WI/AHC: USA Gets in the Scamble for Africa

Perhaps a US that fails to gain the Louisiana purchase and has its expansion cut off at the Mississippi turns inward and becomes more mercantile, subsequently going overseas and then into Africa seeking markets for it's products and in order to obtain raw resources.(Like most of the OTL European colonizers)

A longer lasting Federalist party/movement would probably help achieve this by making the government slightly less set on inward expansion and a bit more interested in expanding America's trade networks and industry.

The loss of the Louisiana purchase is crucial IMO because as long as the US has an unobstructed path past the Mississippi, it will be busy expanding west at least until the 1870s regardless of the result of the Mexican-American war. Remember, there is still the oregon country/pacific northwest and the high plains even in the event of a failed Mexican war.

Also preventing Jefferson's presidency might be a good start. Trouble is that you need to basically bury the Louisiana purchase before it gets off the ground as once it's on the table it will likely be made.

In conclusion, a substantial American presence in Africa requires an early halt to westward expansion and that requires that the US never gets past Mississippi.


Agreed, the western expansion will take up too much of America's attention for it to pay too much attention to Africa.
 
I don't think that's likely, unless the United States is changed beyond recognition. The United Stetes has never willingly gotten involved large-scale in anything overseas for anything short of an ideology war, and there's just nobody at that time offensive enough to fight an ideology war against. They might get involved if there were communists or something involved in the Scramble, but that just raises further questions.

Besides, at the time of the Scramble the United States was a few decades after the Civil War, and the Democrats (or some other althistorical party) would oppose colonization beacuse- they'd not say this was the reason, but it would be- because it would be likely to bring in more black voters, and thus make it harder for racist laws to be passed/survive.

And, as several people have already said, they were too focused on reaching the pacific.
 
US takes claims on Equatorial Guinea away from Spain following the Spanish-American war in order to get a naval base in the Niger Delta. It remains a backwater territory until oil is discovered, when it becomes hugely important to the US economy.

It stays a territory, never becoming a full state, though there are arguments for this once development starts in the late 20th century.

Alternatively, the US takes a much more active part in the colonisation of Liberia, settling freed slaves along a wider area in denser numbers. Said ex-slaves take a more honest and agreeable line with the natives, leading to a larger, more equitable Liberia which is still effectively an American protectorate.

Bang, there ya go :D
 
Top