I feel I need to note again that this is still an empire, we don't claim Alexander the 'Great' didn't build an empire just cos he conquered what was around him VS some distant shore after all.
Why didn't the USA try to push out towards building it's own empire?
- Thread starter Jimbo808
- Start date
Well, Mexico isn't overseas. Also, note that the US quite deliberately took only relatively sparsely populated areas of Mexico. (As I once posted: "One gets the impression that what most Americans wanted was as much Mexican territory as possible with as few Mexicans as possible. What convinces me of the superficiality of the sentiment for "all Mexico" is that even the expansionists actually seemed relieved at Trist's treaty, despite its insubordinate origins. Thomas Ritchie of the *Washington Union* spoke for many when he expressed happiness that the land taken from Mexico was encumbered by only 100,000 Mexicans." https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...s-look-like-today.455285/page-7#post-18941432)
The definition of overseas does not exclude countries which you neighbour by land. The colloquial American usage does, I understand, but that is not how the word is used in other English speaking countries, or how it is defined in the dictionary.
The idea of wanting as much Mexico as possible with ad few Mexicans? Absolutely. But Hong Kong was entirely unpopulated when the British took control, and I dont think people would deny this was imperialism.
A distinction of "overseas" would seem to be the same saltwater fallacy you mentioned earlier.
Edit: also, the OP doesnt mention overseas in the thread title or OP. They just ask why America didnt engage in empire building?
Last edited:
It doesn't say overseas explicitly, but the examples given--"American East India company, or try to build bases in southeast asia/china" https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...building-its-own-empire.532549/#post-23456785 seem to indicate that this rather than the continental expansion everyone knows the US experienced in the 19th century is what he had in mind. I agree that there is no good reason to say that continental expansion cannot consitute an "empire." In fact, I elaborated at that(and the "salt water fallacy") at https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...building-its-own-empire.532549/#post-23456785 noting that it was in fact common for early American statesmen to refer to the US as an "empire." I might have added Zachary Taylor who referred to it as an "empire of freemen.'" https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/presidential-speeches/december-4-1849-first-annual-message This of course ignored over 3 million people who were not free... https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/decennial/1850/1850c/1850c-04.pdf
Oh ok fair sorry mate I get what you're driving at now.
So if its explicitly why didn the USA attempt to establish settlements in Southeast Asia earlier than OTL...
I'd argue technology and lacking a Pacific coast.
California was conquered in 1848 or something, American Columbia ceded in 1846 ("Oregon"), and by the 1850s the USA is claiming Guano islands, economically and politically dominating Hawai'i and opening Japan to the West.
Why didn't they do it earlier? They couldn't.
raharris1973
Gone Fishin'
Because the real-meaning of the OP's prompt wasn't this:
It was this
Or this:
well in this case the answer is simple, because the usa was expanding on the mainland and that is more interesting/easier than expanding in the rest of the world. There are other factors such as for the us to be a empire like the uk, the country would have to go into wars with strong european countries like france . The country did not have the marine capacity to compete with these powers and if it had gone to war, the country would have lost. The usa only really creates its empire in post WW2. Before that It didn't have the strength to do it. That was the biggest factor, lack of strength more than anything else.
Well they did, but they came really late to the game.
In principle the major obstacle to US expansion was that they were hemmed in by European powers in the north and an independent Mexico as a rival to the south and on the Pacific coast. Then the Royal Navy controlled the Atlantic and Caribbean (which was a double edged sword since they both helped the US not deal with European powers, but prevented any conquests of their own) and their own attempts at carving out spheres of influence in the Pacific were interrupted early on by the Civil War, and then the expansion of the European powers in Asia, which meant the US had to opt for economic concessions rather than territorial concessions instead when aiming to get in on the China game.
The one big overseas imperialist war was a walkover, but internal politics (and the cost of subjugating/administering the Philippines) soured many Americans as well. So instead American Empire became slightly less overt. They mostly scooped up little atolls and islands, with the one big imperial prize in the Pacific being Hawaii. Through the WWI period they began treating much of the Caribbean and Latin America as protectorates, and occupied and overthrew governments as it suited American interests, the Banana Wars were just imperialism lite.
The United States didn't establish an enormous overseas empire for a lack of particular will, but rather they failed to because they could not challenge the existing empires and were late to the game itself.
@EnglishCanuck , US policy towards Central America was/is indeed very British-like. Egypt, Gulf emirates were not de jure part of Empire, but they were all painted pink anyway.
octoberman
Banned
Beacause USA avoided conquering territories it don't want to incorporate. It is the opposite of European colonialism
There were Filipinos who tried to push for it, but naturally, as with incorporating Mexico, no one wanted to have to go through the work of assimilating a large population of brown Catholics.
Check out "How to Hide an Empire", by Daniel Immerwahr. We have a very mainland-centric collective narrative/memory of US history.
us.macmillan.com
How to Hide an Empire
Named one of the ten best books of the year by the Chicago TribuneA Publishers Weekly best book of 2019 | A 2019 NPR Staff PickA pathbreaking history of the ...
us.macmillan.com
octoberman
Banned
There wasn't an intention to annex Philippines it only happened because protectorate started fighting each other rendering client system defunct
No. That is not how it happened.
America wanted to conquer its own empire, and wanted Cuba, but the Congress blocked it. So they went for the Philippines instead.
octoberman
Banned
No it happened because Philippine government wanted to remove US from the places it occupied. In order to end the war this started USA had to conquer Philippines. They intended a similar arrangement to cuba
So you are blaming us for wanting America to treat us as allies instead of a colony?
octoberman
Banned
i didn't blame anybody i just explained causes of the Philippine American war and USA was not allied with Philippines it was just a less controlling overlord than Spain
from what little I've read, the US seemed to have a real 'White Man's Burden" idea for the Philippines... basically, oversee them into becoming a modern industrial nation and then becoming independent, with a benevolent US watching over them, and maintaining a naval base at Subic Bay. Not really an intention of making it part of the USA. Yeah, it was a rather appalling and racist idea and didn't differ a lot from outright colonialism....