What if the US decided to complete annexation of the Philippines, Canada, Puerto Rico, and any other territories it was eyeballing during its Imperial period?
Would we likely be a more powerful nation than we already are? Or would the burden of these other territories likely just cause more problems than they are worth?
Uh, we already own Puerto Rico.
Imperial nations didn’t annex their colonies. The Belgian Congo was always a colony of Belgium, not Belgium. Also, the US would have had to occupy Canada before anyone took US claims of having annexed it seriously.
Well, France did, technically (French Guiana is still a department of mainland France); but, they always treated the nonwhites of Vietnam, Algeria, etc., like serfs.
And at the time in question, that would have meant war with the British Empire.
The United States tried to grab some of Canada during the War of 1812. The war where the British burned Washington. 
It seems to me that the consensus from the Imperial powers in the 20th century is “More trouble than it is worth.” All those nations that started the 20th century with extensive colonies started the 21st century without them. I have heard that some accounting methods show that the total return to Britain for owning India was negative. Ruling Iraq and Afghanistan for just 10 years cost the US $1T.
Where’s the profit in ruling a 3rd world country?
[QUOTE=Herodotus]
Of Pausanias they tell this story, that coming into the camp of the Persians, he found the war-tent of Xerxes, for Xerxes had left it with Mardonius. And when he saw it with its furniture of gold and silver, and adorned with hangings of divers colors, he commanded the bakers and the cooks that they should prepare a feast as they were wont to do for Mardonius. [282] And when he saw the couches of gold and silver with their dainty coverlets, and tables of gold and silver, and all the furniture of the feast very rich, he was astonished; and for mirth’s sake bade his servants prepare a dinner in the Spartan fashion. When they had so done, Pausanias laughed, seeing how great was the difference between them; and, sending for the other captains of the Greeks, he said to them, “I have brought you here that I may show you the folly of these Persians, who, having such fare as this, came to rob us of our poverty.”
[/QUOTE]
There is a similar story (to the Herodotus one) concerning Caratacus, who after convincing Claudius Caesar to spare him was given liberty in Rome. Observing the glories of the great city, he is supposed to have said “How is it that you, who live in palaces like these, covet our poor huts?”.
The profit can be immense and lasting actually, as any history of the East India Company will reveal.
I think imperialism for purely economic/power reasons could be very beneficial (for the US, not so much for the people who are colonized), but imperialism for the sake of morality probably doesn’t have very much benefit. For example, even today, we could probably take over the entire Persian gulf and surrounding lands, expel the residents, and establish a nice no man’s land in the surrounding desert (i.e. take over strictly the oil fields and some space beyond them, leaving most of the ME untouched). I’m sure that would be highly profitable and have minimal cost to the US. But when we try to conquer countries for other reasons it winds up being a boondoggle, such as Iraq and Afghanistan. But the other thing is that we generally reap the rewards of imperialism from any place that has a stable, capitalist economy and free trade with us. The benefits from say, annexing Canada, would be slight at best, even before the costs associated with rebellion and such.
Old school colonialism was profitable for private interests which is why they were so gung-ho for it, not so much the state itself. Foreign bases are useful for the military though, especially coaling stations and airfields. Colonialism for advanced modern states is as outdated as fascism. Great powers can set up favorable trade agreements or influence the little guys’ leaders to do what they want in all sorts of other ways. No need to occupy the place.
And if we deduce the UK expenses from the EIC profits, is it still a net positive?
I remember that French conservatives during the late 19th century opposed colonialism because it was a waste of money (while the left supported it because “civilizing mission” and such). I’ve no doubt however that some private companies were making tons of money out of it.
However, of course, money isn’t the only criterium. Being an imperial power brings other benefits, if only more people to put on the frontlines when you have a world war or two.
Argentine soldiers surrendered to Gurkas without a fight, I am told.
From “Rudyard Kipling,” by George Orwell (1942):
The only plausible AH scenario I can see where the U.S. includes what is now Canada is one where the 1775 invasion succeeds. After it failed, Canada/British North America became a haven for Loyalist refugees, and from that point on it was pretty much too late.
See this cartoon from 1886. (“Brother Jonathan” was an American national symbol/personification, like Uncle Sam or Lady Columbia.)
Off-topic, but thank you for lnking to this. I found this essay on Kipling to be incredibly interesting.
If the US had owned Iraq and Afghanistan, it would also have owned the oil reserves, therefore NOT a 1T debt…
But that still leaves the question of whether occupation would have been profitable. We never completely pacified either place to the point where a normal economy was possible, and doing so would have cost even more. The restive portion of the population in Iraq and Afghanistan could probably have made extraction of the oil a net negative, with even more lives wasted.
Plus, why keep pouring more money into Bush’s folly in Iraq?
