WI: America becomes a Colonial Empire

The problem with the United States being a colonial empire is that it was too racist. It had plenty of chances to incorporate territories like Santo Domingo and even had plans to colonize the Congos but did not want to because "too many niggers." You would need a more tolerant America first before it can create an empire.
 
The problem with the United States being a colonial empire is that it was too racist. It had plenty of chances to incorporate territories like Santo Domingo and even had plans to colonize the Congos but did not want to because "too many niggers." You would need a more tolerant America first before it can create an empire.

racism is irrelevant for colonialism. The European powers established colonies over plenty of people they considered to be inferior; you colonize places for the economic benefits to the mother country, not because you like the locals. Which is why there are a hell of a lot of differences between the European style colonialism and USA territory gains. The former were usually done on places with large native populations that were exploited for economic gain, and enforced with European troops and a veneer of European administration over it all. And that's the big difference with the USA's land grabs... they were done on areas that were pretty much empty of native inhabitants. The Americans never really exploited the native Americans economically, and the handful of Mexican inhabitants in the regions we took from Mexico scarcely compare to the big native populations of India and Asia. About the only remotely comparable land grab is Hawaii, which did have a fair sized native population, but even Hawaii went through the territory process instead of a real colonial process. Not that the USA's expansion was any less imperialistic (or brutal) than Europe's colonization of the old world, but the two aren't really comparable.
So, to answer the OP, how to get the USA into the colonial game. The old world is pretty much out, I'd think; the USA would scarcely want to tussle with the powers of Europe over any of it. So, the USA's colonialism would be limited to Central and South America. But the USA would have to be careful, as some of these places were still colonies of Europe, and Britain in particular had interests all over the area...
 
racism is irrelevant for colonialism. The European powers established colonies over plenty of people they considered to be inferior; you colonize places for the economic benefits to the mother country, not because you like the locals. Which is why there are a hell of a lot of differences between the European style colonialism and USA territory gains. The former were usually done on places with large native populations that were exploited for economic gain, and enforced with European troops and a veneer of European administration over it all. And that's the big difference with the USA's land grabs... they were done on areas that were pretty much empty of native inhabitants. The Americans never really exploited the native Americans economically, and the handful of Mexican inhabitants in the regions we took from Mexico scarcely compare to the big native populations of India and Asia. About the only remotely comparable land grab is Hawaii, which did have a fair sized native population, but even Hawaii went through the territory process instead of a real colonial process. Not that the USA's expansion was any less imperialistic (or brutal) than Europe's colonization of the old world, but the two aren't really comparable.
So, to answer the OP, how to get the USA into the colonial game. The old world is pretty much out, I'd think; the USA would scarcely want to tussle with the powers of Europe over any of it. So, the USA's colonialism would be limited to Central and South America. But the USA would have to be careful, as some of these places were still colonies of Europe, and Britain in particular had interests all over the area...

I agree American colonization was vastly different then European colonization by seizing mostly empty lands but that is because America was too racist to desire to rule over huge amounts of native populations.
 
I agree American colonization was vastly different then European colonization by seizing mostly empty lands but that is because America was too racist to desire to rule over huge amounts of native populations.

it was different because there weren't any huge amounts of native populations to rule over and economically exploit in the huge areas it took over. Which makes it's expansion rather unique in the history of the west. Americans basically had to go in and settle and build everything rather than just lord it over the natives. By the time the USA got done expanding into the lower 48 states/territories, they were too late to get into the real colonial game anymore...
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
America was too racist to desire to rule over huge amounts of native populations.
Nonsense. What do you call the Philippines? We tried applying our usual "butcher all the natives" policy and it blew up in our face because we didn't know jackshit about governing non-white territories apart from Jim Crow terrorism. Too, McKinley, TR and Taft were eager to "civilize" and "Christianize . . . the Malays" that had "fallen into our lap."


What is ultimately difficult about having the US be a trans-oceanic colonial (not just imperial) power is the fact that there is just so much goddamn room in the US to settle. Britain was crowded, land was cheaper in Algeria than France, etc. With the US, you get all the benefits of colonizing territory without being in an alien land surrounded by hostile natives.

It's almost like asking, "Why didn't Russia do more with Alyaska?" with the glaring answer being, "Because there was still a shit-ton of much closer space to settle on the Steppe."
 
Last edited:
The problem with the United States being a colonial empire is that it was too racist. It had plenty of chances to incorporate territories like Santo Domingo and even had plans to colonize the Congos but did not want to because "too many niggers." You would need a more tolerant America first before it can create an empire.

A more tolerant America would probably have less overseas territory. Wasn't the main reason for not conquering all of Mexico because of 'too many brown-skins'? Without this impediment, I would think the USA would've had its hands too full with that to even think about anything overseas.
 
A more tolerant America would probably have less overseas territory. Wasn't the main reason for not conquering all of Mexico because of 'too many brown-skins'? Without this impediment, I would think the USA would've had its hands too full with that to even think about anything overseas.
I agree, that would have been a hell of a job, and it probably would have led to a US that reaches Panama.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
I agree, that would have been a hell of a job, and it probably would have led to a US that reaches Panama.
Or more likely a US that breaks down into civil war in the 1850s, fragments, and is lucky to retain the Rio Grande as its border.
 
it was different because there weren't any huge amounts of native populations to rule over and economically exploit in the huge areas it took over. Which makes it's expansion rather unique in the history of the west. Americans basically had to go in and settle and build everything rather than just lord it over the natives. By the time the USA got done expanding into the lower 48 states/territories, they were too late to get into the real colonial game anymore...

I'm sure the Cherokee, Iroquois, Lakota, and other Amerindians will be pleased to hear this. Australia to the British and Siberia to the Russians are the exact same situation as the west to America - sparsely populated by people who were annihilated and thus couldn't be economically exploited. Why are the former two colonialism while the latter isn't?
 
I'm sure the Cherokee, Iroquois, Lakota, and other Amerindians will be pleased to hear this. Australia to the British and Siberia to the Russians are the exact same situation as the west to America - sparsely populated by people who were annihilated and thus couldn't be economically exploited. Why are the former two colonialism while the latter isn't?

Exactly. Those territories which were empty, were empty because they had been emptied by disease and US military action.
 
I'm sure the Cherokee, Iroquois, Lakota, and other Amerindians will be pleased to hear this. Australia to the British and Siberia to the Russians are the exact same situation as the west to America - sparsely populated by people who were annihilated and thus couldn't be economically exploited. Why are the former two colonialism while the latter isn't?

It's coming down to semantics, but the basic definition of colonialism is" A policy by which a nation maintains or extends its control over foreign dependencies". The key word is 'foreign'... at no time did the USA ever treat it's territories as foreign dependencies, as the Brits did over India and Egypt, until they expanded into the Pacific and got the Philippines. Siberia is comparable to settling the American west, as those areas were directly annexed into Russia, and mostly settled and built up by them. Australia is... a weird case. Again, the native population was too sparse to be economically exploited, but Australia was never directly made a part of the UK itself (AFAIK), being treated as a colony (rather like the 13 colonies and Canada). In any event, the OP is asking for the USA to enter the real colonial game, trying to establish itself in domination over large foreign dependencies... which is tough, since the USA had such a big job just settling it's interior.
 
Dave Howery said:
It's coming down to semantics,

I agree, this is all a bit silly, but important.

Dave Howery said:
but the basic definition of colonialism is" A policy by which a nation maintains or extends its control over foreign dependencies". The key word is 'foreign'... at no time did the USA ever treat it's territories as foreign dependencies, as the Brits did over India and Egypt, until they expanded into the Pacific and got the Philippines. Siberia is comparable to settling the American west, as those areas were directly annexed into Russia, and mostly settled and built up by them. Australia is... a weird case. Again, the native population was too sparse to be economically exploited, but Australia was never directly made a part of the UK itself (AFAIK), being treated as a colony (rather like the 13 colonies and Canada).

I'm curious where you got this definition, as I can't find it myself. Even if we accept it, the US was maintaining and extending control over foreign dependencies. Every (broken) treaty with the Lakota will attest that the US was maintaining and extending control. The difference is that the ultimate goal of US colonialism was extermination and resettlement, rather than economic exploitation. This does not make it not colonialism. Additionally, removing Siberia and Australia from being examples of colonialism is intuitively absurd and pedantic, and there is no reason not to include American expansion if we include those two.

Dave Howery said:
In any event, the OP is asking for the USA to enter the real colonial game, trying to establish itself in domination over large foreign dependencies... which is tough, since the USA had such a big job just settling it's interior.

Here we (somewhat) agree and return to the OPs question. The US cannot engage in colonialism abroad since they are already doing so at home. Perhaps removing the American West or large parts of it - no Louisiana purchase (and avoid a French-American war), no Mexican-American war - but this also removes or limits US expansion into the Pacific which seems the logical place for the US to head.
 
Top