It's only an Ameriwank if the U.S. gets the Caribbean AND parts/all of Canada AND parts/all of Mexico.
WI: Congress Approves Annexation of the Dominican Republic
- Thread starter Iori
- Start date
It's only an Ameriwank if the U.S. gets the Caribbean AND parts/all of Canada AND parts/all of Mexico.
American standards were occasionally pretty flexible. I think that the perception would be that the Dominicans were latins rather than blacks, and I suspect that's how it would be sold. I don't think that the Dominicans consider themselves anywhere near the same ethnic heritage as the Haitians.
Again, American construction of race was a little bit more fluid than that. It's tempting to see it in those (ahem) black and white terms. But reality was always a bit more complex. Indeed, different American states had different laws defining race. One could be legally white in one southern American state, and be transformed into a legal black simply by crossing a border, and vice versa.
My view is that the United States, as a result of contacts with Spain in Florida, and with Mexico through Texas and later annexations had some basis for making a racial distinction between perceptions of latins and blacks. Statehood for a Caribbean latin state would have probably forced some minor mental reshuffling, but that's about it.
This was certainly the case in our timeline. But never underestimate human flexibility, or the ability to say up is down when a vested interest is discovered to do so.
A Dominican Republic seeking entry to the United States would almost certainly want to enter as a state like Texas rather than a territory. Had they made it, they would have been a political, cultural wedge to redefine race concepts, at least in the caribbean.
It's not actually my timeline, I'm just visiting here.
Or perhaps a small polyglot of Central and Caribbean latin speaking American states. A backwards third world, backwards as the American South. And let's not have any doubts - the American south was a third world nation by any reasonable measurement, with far more in common with El Salvador than New York.
I'm interested in the notion that a significant Hispanic rump in the US congress might have influenced the politics of the day in measurable ways. Obviously three, or even five or six spanish majority American States in Congress wouldn't have been decisive. We're looking at 6 to 12 senators at best, and a likely smaller proportion of Reps.
So any influence or power that they might have would come from attaching themselves to historically existing power blocs or movements within Congress, and seeking concessions or policies of local application in return for their support. Which means that there may have been some significant deviations in policy decisions in this timeline. Unfortunately, I'm not such a dedicated student of Congressional history circa 1869 to 1920 to really say for sure.
It does seem to me that incorporating the Dominican Republic in 1869 would have potentially opened up wedges in Congress. And that those wedges might well have lead to other American states being incorporated, rather than merely ruled. But this is uncertain.
Possibly, the Dominican experience would create a backlash. Creating new states during the slavery era was often a politically complex and controversial deal, because of the potential of those new states to upset the slavery/free balance. Remember Bleeding Kansas?
Racial issues were volatile enough that after the 1880's, there would be resistance to incorporating Caribbean territory - which is why Cuba was conquered but not kept.
But if the Dominicans crept under the wire between 1869 and 1875, would this increase resistance? If increased, the Spanish American war might not even have happened. Alternately, the wedge and local Dominican agitation in Congress might have seen Puerto Rico and Cuba admitted as states, and possibly Panama and one or more central. It seems to me that we'd have to be able to parse Congressional politics far more finely to decide which way thngs would fall.
Following up on this, how would Roosevelts New Deal have been applied, had the United States incorporated several hispanic Caribbean and Central American states?
You'd be surprised.
In terms of WWI butterflies, would American conflict with Britain instead of Germany had a happy outcome? Unhappy for Canada, potentially. But could or would the United States be prepared to incorporate an unwilling Canada? Apart from that, if Britain rules the sea, would the United States have had a significant impact in WWI? It's hard to fight in the trenches when you can't cross the sea. Would the US have been able to challenge British naval dominance, particularly a dominance supported by the French and tacitly by the Dutch?
I don't see this as a wank, but rather a slightly interesting examination of whether incorporating a Latin Caribbean state as part of the United States representative government might have had subtle consequences.
Hmm... Wiki says Dominican Republic is 16% 'white', 11% 'black', 73% 'mixed' and that most don't consider themselves 'black'. OK, I always assumed it was coloured like Haiti, which is obviously wrong. Is it more like Puerto Rico or Cuba, then? (and why are Spanish colonies whiter than British or French ones? Hmm...)
You know, if Dominica joins as a state, probably by defining the lighter half of the population as 'white', all the lighter 'blacks' in the rest of the US are suddenly going to become 'Dominican' if they can, won't they?
Excellent point. This is going to butterfly race relations something awful. I expect you might also get a fair amount of immigration of southern Black elites to Dominica, probably with the tacit or even explicit encouragement of the southern white elite. Col. Booker T. Washington, Hero of the Carribean Wars, anyone?
The mixed amount to every possible combination of black, white and Taino indian, likely with a few admixtures of this or that. A lot of these Latin American states had explicit or informal caste systems, some with a series of gradation. The general rule is that the top of the systems were (and still are) ruled by the 'whites' (purest spanish/europeans), with social status going up the 'whiter' you were.
Of course, these racial gradations were often somewhat socially constructed. So it was possible to move up or down social classes, effectively changing race - or more accurately, being socially reconstructed from one race to another. Middle class/mixture people could rise in society and be considered white. The unlucky who fell were either ignored and allowed to join less white classes.
Of course, Indians were invariably at the bottom of most of these pyramids, being the most marginalized and disenfranchised.
States in the American South had the luxury of not having large hispanic or native populations. As a result, they had a fairly simplistic dual caste dichotomy. But even within the south, when you started getting into it, there could be subtle nuance. Some states were utterly bipolar, acknowledging only white and nonwhite. Other states wrestled with graduated entities coming up with concepts like mulattos and octaroons on the black side, debating whether Irish or Italians were truly 'white', and puzzling over asians, indians and hispanics.
The thing you have to understand about Racism is that it is fundamentally irrational. What it's really about is establishing a basis for the powerful to organise society to serve their interests.
No ignorant redneck bubba was ever allowed to get in the way of his masters making a buck.
First it seems some posters have this idea that patriotism and nationalism is only a feature of large or economically strong first world nations. That if you come from a small not very economically well off nation, that patriotism and nationalism does not exist which is not true. The constant fights with the Spaniards and there neighbors who invaded created a national unity in the Dominican Republic otherwise they could have never become a free Republic.
Here the Dominican Anthem which was first officially heard 1883. - Best part starts at 3:15.
http://www.imeem.com/tremenda/music/XTUcluLw/various-himno-nacional-dominicano-completo2mp3/
English Lyrics - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quisqueyanos_valientes
Back to topic -
Even if the US Congress passed it the Dominicans would not have gone along with there President Baez who wanted the Dominican Republic to be annexed.
It should be noted that Dominican President Baez had a referendum in 1870 which asked if the Dominicans wanted to be annexed. Seems the results were rigged since the outcome were 29496 for annexation and 19 against annexation.
In the US Congress the first vote on annexation in 1870 was 28 to 28. They needed a 2/3 vote.
It should be noted that US President Grant annexation vote was defeated twice. Before the second vote they sent a commision which traveled throughout the Dominican Republic. The commission seems was pro-annexation. They came back with a report that the people in all parts of the Dominican Republic wanted to be annexed. They left out alot of details on the protest going on against President Baez. But again the US congress voted the measure down.
President Baez plan to have the Dominican Republic annexed to the US drew the protest of many leading Dominicans. Incuding Luperon and Cabal who were in Jamaica since Baez did not want them in the Dominican Republic. Both Luperon and Cabal however did get there supporters in the Dominican Republic to rise up. In one incident a General by the name of Cayetano Cruz also protested about the annexation plan but he was arrested by Baez. Other important people that protested were also arrested.
However, President Baez trying to salvage what he could, managed to convince some Generals to support annexation. Seems they were offered things.
In the end President Baez changed his mind about annexation. He had too many enemies and did not have the US Congress support. They also say the head of the French consulate in the Dominican Republic, Marion Landais, had strong ties to President Baez and family. That President Baez listened to him. Seems Marion convinced Baez that his annexation plan would not work out.
Anyway, one problem President Baez had was that he had promised things to those Generals that had supported his annexation plan. Seems they then started pressuring him. President Baez was overthrown in a revolution in 1874. He did come back has President in late december 1876 but by early 1879 he was out for good.
Dominican politics was kind of complicated. There were three power bases. The most important economically speaking was located in the northern Cibao Valley. This was the important agricultural center of the Republic. It was located in the North of the Domincan Republic. It was the richest because of agriculture production. It was the strongest faction. It was mostly liberal. They did not favor annexation. Presidents Baez power base was in the South which like him was very conservative. The other power base was in the East. They were also kind of conservative.
It should be noted that Spain and the UK. did not want the US in the Caribbean. So they did not approve of the annexation.
In the 1880's after all this, the Dominican Republic was going to sign some type of deal with the US. But it seems France, UK. and Germany did not want the US getting a foothold there since they complained it would do harm to there business dealings in the Dominican Republic. German threatened not to buy any more Dominican Tobacco. Seems Germany was a big Dominican Tobacco buyer. So the producers and businessmen of the North of the Dominican Republic (northern Cibao Valley) went to then President Heureaux who asked the US to cancel the treaty. So European interest blocked the US from expanding in the Dominican Republic.
Here the Dominican Anthem which was first officially heard 1883. - Best part starts at 3:15.
http://www.imeem.com/tremenda/music/XTUcluLw/various-himno-nacional-dominicano-completo2mp3/
English Lyrics - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quisqueyanos_valientes
Back to topic -
Even if the US Congress passed it the Dominicans would not have gone along with there President Baez who wanted the Dominican Republic to be annexed.
It should be noted that Dominican President Baez had a referendum in 1870 which asked if the Dominicans wanted to be annexed. Seems the results were rigged since the outcome were 29496 for annexation and 19 against annexation.
In the US Congress the first vote on annexation in 1870 was 28 to 28. They needed a 2/3 vote.
It should be noted that US President Grant annexation vote was defeated twice. Before the second vote they sent a commision which traveled throughout the Dominican Republic. The commission seems was pro-annexation. They came back with a report that the people in all parts of the Dominican Republic wanted to be annexed. They left out alot of details on the protest going on against President Baez. But again the US congress voted the measure down.
President Baez plan to have the Dominican Republic annexed to the US drew the protest of many leading Dominicans. Incuding Luperon and Cabal who were in Jamaica since Baez did not want them in the Dominican Republic. Both Luperon and Cabal however did get there supporters in the Dominican Republic to rise up. In one incident a General by the name of Cayetano Cruz also protested about the annexation plan but he was arrested by Baez. Other important people that protested were also arrested.
However, President Baez trying to salvage what he could, managed to convince some Generals to support annexation. Seems they were offered things.
In the end President Baez changed his mind about annexation. He had too many enemies and did not have the US Congress support. They also say the head of the French consulate in the Dominican Republic, Marion Landais, had strong ties to President Baez and family. That President Baez listened to him. Seems Marion convinced Baez that his annexation plan would not work out.
Anyway, one problem President Baez had was that he had promised things to those Generals that had supported his annexation plan. Seems they then started pressuring him. President Baez was overthrown in a revolution in 1874. He did come back has President in late december 1876 but by early 1879 he was out for good.
Dominican politics was kind of complicated. There were three power bases. The most important economically speaking was located in the northern Cibao Valley. This was the important agricultural center of the Republic. It was located in the North of the Domincan Republic. It was the richest because of agriculture production. It was the strongest faction. It was mostly liberal. They did not favor annexation. Presidents Baez power base was in the South which like him was very conservative. The other power base was in the East. They were also kind of conservative.
It should be noted that Spain and the UK. did not want the US in the Caribbean. So they did not approve of the annexation.
In the 1880's after all this, the Dominican Republic was going to sign some type of deal with the US. But it seems France, UK. and Germany did not want the US getting a foothold there since they complained it would do harm to there business dealings in the Dominican Republic. German threatened not to buy any more Dominican Tobacco. Seems Germany was a big Dominican Tobacco buyer. So the producers and businessmen of the North of the Dominican Republic (northern Cibao Valley) went to then President Heureaux who asked the US to cancel the treaty. So European interest blocked the US from expanding in the Dominican Republic.
The Sandman
Banned
I'd say that the most likely additions would be the Virgin Islands; the Danish ones sold to the US under similar circumstances to OTL, the British ones due to either money changing hands or the British just handing the islands over outright in TTL's version of the "destroyers for bases" thing.
Of course, some of the other islands might well petition the US for statehood if decolonization occurs roughly as per OTL, depending on how much influence the US has in the Caribbean.
Of course, some of the other islands might well petition the US for statehood if decolonization occurs roughly as per OTL, depending on how much influence the US has in the Caribbean.
This isn't Big Tex's thread. In fact, the expansion of the U.S. into the Caribbean as previously described is possible in this scenario. Until recently, the U.S. has traditionally had a strong push to controlling the Caribbean. A state in the area would push the U.S. more towards direct control instead the 'interventions' to keep pro-America governments in force. I can also see the Dutch and Spanish (who were minor league at this point in power) being driven out of the Caribbean from the 1880s to the 1900s.
If the U.S. joins Germany in WWI the chances of snagging British and French holdings in the Caribbean has a strong possibility. By that point the British and French were more interested in their African and Asian empires. Also, America would not want a recent enemy from having a foothold so close to to its interest. Canada (despite was Turtledove would have us believe) would not be annex by the U.S. Too poor of a return on rewards verses cost of men to hold the place. Afterall, the US already has (insert alcoholic beverage of your choice) and wood in plenty.
Don't forget some names that get no airplay or are changed forever in this ATL.
Kennedy.
Castro.
Lansky.
Marley.
Belafonte
Guevara.
To name a few.
Other issues would be border jumpers from Haiti.
http://dominicanrepublic.com//index.php?option=com_content&task=blogsection&id=6&Itemid=29
Kennedy.
Castro.
Lansky.
Marley.
Belafonte
Guevara.
To name a few.
Other issues would be border jumpers from Haiti.
http://dominicanrepublic.com//index.php?option=com_content&task=blogsection&id=6&Itemid=29
I suppose there are two things that intrigue me about potential developments in this timeline.
One is the potential repercussions of active latino States in congress and in the US electoral system. There are likely to be impacts as the Latino states contribute to the issues of the day. It's possible that there would be no impacts, and the Latino states would invariably support every majority policy in American political history.
Or Latinos might contribute substantial strength to opposition in those policies, and in some, or several cases, weight enough strength to reverse or overthrow them. This might not be necessarily benign. Supposing that Latino states formed a working partnership with Southern states during the civil rights era. We might have segregation and worsened racial tensions today. Would it have happened like that? I don't know.
But there is a basis to argue for cumulative incremental change.
Some changes are likely to be obvious. An increase in already massive American involvement in the Caribbean, but perhaps more political input by the Caribbean into American decision making processes.
Island states in the Caribbean, and Central American states may well bias American military policy towards much heavier naval investments than in our timeline. More ships, bigger ships, etc. And a larger navy in proportion to other services.
But more Caribbean focus may mean less Asian focus. So would the US bother with the Phillipines? If they successfully tackle the Netherlands, would they want the East Indies? Etc.
Potentially the answer may be no, in which case we'd probably see an expansionist Japan at some point acting without any concern over conflictling with the US.
Or, if the answer is yes, we might see Japan forced into the role of Junior partner, or even local champion/liberator of a Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere. -
Try this on for size. The Spanish American war comes earlier, the US takes and keeps the Phillipines. The Dutch American war comes, over Caribbean possessions, but the US takes and keeps the Dutch East Indies. China is largely open to the US and everyone else, though there are various spheres of influence, most significantly Britains. The US enters WWI on the German side, there are some naval battles. Britain, overstretched is forced to negotiate peace. The US makes Caribbean claims of course, but then demands and receives British concessions in China, as well as Malaysia. The US may or may not supplant the French in Indochina. Likely there would be pacific Island aquisitions.
Anyway, out of WWI, the US ends up in control of the Phillipines, 3/4 of New Guineau, Indonesia, Malaysia and Indochina, and is pretty much the sole dominant power in China. Basically, a new version of the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere.
The only powers left are a Portugese rump that no one cares about (goodbye Timor and Macao). The Germans may be junior partners in China, or may have abandoned interests there as a Quid Pro Quo. The Japanese are confined to their islands, and maybe Korea and Taiwan. The British are still lurking in Australia and India.
So what happens? Likely, things go from bad to worse. American forces are not culturally sensitive. They override local expectations. In 1899, the result was the Phillipine Insurrection that resulted in the death of 10% of the population. The Insurrection may or may not happen, since Phillipine acquisition may take place a decade or so earlier. But an East Indies insurrection, an Indochina insurrection, are pretty damned likely.
China gets in trouble. The Chinese government breaks down into Civil War. The United States as the dominant foreign power gets dragged in. Suddenly there are American armies in China through the 20's and 30's, trying to impose order on the place. Bit rebellions break out in Manchuria, Mongolia, and Tibet.
Let's say that because of the switch in sides, Europes economy is more durable. The Great Depression doesn't hit so soon. And when it does hit, while bad, it's considerably milder. The wide ranging series of reforms that Roosevelt sought to impose never happens. The United States industrial output is lagging, military policy is based on occupation rather than modernized industrial combat. The United States is on the whole poorer, weaker, and locked into a sort of military keynesianism focused on massive expenditures in Asia. The Manhattan project just doesn't happen anywhere in this timeline.
Instead, Japan becomes the rallying point for the East Asian rebellions. It's the only unconquered Asian state. Pressure builds, America decides to scratch that itch one way or the other. An industrialized but desperate Japan leads an Asian rebellion against a tyrannical American Empire. This time, America loses, the Asian states are liberated, everyone lives happily ever after.
America wank indeed.
The trouble is that a lot of these acquisitions
One is the potential repercussions of active latino States in congress and in the US electoral system. There are likely to be impacts as the Latino states contribute to the issues of the day. It's possible that there would be no impacts, and the Latino states would invariably support every majority policy in American political history.
Or Latinos might contribute substantial strength to opposition in those policies, and in some, or several cases, weight enough strength to reverse or overthrow them. This might not be necessarily benign. Supposing that Latino states formed a working partnership with Southern states during the civil rights era. We might have segregation and worsened racial tensions today. Would it have happened like that? I don't know.
But there is a basis to argue for cumulative incremental change.
Some changes are likely to be obvious. An increase in already massive American involvement in the Caribbean, but perhaps more political input by the Caribbean into American decision making processes.
Island states in the Caribbean, and Central American states may well bias American military policy towards much heavier naval investments than in our timeline. More ships, bigger ships, etc. And a larger navy in proportion to other services.
But more Caribbean focus may mean less Asian focus. So would the US bother with the Phillipines? If they successfully tackle the Netherlands, would they want the East Indies? Etc.
Potentially the answer may be no, in which case we'd probably see an expansionist Japan at some point acting without any concern over conflictling with the US.
Or, if the answer is yes, we might see Japan forced into the role of Junior partner, or even local champion/liberator of a Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere. -
Try this on for size. The Spanish American war comes earlier, the US takes and keeps the Phillipines. The Dutch American war comes, over Caribbean possessions, but the US takes and keeps the Dutch East Indies. China is largely open to the US and everyone else, though there are various spheres of influence, most significantly Britains. The US enters WWI on the German side, there are some naval battles. Britain, overstretched is forced to negotiate peace. The US makes Caribbean claims of course, but then demands and receives British concessions in China, as well as Malaysia. The US may or may not supplant the French in Indochina. Likely there would be pacific Island aquisitions.
Anyway, out of WWI, the US ends up in control of the Phillipines, 3/4 of New Guineau, Indonesia, Malaysia and Indochina, and is pretty much the sole dominant power in China. Basically, a new version of the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere.
The only powers left are a Portugese rump that no one cares about (goodbye Timor and Macao). The Germans may be junior partners in China, or may have abandoned interests there as a Quid Pro Quo. The Japanese are confined to their islands, and maybe Korea and Taiwan. The British are still lurking in Australia and India.
So what happens? Likely, things go from bad to worse. American forces are not culturally sensitive. They override local expectations. In 1899, the result was the Phillipine Insurrection that resulted in the death of 10% of the population. The Insurrection may or may not happen, since Phillipine acquisition may take place a decade or so earlier. But an East Indies insurrection, an Indochina insurrection, are pretty damned likely.
China gets in trouble. The Chinese government breaks down into Civil War. The United States as the dominant foreign power gets dragged in. Suddenly there are American armies in China through the 20's and 30's, trying to impose order on the place. Bit rebellions break out in Manchuria, Mongolia, and Tibet.
Let's say that because of the switch in sides, Europes economy is more durable. The Great Depression doesn't hit so soon. And when it does hit, while bad, it's considerably milder. The wide ranging series of reforms that Roosevelt sought to impose never happens. The United States industrial output is lagging, military policy is based on occupation rather than modernized industrial combat. The United States is on the whole poorer, weaker, and locked into a sort of military keynesianism focused on massive expenditures in Asia. The Manhattan project just doesn't happen anywhere in this timeline.
Instead, Japan becomes the rallying point for the East Asian rebellions. It's the only unconquered Asian state. Pressure builds, America decides to scratch that itch one way or the other. An industrialized but desperate Japan leads an Asian rebellion against a tyrannical American Empire. This time, America loses, the Asian states are liberated, everyone lives happily ever after.
America wank indeed.
The trouble is that a lot of these acquisitions
Solomaxwell6
Banned
DValdron, I think you're underestimating American racism at the time. Even if for many it wasn't the cruel racism of the KKK, most whites had a level of paternal racism in them, the White Man's Burden. As a result, the Dominican Republic wouldn't end up a state. It was already too full of Hispanics, settled Native Americans, and free blacks. Certainly a decent number of senators are going to be swayed by this racism. Note that this was different than the situations in California, Texas, and other former Mexican states because those were barely settled, and were preceded by a wave of American immigration. The Dominican Republic is already full.
It also had its own culture and nationalism, as briefly mentioned above. While the rulers desparately wanted to get rid of the public debt, and help provide a level of stability, many others wanted to stay their own nation. Less then a decade prior, the Dominican Republic offered to become a Spanish colony once more; after this offer was accepted, there was a Civil War because of all those preferring independence over the security and prosperity that could follow recolonization. The Senate is certainly going to keep this in mind. Why give in to the Dominican Republic's monetary demands when it'll probably just end up going into civil war once again? Even if they're willing to accept annexation as a sort of satellite/Philippines analogue, they're certainly not going to risk trying to completely absorb the nation.
It also had its own culture and nationalism, as briefly mentioned above. While the rulers desparately wanted to get rid of the public debt, and help provide a level of stability, many others wanted to stay their own nation. Less then a decade prior, the Dominican Republic offered to become a Spanish colony once more; after this offer was accepted, there was a Civil War because of all those preferring independence over the security and prosperity that could follow recolonization. The Senate is certainly going to keep this in mind. Why give in to the Dominican Republic's monetary demands when it'll probably just end up going into civil war once again? Even if they're willing to accept annexation as a sort of satellite/Philippines analogue, they're certainly not going to risk trying to completely absorb the nation.
It's not my damned timeline! I'm just visiting.
Far be it from me to argue that America is not about the racism. But, actually, the history of racism in the United States is slightly more complicated than that.
Granted, racism always existed in the United States. But it was not a monolithic or continuous thing.
The racism against Indians for instance was bound up in the concept that they had lands that we wanted. The racism against blacks was bound up in the fact that their forced labour was fundamental to certain economies. The racism against latins was less profound, they were seen as foreigners.
Common, anti-black racism had been deeply rooted in the need to keep blacks in legal slavery. During this time, the abolitionist movement arguing for the other case. The abolitionist movement was successful and a variety of reforms were instituted, which resulted in black Congressional leaders.
I'd argue that between 1865 and 1880 racism in America was at a low ebb.
Looking at historical records, its clear that anti-black racism took a dramatic swing upwards starting around 1886 and reached peaks not seen in the pre-1860 era under Jim Crow.
But that's black racism, which is probably leading edge. Hispanic racism? Another kettle of fish entirely, with different socio-economic roots and probably less rooted. If you're going to argue that Hispanic racism is at issue here, perhaps a little more detail.
I'd agree that the notion of annexation was controversial and unpopular within the Dominican Republic. I'd argue that for these reasons, the Dominicans would demand statehood upon entry, and probably get it. The situation seems closest to Texas and rather distinct from Hawaii.
Far be it from me to argue that America is not about the racism. But, actually, the history of racism in the United States is slightly more complicated than that.
Granted, racism always existed in the United States. But it was not a monolithic or continuous thing.
The racism against Indians for instance was bound up in the concept that they had lands that we wanted. The racism against blacks was bound up in the fact that their forced labour was fundamental to certain economies. The racism against latins was less profound, they were seen as foreigners.
Common, anti-black racism had been deeply rooted in the need to keep blacks in legal slavery. During this time, the abolitionist movement arguing for the other case. The abolitionist movement was successful and a variety of reforms were instituted, which resulted in black Congressional leaders.
I'd argue that between 1865 and 1880 racism in America was at a low ebb.
Looking at historical records, its clear that anti-black racism took a dramatic swing upwards starting around 1886 and reached peaks not seen in the pre-1860 era under Jim Crow.
But that's black racism, which is probably leading edge. Hispanic racism? Another kettle of fish entirely, with different socio-economic roots and probably less rooted. If you're going to argue that Hispanic racism is at issue here, perhaps a little more detail.
I'd agree that the notion of annexation was controversial and unpopular within the Dominican Republic. I'd argue that for these reasons, the Dominicans would demand statehood upon entry, and probably get it. The situation seems closest to Texas and rather distinct from Hawaii.
IIRC the Spanish had been Invitation to take over in the early 1870's by the Political Elite and then Kicked back out by the People.
?So what happens if the US votes to annex Santo Dominica, and then gets involved in a Guerrilla War, with the Dominican Anti Annex forces. ?
?If the Dominican Blacks are kicking White American Ass, What happens inside America, with our Blacks?
?So what happens if the US votes to annex Santo Dominica, and then gets involved in a Guerrilla War, with the Dominican Anti Annex forces. ?
?If the Dominican Blacks are kicking White American Ass, What happens inside America, with our Blacks?
For the record, this is a nice change over threads where we all talk about how great it would have been for the US to annex Canada.
Spanish rule in the 1870's was likely a non-starter. Essentially, the Spanish had an unpleasant history, were on either side in Puerto Rico and Cuba, and were unlikely to allow for home rule. Major step backward.
On the other hand, a lot depends on the nature of US annexation. If the Dominican Republic goes in as, or achieves early statehood, which I would continue to argue is the most likely outcome, then who and what are people rebelling against? They're electing Senators and Reps, they have a state government with significant local powers, and arguably more influence over their own lives, as a result of constitutional protections.
On the other hand, if there's a long term possession as a territory, then yes, a guerilla campaign is possible. Phillipine Insurrection, anyone?
Pretty much nothing.
Spanish rule in the 1870's was likely a non-starter. Essentially, the Spanish had an unpleasant history, were on either side in Puerto Rico and Cuba, and were unlikely to allow for home rule. Major step backward.
On the other hand, a lot depends on the nature of US annexation. If the Dominican Republic goes in as, or achieves early statehood, which I would continue to argue is the most likely outcome, then who and what are people rebelling against? They're electing Senators and Reps, they have a state government with significant local powers, and arguably more influence over their own lives, as a result of constitutional protections.
On the other hand, if there's a long term possession as a territory, then yes, a guerilla campaign is possible. Phillipine Insurrection, anyone?
Pretty much nothing.
David S Poepoe
Banned
Don't see any of this happening. Probably a larger navy, but the likes of David Porter will stress that steam isn't necessary given the proximity to the continental US. Perhaps the development of additional coastal defense ships.
David S Poepoe
Banned
Realistically the 'Old Navy', at least from 1866-1890, would work as is. There really is no reason for the US to have a larger navy for there are no naval rivals in this hemisphere. Probably an expanded Coast Guard (can't immediately recall the period name).
The U.S. Navy was behind the times. It kept using wooden steam sloops and rusting monitors from the Civil War for decades during possibly the most rapid period of naval evolution in history. Congress was so stingy with funding that the Navy had to build new monitors by building it on top of an old one being scrapped and calling it modernization since Congress wouldn't authorize any new construction.
And really, annexing the Dominican Republic is not going to cause the U.S. to go on a massive spree of conquest in the Caribbean. Before the Civil War, Southerners were interested in expanding slavery southward, but by the 1870s, the U.S. was far too absorbed in westward expansion and industrial development.
And don't be so certain that the Dominican Republic wouldn't gain statehood rather quickly. This is before the end of Reconstruction, and Congress remained under Radical Republican rule. Not to say that there were no racist Radical Republicans, but they were quite willing to admit black Senators and Congressmen if they were reliably Republican. Considering that this is a voluntary annexation of a recognized civilized nation, I can see expedited statehood being pushed through Congress much like Texas. The Democrats would be pissed, but they were quite marginalized. Later, after Reconstruction ends, the Dominican Senators and Representatives may face trouble from the Southern contingent, but there's little the Democrats could do.
Solomaxwell6
Banned
DValdron, while I agree that racism towards Hispanic was different than racism towards blacks, that same racism is still going to prevent annexation. America was a white country at the time, and the white leaders wouldn't want to include states that were primarily a minority. The only time this happened, IIRC, was Hawai'i, which had its own unique situation. And even then, it was 60 years before statehood.
The Dominican Republic didn't ask for statehood. They just wanted cash to pay off the debt.
I disagree that it was like Texas. Texas was controlled by white men (Sam Houston, an American, was president, remember), had strong cultural ties to America, was a push for another slave state (the South was actually trying to get as many states from Mexico as it could, just so slave states would outnumber free states). The Dominican Republic had none of the above.
I was comparing it to the Philippines (which didn't have vested anglo interests), not Hawai'i, btw. Dunno if you typo'd or misread, but just wanted to clarify it so you didn't misunderstand.
The Dominican Republic didn't ask for statehood. They just wanted cash to pay off the debt.
I disagree that it was like Texas. Texas was controlled by white men (Sam Houston, an American, was president, remember), had strong cultural ties to America, was a push for another slave state (the South was actually trying to get as many states from Mexico as it could, just so slave states would outnumber free states). The Dominican Republic had none of the above.
I was comparing it to the Philippines (which didn't have vested anglo interests), not Hawai'i, btw. Dunno if you typo'd or misread, but just wanted to clarify it so you didn't misunderstand.