WI: American Settler Colony in the Philippines

So I think the PoD for this is technically 1898, but since virtually all of this idea is in the 20th century, I think it belongs here.

What if America decided to turn the Philippines into a settler colony, the way the Brits did in North America, or the French did in Algeria?

Would it work? Tropical diseases might have acted as a deterrent to Anglo settlers in a way they didn't during the mid-19th-century westward expansion (although that did have people die of dysentery). What the Filipinos wanted would have been ignored by the Americans at the time - read any writings from that time, and it's clear that the Americans regarded Filipinos with contempt, similar to American Indians (who also had their lands settled on by Anglos)

The logistics of getting to the Philippines wouldn't have been that bad by 1898, since there was a transcontinental railroad, and looking at Ellis Island, transoceanic ship journeys took a couple of days. (by comparison, when my ancestors came to America in the 1700s, it took about 2 months to cross the Atlantic)
 
The Americans went into the Philippines because they were on a civilizing mission bender. The intention in the long run was to get out.

The Philippines are also hot and humid - miserable by American standards. Outside of some urban areas, some plantations, and some hill stations, I can't see Americans wanting to be there.

The US had a hill station in Baguio, so perhaps some Americans could set up residency there. Salvador Benedicto, Mambukal, Tagaytay, and Sagada also are nice areas climate-wise.
 
The Americans went into the Philippines because they were on a civilizing mission bender. The intention in the long run was to get out.

The Philippines are also hot and humid - miserable by American standards. Outside of some urban areas, some plantations, and some hill stations, I can't see Americans wanting to be there.

The US had a hill station in Baguio, so perhaps some Americans could set up residency there. Salvador Benedicto, Mambukal, Tagaytay, and Sagada also are nice areas climate-wise.

Isn't the same true of California, Hawaii, and the Southwest in General?
 

Dave Shoup

Banned
So I think the PoD for this is technically 1898, but since virtually all of this idea is in the 20th century, I think it belongs here.

What if America decided to turn the Philippines into a settler colony, the way the Brits did in North America, or the French did in Algeria?

Would it work? Tropical diseases might have acted as a deterrent to Anglo settlers in a way they didn't during the mid-19th-century westward expansion (although that did have people die of dysentery). What the Filipinos wanted would have been ignored by the Americans at the time - read any writings from that time, and it's clear that the Americans regarded Filipinos with contempt, similar to American Indians (who also had their lands settled on by Anglos)

The logistics of getting to the Philippines wouldn't have been that bad by 1898, since there was a transcontinental railroad, and looking at Ellis Island, transoceanic ship journeys took a couple of days. (by comparison, when my ancestors came to America in the 1700s, it took about 2 months to cross the Atlantic)

Why?

There were roughly 7.5 million Filipinos in 1900, who were more than capable of a) providing the necessary labor pool for anything worth extracting for export to the US and sustaining US use of the PI as an stopover on the way to Asia, and b) a market large enough for US imports, which was kind of the point.

Late Nineteenth Century American imperialism was, generally, based on the possibility of economic gain, and carving out a defensive perimeter for the US in the eastern Pacific and the Caribbean Basin.

Territorial expansion for the sake of "American" settlement had pretty much ended in 1848.
 
Last edited:
Isn't the same true of California, Hawaii, and the Southwest in General?

The growth of California, Arizona, Florida, Texas, and the sunbelt overall can be very strongly attributed to the invention of air conditioning.

In 1940, California had 6.9 million people. In 1980, California had 23.7 million people.


It's also worth noting that the southwest is a dry heat, meaning that there's more wind (which cools you off a bit) and it's easier to sweat (better for cooling off). The humidity in the Philippines is very different.

Florida would be a pretty appropriate comparison. Florida had 1.9 million people in 1940 and 9.8 million people in 1980.


Hawaii, you have mountains and whatnot that capture winds and create microclimates that make things bearable. You also have seabreezes that cool things off. It's hot, but not totally unbearably hot.
 
Why?

There were roughly 13 million Filipinos in 1900, who were more than capable of a) providing the necessary labor pool for anything worth extracting for export to the US and sustaining US use of the PI as an stopover on the way to Asia, and b) a market large enough for US imports, which was kind of the point.

Late Nineteenth Century American imperialism was, generally, based on the possibility of economic gain, and carving out a defensive perimeter for the US in the eastern Pacific and the Caribbean Basin.

Territorial expansion for the sake of "American" settlement had pretty much ended in 1848.

Except a lot of European settlement activity was still taking place in 1900. (America, while not geographically European, was almost 90% ethnic European at this time, geopolitically and culturally oriented towards Europe, and functioned as a colonial power like Britain or France, not as an ex-colony like modern India or Vietnam)
Most Rhodesians settled in modern Zimbabwe in the early 1900s.
 
It snows in parts of Hawaii.

Climate-wise, it's an interesting place. Some people actually manage to ski and snowboard there.

1280px-Mauna_Kea_from_the_ocean.jpg
 
According to census, Philippines had a population of 7.6 million in 1903 and 10.3 million in 1918. There was no place for American to settle. All the fertile land were settled by local population.

If somehow, Philippines had a population of 1 million or less and most of population were spreading across smaller islands, then American would be willing to settle and take over. Otherwise, it was not worth.
 

Dave Shoup

Banned
Except a lot of European settlement activity was still taking place in 1900. (America, while not geographically European, was almost 90% ethnic European at this time, geopolitically and culturally oriented towards Europe, and functioned as a colonial power like Britain or France, not as an ex-colony like modern India or Vietnam)
Most Rhodesians settled in modern Zimbabwe in the early 1900s.

US government policy toward territorial expansion in the early Twentieth Century was no longer claim and populate; that had already been accomplished. Alaska-Hawaii-Panama formed (and forms) a strong perimeter for the west coast of North America, which was pretty obviously a defense-oriented strategy aimed at a rising Asian power (wonder who that might have been?); clearing the Spanish (and, for that matter, the Danes) out of the Caribbean frustrated any possibility a rising European power (wonder who that was?) might be able to establish a foothold in the Western Hemisphere by pressuring a weak European power. If the Germans had marched on the Netherlands in this era, the US presumably would have picked up the Dutch West Indies, as well.
 
Its also important that the local "savages" were mostly christians - though catholic. If the locals are christians the range of acceptable attrocities to be commited against them tended to be significantly shorter.
 
US government policy toward territorial expansion in the early Twentieth Century was no longer claim and populate; that had already been accomplished. Alaska-Hawaii-Panama formed (and forms) a strong perimeter for the west coast of North America, which was pretty obviously a defense-oriented strategy aimed at a rising Asian power (wonder who that might have been?); clearing the Spanish (and, for that matter, the Danes) out of the Caribbean frustrated any possibility a rising European power (wonder who that was?) might be able to establish a foothold in the Western Hemisphere by pressuring a weak European power. If the Germans had marched on the Netherlands in this era, the US presumably would have picked up the Dutch West Indies, as well.

Indeed, Assistant Secretary of the Navy Franklin Delano Roosevelt did try to have the US acquire Curacao following the purchase of the Danish West Indies.
 

Dave Shoup

Banned
Indeed, Assistant Secretary of the Navy Franklin Delano Roosevelt did try to have the US acquire Curacao following the purchase of the Danish West Indies.

True. The British and French were regarded as being able to resist any pressure from "rising European power" so the US wasn't really concerned about their colonies, at least until 1940... and the result was a peacetime draft, the 1940-41 mobilization, the 5-ocean navy, and - just as insurance - Lend-Lease and the Destroyers for bases deal.
 
True. The British and French were regarded as being able to resist any pressure from "rising European power" so the US wasn't really concerned about their colonies, at least until 1940... and the result was a peacetime draft, the 1940-41 mobilization, the 5-ocean navy, and - just as insurance - Lend-Lease and the Destroyers for bases deal.

Daladier offered all of France's Caribbean and Pacific holdings in exchange for the unlimited right to buy planes on credit.
 
Top