What if American REALLY became an empire?

[XT]

It’s the late 1780’s, and the fledgling US has been attacked by a number of NAI tribes. After mobilizing for war, the US has begun the process of building up a substantial economic and military power base. For obscure reasons, in 1790, the British have declared war on the US (as well as several other nations), fighting mainly from the remains of their colonial possessions in the new world. The US redoubles it’s military mobilization to fend off this new threat.

By the late 1790’s the US has managed to defeat all of the NAI tribes and has taken all of the British possessions on the continent, and has built up sufficient force to look at taking the British Caribbean colonial possessions. Suddenly, however, both Spain and France have unexpectedly declared war and begun using their colonial forces to harass the US.

By 1805 all of the remaining French colonial possessions are in US hands, and the US is driving into Mexico and Central and South American, capturing Spanish possessions as we go. The US has also built their fleet to such an extent that, at least locally, they have nearly full control of the seas. This also has allowed the US to also send forces into the various island possessions of the UK, Spain and France.

By 1810 it’s all over…nearly everything in the new world is in the hands of the US. A massive fleet has been constructed and several armies have been produced and trained. The next stop…Ireland and England.

By 1815 the US has, in a series of bloody battles, finally subdued the British Isles. For all practical purposes, the UK has been taken off the board. There are several fleets that are interdicting the waters in and around the British Isles, as well as French and Spanish ports. Several invasion forces are being prepared for the mainland.

It’s 1820, and Spain has also, for all intents and purposes, been knocked from the board. In France it’s been a tough slog, with several extremely bloody battles. However, all of what is today’s France is in the hands of the American’s. France is still in the fight, having managed to capture large swaths of Europe while the US was fighting elsewhere, but they are definitely on the ropes.

It’s 1825 and…the game is over. The US has been victorious and has managed to capture all of the 25 provinces they were required to for victory. Ok…this is essentially the walk through for my latest campaign in Total War: Empire.

It got me thinking though. What if the US HAD become a real Imperialistic power. Not the half assed backing into Imperialism and then backing out again thing we did in reality, but an honest to god, bent on conquest, full on European style Imperialistic power? Let’s say that instead of a focus on minimal government and a deliberately small and ineffective military the government with the full support of the people had built the most powerful military possible and had, again with the full support of the people, become aggressively expansionist.

What COULD such a US have accomplished? Conquest of Central and South America? More rapid expansion west? Canada? A Pacific or Southern Atlantic empire?

-XT

[mswas]

The United States REALLY IS an empire, even if you just look at its dominance from sea to shining sea and eliminate foreign entanglements from the equation.

As for your estimates I don’t think that the US could have challenged France of Britain on your timeline even if we had wanted to.

[Gorsnak]

I see you finally found the option to play a full campaign as the US.

[RickJay]

@xtisme

What COULD such a US have accomplished? Conquest of Central and South America? More rapid expansion west? Canada? A Pacific or Southern Atlantic empire?

Conquest of the New World? Absolutely. Of Europe? Completely impossible; the U.S. didn’t have the manpower under any realistic scenario to pull it off.

[XT]

@mswas

The United States REALLY IS an empire, even if you just look at its dominance from sea to shining sea and eliminate foreign entanglements from the equation.

That’s debatable and really not related to the question I’m asking. What I’m asking is, what if the US had gone full bore to become an Imperialist power? What if we had sent fleets, troops, colonies of our own to the far corners of the world…or, in our own neck of the world, had used our military to completely take over all of Central and South America? Canada? Whatever?

As for your estimates I don’t think that the US could have challenged France of Britain on your timeline even if we had wanted to.

Well, that was just a preamble…I was playing a game of Total War and that’s how it worked out, so it got me thinking. Feel free to use any time table you like. Say, instead of a Civil War the US had instead decided to turn expansionist at that point. Or if post WWI we had decided to, instead of becoming isolationist, become aggressively expansionist. Or post WWII if you like. Whatever.

@Gorsnak

I see you finally found the option to play a full campaign as the US.

Yes, actually got that from you in that thread. Have enjoyed playing the US in one of these games.

[mswas]

@xtisme

That’s debatable and really not related to the question I’m asking. What I’m asking is, what if the US had gone full bore to become an Imperialist power? What if we had sent fleets, troops, colonies of our own to the far corners of the world…or, in our own neck of the world, had used our military to completely take over all of Central and South America? Canada? Whatever?

The problem is WE HAVE sent troops to the far corners of the world, and our own neck of the world wasn’t our own neck of the world until we took it by force from others. So it’s only debateable in that you can debate anything. But debating that it’s not the case is just debating a side that is unsupportable by the facts. We DID take over Mexico with military troops, marched them right up to Mexico City. We DID fight with Canada, but we lost.

Well, that was just a preamble…I was playing a game of Total War and that’s how it worked out, so it got me thinking. Feel free to use any time table you like. Say, instead of a Civil War the US had instead decided to turn expansionist at that point. Or if post WWI we had decided to, instead of becoming isolationist, become aggressively expansionist. Or post WWII if you like. Whatever.

Well post WWII we certainly became aggressively expansionist. So I don’t even have to imagine that one since it’s what actually happened.

Yes, actually got that from you in that thread. Have enjoyed playing the US in one of these games.

In Civilization I always liked playing on Earth maps. If you take over both Americas and then setup a naval blockade up and down the coasts your position is unassailable and from there it is just a matter of time before you take over the rest of the world. I think the US should look toward assimilating all of the Americas and uniting them under one banner.

[XT]

sigh

@mswas

The problem is WE HAVE sent troops to the far corners of the world, and our own neck of the world wasn’t our own neck of the world until we took it by force from others.

We certainly sent troops to other countries. No one is denying that. But we didn’t do it in a coherent effort to create an imperialistic empire, except in very narrow cases (the Philippines, say, or perhaps Cuba).

And we DIDN’T take over our neck of the woods, unless you are simply talking about the territory occupied by the US today. We didn’t, as you say later, take over Mexico…we sent troops there, sure, but then we left. You may have noticed that Mexico is not part of the US today, for instance. While we installed the government in Panama, it also isn’t part of the US…in fact, the canal we built doesn’t belong to us anymore. Canada is also not part of the US today…nor do we have territories in Central and South America.

We DID take over Mexico with military troops, marched them right up to Mexico City. We DID fight with Canada, but we lost.

NO, we didn’t. We marched into Mexico, but we didn’t take over the country. I’m sure it would have been in all the papers if we had…especially since that would mean that Mexico would be part of the Union today.

As for Canada…yeah, I know. To be clear, my OP is about going into Canada for real and NOT losing. Surely you know that our invasion of Canada was half assed at best. So…what if we had been serious about it? Same with Mexico…what if we had ACTUALLY gone into Mexico with the full army and the intention to stay there and ACTUALLY take it over?

That’s what the OP is asking…if you would like to start another thread (as you have in the past) about how the US is really an aggressively expansionist Empire or Imperial power or whatever, then feel free.

Well post WWII we certainly became aggressively expansionist. So I don’t even have to imagine that one since it’s what actually happened.

What new territories has the US added since WWII? Perhaps the problem here is that we are working under different definitions of what ‘aggressively expansionist’ is. By MY definition this would mean a nation adding directly to it’s own territory through military conquest…IOW, conquering another nation or territory and then moving in or annexing it directly to become part of a empire.

-XT

[mswas]

@xtisme

sigh

We certainly sent troops to other countries. No one is denying that. But we didn’t do it in a coherent effort to create an imperialistic empire, except in very narrow cases (the Philippines, say, or perhaps Cuba).

I was thinking of the Philippines specifically.

And we DIDN’T take over our neck of the woods, unless you are simply talking about the territory occupied by the US today. We didn’t, as you say later, take over Mexico…we sent troops there, sure, but then we left. You may have noticed that Mexico is not part of the US today, for instance. While we installed the government in Panama, it also isn’t part of the US…in fact, the canal we built doesn’t belong to us anymore. Canada is also not part of the US today…nor do we have territories in Central and South America.
[/quote]

We didn’t leave. You LIVE IN NEW MEXICO for Chrissakes. New Mexico is territory that we forcibly removed from Mexico. Don’t you live in Las Cruces or something? That’s like Mexican heartland prior to our military acquisition. So not all of Mexico is part of the United States but a huge portion of it is. As I said with Canada, we attacked and lost.

NO, we didn’t. We marched into Mexico, but we didn’t take over the country. I’m sure it would have been in all the papers if we had…especially since that would mean that Mexico would be part of the Union today.

We did take over the country. You live in the part we conquered and kept.

As for Canada…yeah, I know. To be clear, my OP is about going into Canada for real and NOT losing. Surely you know that our invasion of Canada was half assed at best. So…what if we had been serious about it? Same with Mexico…what if we had ACTUALLY gone into Mexico with the full army and the intention to stay there and ACTUALLY take it over?

Well yes, that’s because Mexico was an easier target and Canada wasn’t REALLY that much of a threat, we realized that we could deal with Canada economically and have done just fine with that.

That’s what the OP is asking…if you would like to start another thread (as you have in the past) about how the US is really an aggressively expansionist Empire or Imperial power or whatever, then feel free.

No, this one will suffice. Because the facts are on my side, especially since all I have to do is cite where you live. If you want to discuss how it might have gone differently that’s fine, but you need to recognize that we DID engage in imperialistic expansion, even if we are only referring to the parts of the US that are actually states/territories. Also, when you talk about attacking Canada you should recognize that on your timeline we were building up the army that would have been our Imperial colonizing force and fighting a lot more toward our southern than Northern border. If you want to talk about Empire you need to recognize troop strengths and their deployments.

What new territories has the US added since WWII? Perhaps the problem here is that we are working under different definitions of what ‘aggressively expansionist’ is. By MY definition this would mean a nation adding directly to it’s own territory through military conquest…IOW, conquering another nation or territory and then moving in or annexing it directly to become part of a empire.

Annexing territory is utterly irrelevant to Empire. So yes, this is the crux of our disagreement. To me excercising dominance over a vassal state is Imperial.

[BrainGlutton]

@xtisme

It’s the late 1780’s, and the fledgling US has been attacked by a number of NAI tribes. After mobilizing for war, the US has begun the process of building up a substantial economic and military power base. For obscure reasons, in 1790, the British have declared war on the US (as well as several other nations), fighting mainly from the remains of their colonial possessions in the new world. The US redoubles it’s military mobilization to fend off this new threat.

By the late 1790’s the US has managed to defeat all of the NAI tribes and has taken all of the British possessions on the continent, and has built up sufficient force to look at taking the British Caribbean colonial possessions. Suddenly, however, both Spain and France have unexpectedly declared war and begun using their colonial forces to harass the US.

By 1805 all of the remaining French colonial possessions are in US hands, and the US is driving into Mexico and Central and South American, capturing Spanish possessions as we go. The US has also built their fleet to such an extent that, at least locally, they have nearly full control of the seas. This also has allowed the US to also send forces into the various island possessions of the UK, Spain and France.

No fucking way, By the last paragraph above, this ceases to be even a marginally plausible counterfactual. The U.S. simply had not had time to build up that much military strength and especially naval strength. The new government was only just getting organized under the new Constitution, and the country was still enjoying a season of rest from the military upheavals of the Revolution.

[XT]

@mswas

I was thinking of the Philippines specifically.

Ok…I’d say Cuba would be another example then, too. Both of which were only briefly under the direct control of the US. And both of which, to my mind, show more about how half assed we were about the whole Empire thingy. Again, this OP is to explore what things may have been like had we chosen to stay. Take the Philippines and Cuba for example…what if we had decided to hold onto them directly? Make them official territories and then fought to keep them indefinitely?

We didn’t leave. You LIVE IN NEW MEXICO for Chrissakes. New Mexico is territory that we forcibly removed from Mexico. Don’t you live in Las Cruces or something? That’s like Mexican heartland prior to our military acquisition. So not all of Mexico is part of the United States but a huge portion of it is. As I said with Canada, we attacked and lost.

I live in Rio Rancho, actually, but close enough. And I’m aware that New Mexico (and parts of California, and Texas) were part of Mexico, certainly. The key word there is ‘part’. And these states were not the heart of Mexico nor were they a ‘huge portion’.

We did take over the country. You live in the part we conquered and kept.

Again, ‘part’ is the key word. As per the OP, what if we had decided to keep it all? And then move on to the south and take the rest of the continent?

Well yes, that’s because Mexico was an easier target and Canada wasn’t REALLY that much of a threat, we realized that we could deal with Canada economically and have done just fine with that.

You are missing the point. The US is actually imperialistically aggressive…so, we decided to annex Canada, instead of this quasi-Empire stuff you are talking about. No supposed ‘vassal state’ non-sense, but boots on the ground, full bore take over. That’s the question I’m asking.

If you want to talk about Empire you need to recognize troop strengths and their deployments.

So talk about them. I already said use any timeline you like. The time line I used was FROM A GAME I WAS PLAYING. I used it merely as an example to ask the question, and because it was fresh in my mind, having just finished the campaign last night.
I realize that you and I don’t see eye to eye on this…we had all this out in the last ‘America is an Empire’ type thread (which I believe you started). We aren’t going to agree because we both see what an Empire is in different terms. So be it. However, THIS OP is about what the world would be like if the US became an aggressive Empire by MY definition…i.e., none of this pussyfooting about with ‘vassal states’ and proxy government, none of this economic dominance or influence bullshit, but real, honest to gods conquest and annexation. If you don’t want to discuss that then that’s fine…as I said, feel free to start your own thread or to revive the last one.

-XT

[toadspittle]

Why don’t you make it a more modest goal: Total US imperial control of the Western Hemisphere. Leave the Old World out of it.

I would wonder if, had we managed to gain total control of N and S America by 1900, we would have maintained control following WWI and WWII, what cultural and political impact we would have had on the conquered lands (a la the UK’s impact on India and Pakistan, Spain’s in Latin America, or France’s in Africa and SE Asia), and if we would have any sort of friendly relations with traditional Euro allies like England and France. Would we have gotten involved in WWI?

[mswas]

@xtisme

Ok…I’d say Cuba would be another example then, too. Both of which were only briefly under the direct control of the US. And both of which, to my mind, show more about how half assed we were about the whole Empire thingy. Again, this OP is to explore what things may have been like had we chosen to stay. Take the Philippines and Cuba for example…what if we had decided to hold onto them directly? Make them official territories and then fought to keep them indefinitely?

I don’t see the point in annexing territories when you can dictate terms to their governments.

I live in Rio Rancho, actually, but close enough. And I’m aware that New Mexico (and parts of California, and Texas) were part of Mexico, certainly. The key word there is ‘part’. And these states were not the heart of Mexico nor were they a ‘huge portion’.

Ahh ok, Rio Rancho then, definitely not the heart, closer to the Northern border but not quite there as the northern border was up near northern Colorado IIRC. As I understand it we took more than 1/3 of Mexican territory, so I guess you and I have very different ideas of scale here.

Again, ‘part’ is the key word. As per the OP, what if we had decided to keep it all? And then move on to the south and take the rest of the continent?

Well, I am not well versed in the reasons as to why we didn’t keep it all. Probably because we just didn’t have the population to support it would be my guess. At the time our Anglo-majority would have become an Anglo-Minority if we’d assimilated that many Mexicans.

You are missing the point. The US is actually imperialistically aggressive…so, we decided to annex Canada, instead of this quasi-Empire stuff you are talking about. No supposed ‘vassal state’ non-sense, but boots on the ground, full bore take over. That’s the question I’m asking.

I understand the point you are making but boots on the ground require boots, and I am talking about population limitations. We only had so many boots so we chose to take over a big part of Mexico rather than take over Canada.

So talk about them. I already said use any timeline you like. The time line I used was FROM A GAME I WAS PLAYING. I used it merely as an example to ask the question, and because it was fresh in my mind, having just finished the campaign last night.

Right, well the point is that we had a limited population, and as our population increased we DID expand, and I am using YOUR definition by eliminating foreign vassal states. Even if you only consider what we took from Mexico, Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Louisiana Purchase, etc… you still have the makings of an actual honest to goodness old school empire.

I realize that you and I don’t see eye to eye on this…we had all this out in the last ‘America is an Empire’ type thread (which I believe you started). We aren’t going to agree because we both see what an Empire is in different terms. So be it. However, THIS OP is about what the world would be like if the US became an aggressive Empire by MY definition…i.e., none of this pussyfooting about with ‘vassal states’ and proxy government, none of this economic dominance or influence bullshit, but real, honest to gods conquest and annexation. If you don’t want to discuss that then that’s fine…as I said, feel free to start your own thread or to revive the last one.

Right, and I am arguing it based on YOUR definition, talking ONLY about direct territorial acquisition, which occurred right up until the middle of the 19th century. So for your counterfactual to be plausible, IMO it needs to recognize the acquisitions we DID make and the logistical feasibility of making acquisitions beyond that.

[mswas]

@toadspittle

Why don’t you make it a more modest goal: Total US imperial control of the Western Hemisphere. Leave the Old World out of it.

I would wonder if, had we managed to gain total control of N and S America by 1900, we would have maintained control following WWI and WWII, what cultural and political impact we would have had on the conquered lands (a la the UK’s impact on India and Pakistan, Spain’s in Latin America, or France’s in Africa and SE Asia), and if we would have any sort of friendly relations with traditional Euro allies like England and France. Would we have gotten involved in WWI?

There would have been some serious problems maintaining the Spanish/Portuguese speaking sections. On the other hand we would have been the wealthiest nation by orders of magnitude.

[treis]

@xtisme

I live in Rio Rancho, actually, but close enough. And I’m aware that New Mexico (and parts of California, and Texas) were part of Mexico, certainly. The key word there is ‘part’. And these states were not the heart of Mexico nor were they a ‘huge portion’.

It was 55% of Mexico’s pre-war land and ~20% of it’s population.

[XT]

@toadspittle

Why don’t you make it a more modest goal: Total US imperial control of the Western Hemisphere. Leave the Old World out of it.

That’s fine. I left it up to the poster to decide what they wanted. I wasn’t actually serious about invading the British Isles or France guys…it was just part of the game. The core question is what would have happened had the US become aggressively expansionist during any period of our history. COULD we have expanded into places like Canada, Mexico, Central and South American, the Caribbean, etc etc. What effect on history would this have had (say your question about WWI and WWII).

@mswas

I don’t see the point in annexing territories when you can dictate terms to their governments.

How is that working out in Cuba these days? Mexico? Most Central and South American nations? How about Panama? Philippines? We can INFLUENCE (some) of these countries, no doubt…but they pretty much do their own thing, especially Cuba. Direct control means, well, we have DIRECT control. No?

Ahh ok, Rio Rancho then, definitely not the heart, closer to the Northern border but not quite there as the northern border was up near northern Colorado IIRC. As I understand it we took more than 1/3 of Mexican territory, so I guess you and I have very different ideas of scale here.

More like 40% I’d say (if you included the entire Mexican Cession). However, Mexico, such as it was post revolution, only had tenuous control of much of this territory prior to the Mexican/American war. Also, our part of the deal was we paid the Mexican government something like $15 million (in 1840’s dollars…my rough, back of the envelop calculation, which is probably wrong, is something like $300 million in today’s dollars). That was and is a substantial amount of money.

BTW, Albuquerque/Rio Rancho wasn’t in the Cession, I don’t think. Not that it matters.

Well, I am not well versed in the reasons as to why we didn’t keep it all. Probably because we just didn’t have the population to support it would be my guess. At the time our Anglo-majority would have become an Anglo-Minority if we’d assimilated that many Mexicans.

I don’t know whether population had anything to do with it…my guess is we didn’t keep it because we didn’t want it. We wanted to negotiate with the Mexican’s and bring the war to a conclusion, and we were willing to pay and give concessions for equal concessions on their part. Again, to me, the fact we paid for the territory (despite winning the war and occupying the enemies capital) shows we were rather half assed conquistadors at best. Do you suppose the Spanish paid for their territorial gains?

That’s neither here nor there, however. The question is…what if we decided NOT to negotiate? What if we decided to keep the whole shootin match? You seem to be saying we couldn’t, we didn’t have the population to support full annexation of all of Mexico. Ok…I don’t know. So, if you want to go that route convince me we couldn’t do it, then that will answer the OP. We COULDN’T be international conquistadors because we didn’t have the population to do so…at least at this particular time (late 1840’s). What about later?

I understand the point you are making but boots on the ground require boots, and I am talking about population limitations. We only had so many boots so we chose to take over a big part of Mexico rather than take over Canada.

Ok…that sounds plausible to me, though I’d love to see some data on this. How about later in our history when we did have the population to support invasion and full annexation?

Right, well the point is that we had a limited population, and as our population increased we DID expand, and I am using YOUR definition by eliminating foreign vassal states. Even if you only consider what we took from Mexico, Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Louisiana Purchase, etc… you still have the makings of an actual honest to goodness old school empire.

And you are saying that this was absolutely the maximum expansion we could (to the present day) sustain? Because my question relates to the US going full bore in expansion. If you are saying that what we did was full bore, then that’s fine…if you can back it up with some figures about population. Mind, I think it’s plausible during the early 1800’s that we didn’t have the population for full on expansion…but I don’t see why we couldn’t have annexed, say, Mexico parts of Central and South American (say, direct military annexation of Panama, for instance) during the late 19th or early 20th century.

Right, and I am arguing it based on YOUR definition, talking ONLY about direct territorial acquisition, which occurred right up until the middle of the 19th century. So for your counterfactual to be plausible, IMO it needs to recognize the acquisitions we DID make and the logistical feasibility of making acquisitions beyond that.

I do recognize the acquisitions we did make. Unless you are saying that this was the maximum possible expansion the US was capable due to population limitations, however, it doesn’t really address the question I’m asking.

-XT

[Declan]

@toadspittle

Why don’t you make it a more modest goal: Total US imperial control of the Western Hemisphere. Leave the Old World out of it.

I would wonder if, had we managed to gain total control of N and S America by 1900, we would have maintained control following WWI and WWII, what cultural and political impact we would have had on the conquered lands (a la the UK’s impact on India and Pakistan, Spain’s in Latin America, or France’s in Africa and SE Asia), and if we would have any sort of friendly relations with traditional Euro allies like England and France. Would we have gotten involved in WWI?

Its quite possible that WW1 would not have occured in Europe, but in South America. You not only control the Panama Canal , Cape Horn, and the NorthWest Passage. Sure England could have gotten most favoured nation status for the privilige of shorter passage, but your going to have continental powers messing around.

It probably would be simpler to go on the imperialist march , after the Civil war. And invade Europe proper.

Declan

[mswas]

@xtisme

How is that working out in Cuba these days? Mexico? Most Central and South American nations? How about Panama? Philippines? We can INFLUENCE (some) of these countries, no doubt…but they pretty much do their own thing, especially Cuba. Direct control means, well, we have DIRECT control. No?

Well lets see, Cuba is one of the poorest nations on Earth and we maintain a military base there against their will while we stifle trade with them. Panama well, we have full use of the canal so there is no reason to spend any money telling them what to do as there is no benefit to the cost. Central America and South America? Well that one’s easy, we have convinced them to prohibit their primary cash crops and to wage war against their own subsistance farmers to keep bourgeois teenagers from taking a bump of coke at a party. As for Mexico as has been pointed out, half of that country is now American territory and their main industry is migrant workers in the United States.

More like 40% I’d say (if you included the entire Mexican Cession). However, Mexico, such as it was post revolution, only had tenuous control of much of this territory prior to the Mexican/American war. Also, our part of the deal was we paid the Mexican government something like $15 million (in 1840’s dollars…my rough, back of the envelop calculation, which is probably wrong, is something like $300 million in today’s dollars). That was and is a substantial amount of money.

40%, 55%, 33%, what does it matter? That’s a lot of fucking land with a lot of fucking mineral wealth. 300 million of today’s dollars is nothing for millions of square miles of arable land with substantial mineral wealth.

BTW, Albuquerque/Rio Rancho wasn’t in the Cession, I don’t think. Not that it matters.

Regardless, as you say it doesn’t matter, it was acquired somewhere along the way.

I don’t know whether population had anything to do with it…my guess is we didn’t keep it because we didn’t want it. We wanted to negotiate with the Mexican’s and bring the war to a conclusion, and we were willing to pay and give concessions for equal concessions on their part. Again, to me, the fact we paid for the territory (despite winning the war and occupying the enemies capital) shows we were rather half assed conquistadors at best. Do you suppose the Spanish paid for their territorial gains?

I disagree, I think population had everything to do with it, we took the lion’s share of land while not acquiring much in the way of an ungovernable population. If we took more we’d have had to deal with a restive population that we didn’t have the demographics to supplant. We paid them a pittance. That’s a better deal than the apocryphal purchase of Manhattan.

That’s neither here nor there, however. The question is…what if we decided NOT to negotiate? What if we decided to keep the whole shootin match? You seem to be saying we couldn’t, we didn’t have the population to support full annexation of all of Mexico. Ok…I don’t know. So, if you want to go that route convince me we couldn’t do it, then that will answer the OP. We COULDN’T be international conquistadors because we didn’t have the population to do so…at least at this particular time (late 1840’s). What about later?

Well maybe later, but after James K. Polk there really wasn’t much of a point, we’d achieved regional hegemony, the only thing the rest of Mexico had to offer was a restive population. We’d already taken the most resource wealthy portion of the nation. California, Texas, and New Mexico Territory have been agricultural breadbaskets providing a great deal of corn, beef, and other fruits, vegetables and meats. They also are the most oil rich lands on Earth outside of the Middle-East.

Ok…that sounds plausible to me, though I’d love to see some data on this. How about later in our history when we did have the population to support invasion and full annexation?

What would the point of taking over Canada be? The reason we’ve never taken over Canada is because they are more than willing to negotiate contracts on terms we can both fully agree upon. The cultural similarity removes many of the roadblocks to those deals and Canada’s sparse population rendered them as not being a threat to us at all. I just don’t see any benefit in taking over Canada. They are already similar culturally, and are willing to do business on our economic terms.

And you are saying that this was absolutely the maximum expansion we could (to the present day) sustain? Because my question relates to the US going full bore in expansion. If you are saying that what we did was full bore, then that’s fine…if you can back it up with some figures about population. Mind, I think it’s plausible during the early 1800’s that we didn’t have the population for full on expansion…but I don’t see why we couldn’t have annexed, say, Mexico parts of Central and South American (say, direct military annexation of Panama, for instance) during the late 19th or early 20th century.

Well it was the maximum we could sustain up to the point of acquisition. If you want to go into the present day then I’d go back to the argument that vassalage has a lower cost than annexation.

I do recognize the acquisitions we did make. Unless you are saying that this was the maximum possible expansion the US was capable due to population limitations, however, it doesn’t really address the question I’m asking.

It’s the maximum up to that point. You also need to recognize that it would have had to contend against the already existing empires in order to accomplish this, and it wasn’t until after WWI or even WWII that we ever had the power to mount a sincere challenge.

[Pleonast]

The US wouldn’t have had the resources to hold onto territories outside the ones we did historically. Before the Civil War, we were focused on developing what we had and colonizing the West. After the Civil War, we redoubled the colonization effort and starting (slowly) rebuilding the South. I think before about 1900 any expansion outside the lower 48 would have required a reduction in the development of the lower 48.

By 1900 the West was settled more or less. This is when US development turned from colonization to going full-bore industrializing. It’s no coincidence that that’s when masses of immigrants were being accepted from Europe–we needed the labor force. Any expansionism at that time would have meant reduced industrial growth. Even if Americans were willing to accept reduced growth, it would still mean the US would have less industrial muscle to support a war effort. And if a war reduced the influx of immigrants, we would have handicapped ourselves doubly (lower growth in both population and industry).

Perhaps one way to avoid that problem, would be if we engaged in expansionist wars whenever we had a financial crisis. That was about once a decade or so. The government could have bootstrapped the economy by increasing industrial demand and absorbing surplus labor. I think the US could have easily conquered any region of the Americas it chose to.

The problem would be long-term control, with some interdependent issues.1. Pacification: long-term use of conscription would be highly unpopular and costly, reducing out industrial growth.
2. Governance: we couldn’t use the typical territory-to-state transition on an unwilling region.
3. Cultural: how do we integrate very different cultures? Do we send settlers? It would take a lot to displace an existing culture.The European empires’ solutions to these would not be palatable to Americans. We didn’t have the surplus populations that they did. We didn’t have a political system with centralized, top-down power structures like Europeans did. And the mass depopulations due to disease were not going to happen again.

Now it’s certainly possible that the US could have adapted itself to be a more effective expansionist. But the US of the alternate timeline’s now would not look much like it does today.

[XT]

@mswas

It’s the maximum up to that point. You also need to recognize that it would have had to contend against the already existing empires in order to accomplish this, and it wasn’t until after WWI or even WWII that we ever had the power to mount a sincere challenge.

Ok…why? We became a serious challenge post WWI/WWII because we finally decided to develop a powerful military. Prior to that we weren’t willing to devote the resources to developing a powerful standing military. Be we COULD have…as shown by the Civil War, we had the potential. Same goes for the period leading up to WWII…the potential was there, it simply wasn’t a priority for us. Instead, we were willing to leave our military by and large under developed.

So…what if history didn’t follow that same path? What if, instead, the government was disposed to emphasizing a strong military, and if the citizens were ok with doing so? Obviously neither was…but that’s real history. This is fantasy history.

Well it was the maximum we could sustain up to the point of acquisition. If you want to go into the present day then I’d go back to the argument that vassalage has a lower cost than annexation.

Vassalage, as you put it, also has a lower ability to get the supposed vassal to do what you want them to do. I don’t know who you think is our current vassals, but we don’t have near the control that you seem to THINK we do.

I’m not seeing how the US didn’t have the potential for direct annexation in the late (or even middle) 19th or early 20th century, given a shift in priorities.

What would the point of taking over Canada be? The reason we’ve never taken over Canada is because they are more than willing to negotiate contracts on terms we can both fully agree upon. The cultural similarity removes many of the roadblocks to those deals and Canada’s sparse population rendered them as not being a threat to us at all. I just don’t see any benefit in taking over Canada. They are already similar culturally, and are willing to do business on our economic terms.

The reasons for taking over Canada are the same as those for taking over any nation…territory, population and resources. You are telling me how history went in reality…I’m well aware of that. I’m talking about alternative history in this thread, if that hasn’t been made clear yet. Canada has resources that a truly aggressive and expansionist US would have wanted. We negotiated with Canada because we didn’t have the military capability to actually annex it, not without the native Canadian’s assistance, which they certainly would never have given. Britain was too strong, the US was too weak. We never developed our military to it’s full potential until post WWII. Ok, that’s reality. In THIS OP I’m suggesting: What if we DID develop our military to it’s full potential? Couple that with a willingness to aggressively expand and a population that supported aggressive expansion and supported the taxation and sacrifice necessary to support the military to do so.

Well maybe later, but after James K. Polk there really wasn’t much of a point, we’d achieved regional hegemony, the only thing the rest of Mexico had to offer was a restive population. We’d already taken the most resource wealthy portion of the nation. California, Texas, and New Mexico Territory have been agricultural breadbaskets providing a great deal of corn, beef, and other fruits, vegetables and meats. They also are the most oil rich lands on Earth outside of the Middle-East.

Are you seriously saying that Mexico (and Central and South American) had nothing that the US would have wanted?? Even leaving aside Mexico, the Spanish certainly seemed to find a hell of a lot of value in that territory…much more than they found in the territory we took from them. Their core parts of the empire didn’t encompass most of the territory we acquired…even California was pretty peripheral to them.

40%, 55%, 33%, what does it matter? That’s a lot of fucking land with a lot of fucking mineral wealth. 300 million of today’s dollars is nothing for millions of square miles of arable land with substantial mineral wealth.

Today, certainly it’s worth that $300 million. Alaska is worth more than we paid the Russians too, today, same with what we paid the French for their southern piece and what we paid the NAI’s for Manhattan. However, at the time the Mexican’s really didn’t derive much from that territory and only had very tenuous control of it. By and large I doubt they were even really able to tax or maintain those areas at this period. So…it wasn’t exactly a huge loss for them. Especially considering the alternative (which was full annexation of ALL of their territory).

Again though, you seem to be wanting to discuss what really happened. I don’t, not in this thread. I want to discuss what MIGHT have happened had we chosen to fully develop our military potential AND had we not been willing to negotiate. In fact, had we been aggressively expansionist, instead of half assed expansionist. You are telling me what we did do…I want to know what we COULD have done. See the difference?

-XT

[Ryan_Liam]

If the US had become an Empire, then I see nationalist causes being pushed more towards the margins, and more of the exception than the rule.

If all the western powers are imperialist countries in this scenario, then the world is pretty much in an ‘imperial lockdown’ with little room for manouver for other ideologies to come and take root.