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?
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.
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.
Assuming the weird and unlikely situation where it happens, I see no reason why the Barbary Coast wold be aadmitted as states.
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
decolonization will happen eventually regardless
and the complications of admitted states attempting to leave during decolonization will be large.
Certainly not at time of annexation, but eventually. They’d be territory just like that out west.
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...
Ah, but since annexation (and retention) of North Africa would require the buildup of a navy to match...
Why would it take a century?
No... Even ignoring all butterflies but the fact that US states don’t leave the Union, period.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.