WI/AHC: US Colonial Empire in Africa

As we all know, the United States didn't have a colonial empire in Africa. Instead while European empires were looking south towards Africa, the US was looking west towards the pacific ocean, annexing several islands in the pacific ocean (most notably Hawaii and the Philippines).

But what if the United States had decided to build up a colonial empire in Africa. Given the racist stance the US took towards Pacific islanders in denying them the right to vote, I don't think there would be any major objective to doing so with Africans especially if they had some limited self-rule. I could see a natural progression. Liberia, instead of becoming an independent nation state becomes a US protectorate, dependency, colony, possession or some other legal category controlled by the United States.

With the full muscle of the US military backing Liberia, it's likely Liberia wouldn't lose substantial territory to Sierra Leone (UK) and the Ivory Coast (France) as it did in OTL. When the scramble for Africa came, I imagine the US would be in a good position to grab greater territory in West Africa.

Is this a realistic scenario? How big of a colonial Empire could the US have gained? What would be the likely consequences of an American empire in Africa.
 
Im not sure if Liberia existed at the same time the US experienced Manifest Destiny. But the US was still expanding across North America and the Carribean (indirectly). If they wanted to have an African Colonial Empire, they would probably have to slow down in North America. They could set up Liberia as a penal colony, arm it better, and probably purchase undesired territory from other European empires. I don't really know how big American Africa could be
 
Im not sure if Liberia existed at the same time the US experienced Manifest Destiny. But the US was still expanding across North America and the Carribean (indirectly). If they wanted to have an African Colonial Empire, they would probably have to slow down in North America. They could set up Liberia as a penal colony, arm it better, and probably purchase undesired territory from other European empires. I don't really know how big American Africa could be

No need for a penal colony in Liberia when the US could just deport as many black people from the South as it felt like.

But to expand beyond Liberia, the US would need to actively be sending expeditions to defeat the native rulers, and West Africa had probably the most organised resistance against European incursions OTL (Samori Touré, etc.), so that's quite a bit of resources in addition to what the US Army was doing in this era in fighting Indians. Would the US really feel like spending its resources to go do this? Maybe, but the US had a very small military for its size in the 19th century, and I'm not sure the relevant powers might appreciate this use--it'll become a major political issue every election. Fighting Indians on American soil is one thing, but subduing various African rulers on African soil who are at minimum just as powerful and skilled in guerilla tactics is something completely different.

What the US runs into in Africa will guarantee butterfly any US involvement in the Philippines, Spanish-American War or not. Probably will butterfly the whole conflict, too.
 
One thing to consider is that you may not have to follow the OTL timelines on this one in regards to the Partition of Africa.

As late as the 1860's, Africa was still largely unconquered. I've often described it as a fad as most colonies in Africa were created in spite of no economic reason for existence.

Assume the first few colonies beyond the traditional (North Africa, Egypt, South Africa) ones remained as forgotten trading posts that once sent slaves, gold, ivory, etc.

Maybe no Russian or French threats on India and no one would care about capturing East Africa to protect/threaten the British hold on India. Maybe a successful Sepoy Rebellion eliminates the need to hold the Red Sea region by any European country.

It is possible to think that much of Africa would be considered a curiosity for explorers but little else well into the 20th century when certain areas of Africa were found to have resources the world wanted (minerals, rubber, etc, etc).

If you put off the Partition for even a couple of decades, say 1890's, the US may choose to get in by annexing interior areas of the continent from Liberia. If the sides on WWI are different, then the US may be granted some British or French territories, or perhaps German ones.
 
Perhaps a scenario that sees slavery in the States peacefully resolved in the 1870s or 1880s sees a much bigger movement to send former slaves to Africa? That in turn would require a colony to send them to.
 
Perhaps a scenario that sees slavery in the States peacefully resolved in the 1870s or 1880s sees a much bigger movement to send former slaves to Africa? That in turn would require a colony to send them to.

It's just a ludicrously expensive thing to do. If you're really intent on ethnic cleansing from the US, why not just capture a Caribbean island and dump them there? I frankly don't think the US would have any interest in Africa in virtually any scenario.
 
USA needed African colonies as little as Russia did. Which was not very much.
Both had large frontier close to home as more viable territory for expansion.
 
I think I've heard mentioned quite a few times that the US could get the Congo in an alternate conference of Berlin, seeing as it was removed from the European affairs in general. That would require, however, a US that is interventionist not only in affairs in its hemisphere, but in affairs outside of its hemisphere. The US would have to have a need to intervene there, and such a need was not present historically.

And, even in that remote circumstance, any Congo Colony would end up being a trust territory due to the shear distance, although thankfully wouldn't be taken into the sole possession of a single person. (Or, rather, hopefully). It may or may not do better than the original Congo Free State. I highly doubt it would be run as a direct colony, though.

There's basically one major issue in this: the US is highly more Pacific-oriented than it is Africa-oriented. After concerns in North America, the Pacific, Asia, South America, and Oceania, then comes Africa. (I'm excluding Europe for now). The US had made a point to never take any true colonies until conquering the Philippines. Until that point, all of its territory could be directly integrated into the metropole. You'll have to have quite a PoD to shift its attention back east across the Atlantic and towards colonial aspirations that would give it land that is hard to integrate into the homeland.

So, assuming that you have an interventionist US early enough in history, and assuming that they are willing to stick their nose into Africa as well as into other theaters (as there has to be a justification for any interest in Africa), and assuming that a Conference of Berlin or an analogue occurs as in OTL, then you might see such a thing as an American sphere. However, I don't think they'd go beyond protectorates, if anything. Any Liberia/Congo etc would be essentially identical to the Philippines in treatment.
 
Maybe with a smaller US? Like maybe just the New England and Mid Atlantic region? Less resources in less territory could drive a need for some African colonies, maybe Asian ones too.
 
Maybe with a smaller US? Like maybe just the New England and Mid Atlantic region? Less resources in less territory could drive a need for some African colonies, maybe Asian ones too.

Would this US even be able to project power into Africa? You can assume a smaller US will butterfly Liberia, the best springboard the US ever could have had to get into Africa, so the US will need to find another way into Africa.
 
Top