WI the US is awarded the Galapagos?

Keenir

Banned
I can offhand see two times when the US might be handed legal/official ownership of the Galapagos Islands - either alongside the Philipines after the Spanish-American War, or thrown in with much of central North America in the Louisiana Purchase. (were there any other occasions?)


[assuming that history goes pretty much according to [OTL] plan until it figures in the US history]...aside from visits by whalers and seal-hunters, when would the US really start to invest in the Islands in any meaningful way? a radio base during WW2? offered to Confederates to stall any debates over Kansas?

thoughts?
 
I doubt very much the US could have obtained them after Spanish-American war... unless you make Equador to ally with Spain.
 

Keenir

Banned
I doubt very much the US could have obtained them after Spanish-American war... unless you make Equador to ally with Spain.

even in Spain's weakened state at the time, would even Equador be willing to go to war with the Spanish Empire over whether Spain signs a paper that says a few useless islands now belong to a third party?
:cool:
 
The US Grabs the Galapagos, AKA Darwin's American Vacation

-During the War of 1812, US commerce raiders occupy the Marquesas in order to ravage the British whaling fleet. (This is OTL)

-President Madison is surprised to learn he was declared the chief of the Marquesas Tribes. For economic and (ambitious) strategic reasons, the US annexes the island group(POD). Said annexation is recognized in the peace settlement with the UK.

-American forays into the Pacific with the Marquesas precedent leads to more island grabbing, and trade/traffic with Asia. This becomes more important and valuable after the Mexican-American war, when the US gains a number of good Pacific ports.

-The US undergoes a bloody civil war in which the separatist southern Confederacy is crushed.

-American interests in the security of traffic between its two coasts and the Pacific in general bring notice to the Galapagos. Given long-standing precedent of island annexations in that ocean, the idea is publicly mooted.

-Ecuador is offered a fairly good deal for the barely-inhabited island group, and after some negotiation, accepts.
OR
-After the construction of a central American Canal, the importance of the Galapagos is even greater in some eyes. Ecuador is made an offer it decides not to refuse.
OR
-Spain manages to hold on to the islands even as the mainland of South America breaks away. Late in the 19th century, the US gains the islands either as a purchase or in a general post-war absorption of Spanish colonial holdings.

So there you are. At least minimally plausible, I should think, though not without its questionable bits.
 
even in Spain's weakened state at the time, would even Equador be willing to go to war with the Spanish Empire over whether Spain signs a paper that says a few useless islands now belong to a third party?
:cool:

Then you could have really a massive USA wank. Imagine that as a consequence of the Spanish defeat a paper is signed in which Spain cedes to the US Flanders, Portugal, Naples, the French Comté... they were not spanish territories either by that date.
 
Then you could have really a massive USA wank. Imagine that as a consequence of the Spanish defeat a paper is signed in which Spain cedes to the US Flanders, Portugal, Naples, the French Comté... they were not spanish territories either by that date.

He's also overlooking the fact that the Galapagos were never part of the Spanish Empire to begin with - no country owned them before Ecuador annexed them. Imagine if the UK decided to sell, say, Puerto Rico, or even Wyoming, simply because they're owned by a country that was formerly a territory of their's.
 

Keenir

Banned
He's also overlooking the fact that the Galapagos were never part of the Spanish Empire to begin with

I'm not overlooking it - I wasn't aware of that fact.

- no country owned them before Ecuador annexed them. Imagine if the UK decided to sell, say, Puerto Rico, or even Wyoming, simply because they're owned by a country that was formerly a territory of their's.

I thought you just said Spain never owned the Galapagos.
 

Keenir

Banned
Then you could have really a massive USA wank. Imagine that as a consequence of the Spanish defeat a paper is signed in which Spain cedes to the US Flanders, Portugal, Naples, the French Comté... they were not spanish territories either by that date.

ah, but while people would go to war to keep the US and Spain from (re)gaining those lands, exactly who would go to war to keep the Galapagos from becoming American?

it'd be like starting World War Three, just so you can own Easter Island.

Yes, that's right.

but Wyoming was (not sure about the other one), so the analogy isn't one.
 
but Wyoming was (not sure about the other one), so the analogy isn't one.

Wyoming was what? Territory of Britain? I don't consider a claim of a small sliver of the state the same as the whole thing, especially when the capital wasn't even anywhere near that part. But I'm not here to nit-pick. If it helps my point get across better, replace Wyoming with Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, or any other number of other modern US states that were never part of British North America.

The fact stands that Spain never had stakes on the Galapagos. Believe me, I recently studied Ecuadorian history for a semester in Quito.
 
Last edited:
If this makes sense...Giant Turtle Cavalry! But here's a thought. If it became a state, did it allow slavery at the time? If so, the Civil ar might be a bit more interesting.
 
/\ /\ Most likely not. Territorial status similar to Guam would be the most sensible.

Although it is twice the land area of Rhode Island, it only has an OTL population of about 40k.
 
Top