WI: Formally Expansionist US Political Party

With a POD no earlier than 1789 (Washington’s Presidency) have a viable political party that is formally pro-expansionist. I don’t mean in terms of Manifest Destiny, but in terms of formally annexing as much territory around the world as possibly.

There was some Whig opposition to the Mexican American War (most notably, Abe Lincoln). The Spanish American war had detractors (most vocal during the occupation of the Philippines). Those were the two genuinely expansionist wars in the history of the US. And while both were overall broadly popular, all the major parties at any time were officially opposed to formal expansionism.

Viable is defined for our purposes will be regularly maintaining some presence in Congress.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
The big stumbling block -- as always -- is slavery. By the time really major opportunities for annexation become viable, the issue has divided the Union. The South is wary of Northern expansion (because more free states) and the North is wary of Southern expansion (because more slave states). If that issue can be somehow solved through a series of developments, all supporters of expansion in all areas of the USA could conceivably end up supporting the same party, which would then favour expansion.
 
You need a broader platform than that. Any party built on a single issue, particularly one that has broad appeal is liable to have that plank snatched out from under them by one of the major parties. Expansionism would need to be intgrated into a bigger political program
 
You need a broader platform than that. Any party built on a single issue, particularly one that has broad appeal is liable to have that plank snatched out from under them by one of the major parties. Expansionism would need to be intgrated into a bigger political program

I agree. To be clear, I did not ask for a single-issue party. Just that a viable party be formally pro-expansionist.

That said, the GOP pretty much was a single-issue party initially.
 
With a POD no earlier than 1789 (Washington’s Presidency) have a viable political party that is formally pro-expansionist. I don’t mean in terms of Manifest Destiny, but in terms of formally annexing as much territory around the world as possibly.

How can you be more expansionist in the century after the American Revolution than Manifest Destiny? The US annexes Europe?!
 
How can you be more expansionist in the century after the American Revolution than Manifest Destiny? The US annexes Europe?!
Yeah. If any parties were considered Formally Expansionist, it would be the British Whig Party, both the US Democrat and Republican Parties in the 19th century and their predecessors.
 
Last edited:
Yeah. If any parties were considered Formally Expansionist, it would be the British Whig Party, both the US Democrat and Republican Parties and their predecessors in the 19th century.

Both parties are formally opposed to expanionism and have been pretty much after the Mexican American War (and the Whigs were lukewarm on that one). Buying territory is okay, and sometimes its okay to accept pro-American locals’ requests for annexation, but the parties have done quite a bit of hand wringing over any addition of territory won through war. There have been only two real wars of conquest, and one of them was largely to help the biggest prizes become independent (yes, there was a few decades of foot dragging in the Phillipines).

My challenge is not ‘how can we have the US do this thing’ but ‘how can we have a major party go on record as saying this thing is a good idea in general.’ A party that says ‘the next time we get in a war in Latin America, lets just keep the land’ and ‘the Europeans are all carving up Africa, we should get a piece, too.’
 
I would say the Democrats in the 1850's were expansionist enough. See Pierce's inaugural address: "...the policy of my Administration will not be controlled by any timid forebodings of evil from expansion. Indeed, it is not to be disguised that our attitude as a nation and our position on the globe render the acquisition of certain possessions not within our jurisdiction eminently important for our protection, if not in the future essential for the preservation of the rights of commerce and the peace of the world. Should they be obtained, it will be through no grasping spirit, but with a view to obvious national interest and security, and in a manner entirely consistent with the strictest observance of national faith..." https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/presidential-speeches/march-4-1853-inaugural-address
 

Lusitania

Donor
The issue with expansion policies is that while taking over seemingly “empty” areas caused little repercussions conquering British North America or Mexico and Central America would bring big ecenomic, military and social issues that would cause the party in power to loose support.

High taxation to support a large army occupying hostile areas. Attacks from Britain both exonomic and military ( in case of attacks against its colonies). Having millions of non-English speaking people suddenly as citizens or if laws passed to deny them right to citizenship and vote growing resentment and attacks against American invaders would make this policy costly.
 

RousseauX

Donor
With a POD no earlier than 1789 (Washington’s Presidency) have a viable political party that is formally pro-expansionist. I don’t mean in terms of Manifest Destiny, but in terms of formally annexing as much territory around the world as possibly.

There was some Whig opposition to the Mexican American War (most notably, Abe Lincoln). The Spanish American war had detractors (most vocal during the occupation of the Philippines). Those were the two genuinely expansionist wars in the history of the US. And while both were overall broadly popular, all the major parties at any time were officially opposed to formal expansionism.

Viable is defined for our purposes will be regularly maintaining some presence in Congress.
Isn't this basically the southern wing of the Democratic Party until the 1860s?
 
I agree. To be clear, I did not ask for a single-issue party. Just that a viable party be formally pro-expansionist.

That said, the GOP pretty much was a single-issue party initially.

... I'd argue that the Republicans weren't a single issue party. The Democrats CAST them as one, but look at how they campaigned and the sort of things they endorsed that were distinct from the democrats: High protective tariff, nation-scale internal improvements (Transcontinental railroad, for example), tighter inmmigration standards, a national bank/strong money and credit policy, ect. Indeed. Democrats who tried to wave the "Black Republicans" banner in the 50's in the Northeast were often frustrated by how little local Republicans campaigned on that particular platform. And when they did, it was nearly always connected to Free Soil/ defending the economic health and mobility of the white laborers.

But I think you need to open up more vectors of expansion and increase the representative power of the frontier regions in order to get the kind of party you're proposing in any real sense. Perhaps if Britain ends up losing control of Canada/can't surpress the Metis and buy out the Hudson Bay Company, ect. thus leaving the Northwest third of the Continent "unclaimed". In that case, I could see a kind of Agrarian party forming: taking up Homsteading Act, larger military to push down on alll the Native Americans that now need to be kept down, adopting a more pro-Immigrant but also Assimilationist stance, ect.
 
Part of the issue is providing a motivation for the expansion, and then providing a concrete goal for said expansion. After all, the US was just fine ignoring overseas possessions for a long portion of its existence, but only gained them later on after it settled its hinterland. Now, if the US manages to luck into colonial expansions, those could become a nexus for further expansion, so those could be PoD.

Another way to ensure expansion continues is to make the US healthier. One big opponent is the Civil War and casualties lost creating an environment where the US had to recover. Losing over 2% of the prewar population is massive, and it took roughly a generation for the US to recover from its insular period and resume expansion. Remove that period of loss and the US can have a longer continued period of expansionist policies.
 
This was part of the Republican platform in 1850s?

It was more anti-Irish/Roman Catholic than purely immigration, per say. But yes, in the 50's this was something at least a solid faction of Republicans supported. Or, it might be more accurate to say they allowed nativists into their tent rather than having gone out and looked for them
 
Top