in some parts Islam was considered just a heretical sect of Christianity for quite a long time.
 
Top