TripleBossyDeluxe
Banned
With a POD of 1776, have the United States become as large as possible. Bonus points if it becomes the largest nation in history and has territory on every continent.
AHC: Largest possible United States
- Thread starter TripleBossyDeluxe
- Start date
-
- Tags
- ahc united states wank
Planet of Hats
Donor
Didn't you just post one of these about Russia?
Aside from the inevitable and vomit-inducing 'Canada joins the US' cliché, I'd actually argue that what you have today is about what you'd expect from an Ameriwank.
Aside from the inevitable and vomit-inducing 'Canada joins the US' cliché, I'd actually argue that what you have today is about what you'd expect from an Ameriwank.
Well Canada depend when is Canada taking and how? also could take little more from mexico... we also give more favorable for Oregon
Setting aside something like a situation where the USA has a war with the UK annexing Canada etc, let's stick to things that almost happened OTL or are not too much of stretch.
1. As a result of the Mexican-American War the US annexes Chihuahua and Sonora, possibly Baja California. Taking part of northern Mexico was discussed.
2. The USA annexes OTL's Dominican Republic. This almost happened.
3. After the Spanish-American War Cuba decides it, like Puerto Rico, would preferred to be attached to the USA rather than independent.
4. After WWII the islands (such as the Marianas) that were Japanese (booty from the Germans after WWI) which were initially UN mandates petition to become part of a US territory of the Pacific with Guam.
5. The Philippines becoming a permanent part of the US (territory or state) is highly unlikely, not only because of distance but also even the annexation which was never meant to be permanent was a subject of debate at the time, and the locals had even fought against the USA initially for independence.
6. Some of the Japanese Islands, like the Bonins (Iwo Jima and others) that were uninhabited or minimal populations are kept by the US for us as military bases. {note: Okinawa was kept under US control until 1972,but has a large local population}
None of the above require Skippy the ASB to make them work or major league changes in US history to make 1-4, and 6 occur.
1. As a result of the Mexican-American War the US annexes Chihuahua and Sonora, possibly Baja California. Taking part of northern Mexico was discussed.
2. The USA annexes OTL's Dominican Republic. This almost happened.
3. After the Spanish-American War Cuba decides it, like Puerto Rico, would preferred to be attached to the USA rather than independent.
4. After WWII the islands (such as the Marianas) that were Japanese (booty from the Germans after WWI) which were initially UN mandates petition to become part of a US territory of the Pacific with Guam.
5. The Philippines becoming a permanent part of the US (territory or state) is highly unlikely, not only because of distance but also even the annexation which was never meant to be permanent was a subject of debate at the time, and the locals had even fought against the USA initially for independence.
6. Some of the Japanese Islands, like the Bonins (Iwo Jima and others) that were uninhabited or minimal populations are kept by the US for us as military bases. {note: Okinawa was kept under US control until 1972,but has a large local population}
None of the above require Skippy the ASB to make them work or major league changes in US history to make 1-4, and 6 occur.
Annexing much more of Mexico is less in the cards than is gaining most or all of Canada. I'd consider also Greenland, Bahamas, Cuba, Hispaniola, Puerto Rico (which the U.S. owns now, but is unincorporated and non-sovereign), and maybe the Philippines, Greater Samoa (with Tokelau), and Greater Micronesia (including Kiribati). Were somehow Mexico plausible, that would bring Central America and the rest of the Caribbean into play too. Realistically though, the largest plausible U.S. includes Canada and Greenland. Most anything else is pointless.
In addition to the obvious Canadian and Mexican stuff, there are various chunks of territory around the world that could have fallen into American hands (or were in American hands) at one time or another, and been kept, though in many cases, it would require a different American attitude, or different leadership in power. The thoughts below are by no means exhaustive, just what is off the top of my head. As far as land on every continent, the toughest one, to my mind, is Europe
Santo Domingo came very close to being American, and there were opportunities for various other Caribbean islands.
Perhaps the U.S. keeps the Canal Zone.
The Philippines could have stayed American (though not without a lot of effort).
It is not completely implausible that the United States could have obtained far eastern Siberia.
A ten year lease for land in North Bornero (Sabah) was obtained from the Sultan of Brunei. A more imperiaalist U.S. might have that become permanent one way or another.
After an alt-Great War, where the U.S. enters earlier and expends more effort, perhaps some German colonies in Africa are annexed--I am thinking South-West Africa.
Liberia (and maybe additional adjacent territory) is not a big stretch.
A United States hot and heavy into naval expansion might try for land around Tierra del Fuego--a claim was briefly made on the Fal;klands.
Santo Domingo came very close to being American, and there were opportunities for various other Caribbean islands.
Perhaps the U.S. keeps the Canal Zone.
The Philippines could have stayed American (though not without a lot of effort).
It is not completely implausible that the United States could have obtained far eastern Siberia.
A ten year lease for land in North Bornero (Sabah) was obtained from the Sultan of Brunei. A more imperiaalist U.S. might have that become permanent one way or another.
After an alt-Great War, where the U.S. enters earlier and expends more effort, perhaps some German colonies in Africa are annexed--I am thinking South-West Africa.
Liberia (and maybe additional adjacent territory) is not a big stretch.
A United States hot and heavy into naval expansion might try for land around Tierra del Fuego--a claim was briefly made on the Fal;klands.
At that rate, even Fiji is in the cards. Still, most of those are not likely. Even as a sea power, the U.. is not going to expand onto other continents in any likelihood, sans maybe to peripheral, strategic islands.
Can the US melting pot realistically assimilate (even partially) Chinese? If they aren't blocked from immigrating into the US they could add a major population base that could be used to settle parts of the pacific and Latin America.
A lot of these are not too likely, though some are quite plausible. None, however, is ASB.
Argh! The butterflies!
I find it very odd these posts that lists possibilities from PODs that came decades and centuries after the first POD you'd get in this timeline. With a POD from 1776 there's no reason Santo Domingo is any more likely to end up part of the USA than Martinique.
I am as much a believer in butterflies as the next person. The opening post didn't say it had to be a major POD. With an insignificant eough POD, history could run in a fairly similar course, at least at first. I also didn't say that all these gains would be likely to occur in the same TL. Please pardon me if I gave that impression.
I guess it IS technically possible for the United States to end up annexing most, if not ALL, of América. I can not imagine a happy future for the Latin, Native and Afro-Americans over the continent, though. Especially since a more expansionist USA more likely has more... Southern sympathies.
Well, you might be able to annex most, or even all, of Mexico, along with Central America, and/or part of all of Canada, TBH, depending on the circumstances.....anything in South America would be really pushing it, though, and anything in Africa and Europe, besides Liberia, is basically close to ASB.
True, but that TL was starting to tilt rather significantly implausible towards the end, though(I mean, even being able to take over and actually hold on to parts of Brazil? Really? And Russia was annexing Tibet, too, though.).....although I'll point out that it wasn't just because of the sheer Ameriwanking alone, however.
That depends, though. Even IOTL, a significant part of Manifest Destiny had Northern roots and there's no real reason to believe that such couldn't be even more pronounced ITTL, depending on the circumstances.
Last edited:
The following list are events that nearly or possibly occurred OTL (to the furthest extent of my knowledge), and are shown as a listing of such to establish US interests, both by the government and by individuals. This is not a timeline, merely a period of opportunities.
Well, yes, Canada is a cliche, but Canada did almost happen for multiple reasons. Have Quebec fall to the Patriots OTL and it's not unlikely that a large portion of Ontario is obtained. The US always did desire sovereignty over the entirety of the Great Lakes. A free Quebec (they don't have to join the US, and I find it unrealistic for them to in most cases, especially with a PoD this late) is good enough of an ally, although they may extend as far south as OTL Toronto (probably south of the Ottowa River), depending on where the border ends up. This leaves the British with the Maritimes and the Hudson bay territory. (This is all avoiding discussion of Quebec claiming all of its territory on the 1774 lines, which could stonewall a lot of stuff).
Rupert's Land would probably be annexed into the US at some point; it is, in the end, mostly suited for trading furs in small outposts. It is simply too isolated from the rest of Great Britain, even if/when British Columbia is established.
All of Canada west of OTL Quebec is not unrealistic in the slightest. Heck, the majority of the English-speaking population that became the nucleus of Canada in the future were loyalists who settled there after the war. Ontario as it is today was sparsely populated until that point, and the emigration of loyalists tipped the population to the point that the provinces were divided.
Note that the US maintained some claim as well to Nova Scotia, Bermuda, and the Bahamas due to some independence sentiment there... which is not likely to amount to anything, as nothing can really be done from the PoD in those cases, especially as any Loyalists fleeing that don't go to OTL Ontario instead would make those regions even more affirmatively British.
Let us not ignore the Annexation Bill of 1866, the offer to purchase Rupert's Land in 1867, the addition of the clause in the Articles of Confederation that Canada can join anytime, no questions asked, the Oregon Dispute, the Pig War... The US was truly interested in purchasing as much of Canada as possible. It would not be out of character for them to try to acquire it. Heck, a competent military endeavor by a standing army in 1812 would be interesting, but that would require a long reign of Federalist power preceding the war.
The Marquesas Islands were nearly annexed in 1814. The US never signed off on it, and the Captain who had built a base on the island group managed to earn the ire of the natives and was driven off. This occurred during the War of 1812, and would need a similar event to happen... and likely a stronger navy to boot. Definitely nothing from the same position as OTL. Could have saved a large portion of the native population when Peruvian missionaries brought a disease (can't remember off the top of my head) which managed to kill off the majority of the population of the island group.
El Salvador nearly petitioned the US to annex it so that Mexico would not do the same. I believe this was 1839...?
Liberia could become an official government project, or at least a more widely supported private one, and the region might become a formal territory that possessed a lot of internal leeway and effectively acted on its own for most of its existence, but never actually becomes independent of the US. Perhaps a more northern-dominant US manages to make slavery a non-issue before it becomes extremely profitable, and so it is chosen as the long-term solution? Shooting in the dark.
Again, Santo Domingo was nearly annexed OTL; it wouldn't be hard to change that compared to these others.
I've heard talk of the Rio Grande Republic, but a lot has to change to make a request to join the union occur. Although that, of course, brings lots of happy fun time arguments with Texas over the Nueces Strip and who owns it. A more successful republic with whom the US intervenes to secure its independence? There's a small chance.
The Baja peninsula was actually demanded by the US, but the US's lead negotiator decided not to add that to the treaty on his own prerogative. If I recall correctly, Polk would leave office before the deal could be renegotiated, and as such they stuck with the deal made originally. And the interior Mexican states of Coahuila and Chihuahua had a population that was very low. They were comparable with New Mexico, if maybe a little bit more populated. So that is a chance.
The Yucatan Peninsula was desired, of course, but more as an economic colony; it is very unlikely that it would have been integrated into the US. That, and the US would have had to deal with the native Mayan population, who gave the Mexicans grief for decades. This would be the Philippines but 50 years earlier. It is likely that the result would be the same.
Cuba is tossed around a lot, but I honestly think that 1898 is too late for any such a chance. The revolutionaries were desiring an independent nation of their own by that time. An intervention in the 1870's, which is only possible by a US that is not worn down by the heavy losses of the Civil War, could occur at a time when Cuba might be more interested in integration with the US. Have it occur in a timeline where the Rio Grande Republic, El Salvador, and Santo Domingo have joined the US and have been integrated... decently and this could become an even larger possibility.
The Sultanate/Kingdom of Ambong and Maroodoo, a short-lived state established by the US Consul to Brunei, could possibly exist longer. The state failed because of infighting between the Consul and the Rajah of Ambong and Maroodoo. (It's been a while, but it involved one hiring pirates to sack the capital of Elena to make the other pay their debts) Reports at the time were that initial contact was fairly successful, but as the state existed for 1 year, and the reports are by a British investigation nearly 80 years afterward, speaking to the one person who remembered contact, it should be taken with a grain of salt. It is to note that the residents of North Borneo detested Brunei, so it wouldn't be impossible for the US-aligned state to exist. It may eventually be incorporated into the US or no; it has the potential of becoming the US's main base in Asia (especially if it manages to acquire what became Brookstown and its coal supplies). This could eventually become a 19th century proxy fight between Sarawak and Ambong & Maroodoo. ...And I say both as it is really fun to say Maroodoo (that was how it was spelled at the time).
Naturally, this also requires a US that is less exhausted by the Civil War, and has more interest in overseas expansion. I've actually toyed with the idea of a certain Joshua Norton not going bankrupt and losing his mind, and becoming the eventual US Consul and Rajah Norton I of Ambong instead... Has a certain ring, doesn't it? (the story of Ambong and Maroodoo is fascinating as it is; you should definitely check it out if you have time. The US Consul and the Yankee Raja is the name of the book)
Other ideas I've heard bandied about are include the US being the ones in charge of the development of the Congo and the ones responsible for caretaking the Free State instead of Belgium... but I have never found a source in my multiple attempts to discover one. This sounds extremely unlikely, but might have a chance if the US was exceptionally successful with Liberia and it is interested in an active adventure in Africa? Certainly would be a better enforcer of neutrality than Belgium (in respects to the balance of power in the late 1870s), and likely wouldn't be worse for the Congo than what happened OTL.
There is the Samoa dispute, for one, which let to the partition of the island chain. That's not to mention that the US did not take all of Micronesia after defeating Spain in 1898; there was no need for it. An even more Pacific-focused US might have decided to keep them then.
There was the fake sale of Kamchatka to a false company by the Soviets to help fund their revolution. I can't remember the exact circumstances, but the Soviets legitimately thought it was the US government offering to buy, but it turned out to be untrue. This is an odd event that is not truly replicable outside extenuating circumstances.
Later on, Greenland almost became a thing. The US offered Denmark US$1 Billion during WW2 for Greenland outright, but Denmark refused to sell. The conditions could be right in a different case: say, a WW2 that drags on longer, with the territory becoming de facto US in the interim. Could be many things that cause it. In the end, there was major US interest in the territory even OTL.
France's colonies outside of Africa were considered in the Aircraft for Colonies debated sale. (Think Destroyers for Bases) This included All of their Caribbean territories, Guyana, Polynesia, and New Caledonia. (I'm not sure if their stake in Vanuatu was included). This fell through as the French were not particularly lacking in aircraft during the early stages of WW2; they were more lacking in experienced pilots. The deal never progressed far due to that. Could it? Perhaps, perhaps not.
The Bonin Islands might have been kept later on after WW2, but there was simply no need; the same goes for Okinawa. Friendly relations with Japan made such a territory redundant. An unfriendly Japan for any reason after WW2 might have had the territories stay with the US, although Okinawa would likely become a western Puerto Rico at best.
Newfoundland did have an option on their vote on Independence/Union with Canada which gave them the option to pursue union with the US instead. That option got few votes. An independent Newfoundland could always change its mind later... It'd give someplace for Greenland to be integrated with, as it is too small to be a state and Maine would be even more of a stretch.
This is, of course, ignoring some of the highly unlikely chances of other locations where statehood motions were bandied about. (Looking at you, Sicily and Albania) Also discounting talk of Israel as a state, or Taiwan. Or heck, this is also discounting the American Mandate of Armenia that was proposed in the original Treaty of Sevres. All of those are highly implausible, even in an ATL.
All that said...
The best case scenario for the US would likely go one of these routes, not all at once. Say the US does officially annex the Marquises islands. That puts the US in the Pacific much earlier than OTL; this would likely lead to a spread into the rest of Polynesia. Hawai'i is going to be a focus for the US so long it has a Pacific Coast, but aside from the slow expansion of US claims in the Pacific, there would be minimal impact in the US proper. Or does it? Maybe a US in Marquises takes a longer look at El Salvador when the idea is first put out (assuming, of course, El Salvador even desires it). There are so many butterflies that it can become quite ridiculous.
Note the US's aims: Continental domination of North America is the most important part, followed by domination of the Caribbean, and then the Pacific. Those second two take a backseat to the first. Anything outside of those regions becomes a side note unless it is so easily protected/unimportant that no one wants it. That gives you a few routes:
US Continental domination. From the start of the nation, it controls all of Canada outside of Quebec, an independent state to the north. The US expansion proceeds roughly similar to OTL, but no War of 1812 means US-British relations repair faster. Eventually, with Rupert's Land becoming relatively unimportant in the grand scheme without access to the lakes, Britain sells the territories to the US (and possibly Quebec) for a hefty sum. The US probably goes to war with Mexico eventually (Texas likely still happens in some form.) and they secure everything down to San Diego (it is a good port, after all) and eventually buys Alaska as well. That gives you your largest continental borders, though the southern border can be farther north than OTL. Not necessarily, but it can be.
US Pacific domination. Say from the acquisition of the Marquises Islands, the US slowly expands through Polynesia (basically making Tahiti a protectorate before the French), with similar actions happening in the Line Islands. This accelerates once the US has a Pacific Coast; an expedition to Borneo by a similar adventurous Consul creates a US friendly sultanate/kingdom there. Carry on that line of thought and the US suddenly controls vast stretches of water... probably more surface territory than the previous would contain.
Of course, there is the Latin-America direction, with the US going along the route with several pieces of Latin America being slowly subsumed. First El Salvador, then Rio Grande, then Santo Domingo, then Cuba... This US has a large Catholic influence, along with Caribbean due to sheer numbers. Perhaps this leads to the US intervening more into South America than OTL?
And so on and so forth. And there are always mediums between all of these; an individual event could happen and it has no noticeable effect on much of the gains made. The US could look very similar to OTL with one of these changes. It could look very different.
The important part about writing a timeline is to center it on one important change or a series of changes and consider how events may flow naturally from that point of divergence.
My example: If I were to work on a hypothetical timeline about a US that possesses North Borneo in some form, I go to look and see why it failed. Then I try to think of a PoD that makes it work without being so off the wall that it alters the whole timeline. Then once I have established the new Rajah of Ambong & Maroodoo, I let it evolve naturally from there. Does it stay independent? Become a US territory? Commonwealth? State? Does it fail? Is it sold? Etc. Every timeline has a story, but that must be balanced with any desire to shoehorn in other changes for the sake of an ultimate objective.
It's basically saying in this case "the US has had North Borneo for some well explained reason and now suddenly they have the Line Islands, because". ...I hope I make sense with my argument.
Just to emphasize: this was done without permission of the US government. They did not desire US territory, especially after the Civil War. This was all done independently by the US Consul. This is also the reason that he had someone else made the Rajah: He remained as a US consul and held the Rajah in debt to him. This is, of course, when the trouble started.
The Sultan of Brunei believed that, by doing this, he could play Ambong & Maroodoo off of Sarawak in order to preserve Brunei. Northern Borneo was mostly wild, from which the Sultan extracted as much tax as possible. To note: this only applied to the western portion of North Borneo as well; the Sultan of Sulu still owned the eastern half of what would become North Borneo. He ceded a small portion of territory, as a vassal of the Sultan of Brunei. It is also of note that the English version of the treaty included Palawan as part of the possessions ceded by Brunei/Sulu. The Malay treaty did not say that. Possibly conflict with Spain there.
Only one US Naval Ship ever docked at Elena, as it was rumored to be a US port in the region to have coal, but what coal they had was of poor quality. The best coal was located in Brookshaven, if I recall correctly, and that eventually became part of Sarawak. By the time another ship came, the colony had failed completely.
Well, yes, Canada is a cliche, but Canada did almost happen for multiple reasons. Have Quebec fall to the Patriots OTL and it's not unlikely that a large portion of Ontario is obtained. The US always did desire sovereignty over the entirety of the Great Lakes. A free Quebec (they don't have to join the US, and I find it unrealistic for them to in most cases, especially with a PoD this late) is good enough of an ally, although they may extend as far south as OTL Toronto (probably south of the Ottowa River), depending on where the border ends up. This leaves the British with the Maritimes and the Hudson bay territory. (This is all avoiding discussion of Quebec claiming all of its territory on the 1774 lines, which could stonewall a lot of stuff).
Rupert's Land would probably be annexed into the US at some point; it is, in the end, mostly suited for trading furs in small outposts. It is simply too isolated from the rest of Great Britain, even if/when British Columbia is established.
All of Canada west of OTL Quebec is not unrealistic in the slightest. Heck, the majority of the English-speaking population that became the nucleus of Canada in the future were loyalists who settled there after the war. Ontario as it is today was sparsely populated until that point, and the emigration of loyalists tipped the population to the point that the provinces were divided.
Note that the US maintained some claim as well to Nova Scotia, Bermuda, and the Bahamas due to some independence sentiment there... which is not likely to amount to anything, as nothing can really be done from the PoD in those cases, especially as any Loyalists fleeing that don't go to OTL Ontario instead would make those regions even more affirmatively British.
Let us not ignore the Annexation Bill of 1866, the offer to purchase Rupert's Land in 1867, the addition of the clause in the Articles of Confederation that Canada can join anytime, no questions asked, the Oregon Dispute, the Pig War... The US was truly interested in purchasing as much of Canada as possible. It would not be out of character for them to try to acquire it. Heck, a competent military endeavor by a standing army in 1812 would be interesting, but that would require a long reign of Federalist power preceding the war.
The Marquesas Islands were nearly annexed in 1814. The US never signed off on it, and the Captain who had built a base on the island group managed to earn the ire of the natives and was driven off. This occurred during the War of 1812, and would need a similar event to happen... and likely a stronger navy to boot. Definitely nothing from the same position as OTL. Could have saved a large portion of the native population when Peruvian missionaries brought a disease (can't remember off the top of my head) which managed to kill off the majority of the population of the island group.
El Salvador nearly petitioned the US to annex it so that Mexico would not do the same. I believe this was 1839...?
Liberia could become an official government project, or at least a more widely supported private one, and the region might become a formal territory that possessed a lot of internal leeway and effectively acted on its own for most of its existence, but never actually becomes independent of the US. Perhaps a more northern-dominant US manages to make slavery a non-issue before it becomes extremely profitable, and so it is chosen as the long-term solution? Shooting in the dark.
Again, Santo Domingo was nearly annexed OTL; it wouldn't be hard to change that compared to these others.
I've heard talk of the Rio Grande Republic, but a lot has to change to make a request to join the union occur. Although that, of course, brings lots of happy fun time arguments with Texas over the Nueces Strip and who owns it. A more successful republic with whom the US intervenes to secure its independence? There's a small chance.
The Baja peninsula was actually demanded by the US, but the US's lead negotiator decided not to add that to the treaty on his own prerogative. If I recall correctly, Polk would leave office before the deal could be renegotiated, and as such they stuck with the deal made originally. And the interior Mexican states of Coahuila and Chihuahua had a population that was very low. They were comparable with New Mexico, if maybe a little bit more populated. So that is a chance.
The Yucatan Peninsula was desired, of course, but more as an economic colony; it is very unlikely that it would have been integrated into the US. That, and the US would have had to deal with the native Mayan population, who gave the Mexicans grief for decades. This would be the Philippines but 50 years earlier. It is likely that the result would be the same.
Cuba is tossed around a lot, but I honestly think that 1898 is too late for any such a chance. The revolutionaries were desiring an independent nation of their own by that time. An intervention in the 1870's, which is only possible by a US that is not worn down by the heavy losses of the Civil War, could occur at a time when Cuba might be more interested in integration with the US. Have it occur in a timeline where the Rio Grande Republic, El Salvador, and Santo Domingo have joined the US and have been integrated... decently and this could become an even larger possibility.
The Sultanate/Kingdom of Ambong and Maroodoo, a short-lived state established by the US Consul to Brunei, could possibly exist longer. The state failed because of infighting between the Consul and the Rajah of Ambong and Maroodoo. (It's been a while, but it involved one hiring pirates to sack the capital of Elena to make the other pay their debts) Reports at the time were that initial contact was fairly successful, but as the state existed for 1 year, and the reports are by a British investigation nearly 80 years afterward, speaking to the one person who remembered contact, it should be taken with a grain of salt. It is to note that the residents of North Borneo detested Brunei, so it wouldn't be impossible for the US-aligned state to exist. It may eventually be incorporated into the US or no; it has the potential of becoming the US's main base in Asia (especially if it manages to acquire what became Brookstown and its coal supplies). This could eventually become a 19th century proxy fight between Sarawak and Ambong & Maroodoo. ...And I say both as it is really fun to say Maroodoo (that was how it was spelled at the time).
Naturally, this also requires a US that is less exhausted by the Civil War, and has more interest in overseas expansion. I've actually toyed with the idea of a certain Joshua Norton not going bankrupt and losing his mind, and becoming the eventual US Consul and Rajah Norton I of Ambong instead... Has a certain ring, doesn't it? (the story of Ambong and Maroodoo is fascinating as it is; you should definitely check it out if you have time. The US Consul and the Yankee Raja is the name of the book)
Other ideas I've heard bandied about are include the US being the ones in charge of the development of the Congo and the ones responsible for caretaking the Free State instead of Belgium... but I have never found a source in my multiple attempts to discover one. This sounds extremely unlikely, but might have a chance if the US was exceptionally successful with Liberia and it is interested in an active adventure in Africa? Certainly would be a better enforcer of neutrality than Belgium (in respects to the balance of power in the late 1870s), and likely wouldn't be worse for the Congo than what happened OTL.
There is the Samoa dispute, for one, which let to the partition of the island chain. That's not to mention that the US did not take all of Micronesia after defeating Spain in 1898; there was no need for it. An even more Pacific-focused US might have decided to keep them then.
There was the fake sale of Kamchatka to a false company by the Soviets to help fund their revolution. I can't remember the exact circumstances, but the Soviets legitimately thought it was the US government offering to buy, but it turned out to be untrue. This is an odd event that is not truly replicable outside extenuating circumstances.
Later on, Greenland almost became a thing. The US offered Denmark US$1 Billion during WW2 for Greenland outright, but Denmark refused to sell. The conditions could be right in a different case: say, a WW2 that drags on longer, with the territory becoming de facto US in the interim. Could be many things that cause it. In the end, there was major US interest in the territory even OTL.
France's colonies outside of Africa were considered in the Aircraft for Colonies debated sale. (Think Destroyers for Bases) This included All of their Caribbean territories, Guyana, Polynesia, and New Caledonia. (I'm not sure if their stake in Vanuatu was included). This fell through as the French were not particularly lacking in aircraft during the early stages of WW2; they were more lacking in experienced pilots. The deal never progressed far due to that. Could it? Perhaps, perhaps not.
The Bonin Islands might have been kept later on after WW2, but there was simply no need; the same goes for Okinawa. Friendly relations with Japan made such a territory redundant. An unfriendly Japan for any reason after WW2 might have had the territories stay with the US, although Okinawa would likely become a western Puerto Rico at best.
Newfoundland did have an option on their vote on Independence/Union with Canada which gave them the option to pursue union with the US instead. That option got few votes. An independent Newfoundland could always change its mind later... It'd give someplace for Greenland to be integrated with, as it is too small to be a state and Maine would be even more of a stretch.
This is, of course, ignoring some of the highly unlikely chances of other locations where statehood motions were bandied about. (Looking at you, Sicily and Albania) Also discounting talk of Israel as a state, or Taiwan. Or heck, this is also discounting the American Mandate of Armenia that was proposed in the original Treaty of Sevres. All of those are highly implausible, even in an ATL.
All that said...
The best case scenario for the US would likely go one of these routes, not all at once. Say the US does officially annex the Marquises islands. That puts the US in the Pacific much earlier than OTL; this would likely lead to a spread into the rest of Polynesia. Hawai'i is going to be a focus for the US so long it has a Pacific Coast, but aside from the slow expansion of US claims in the Pacific, there would be minimal impact in the US proper. Or does it? Maybe a US in Marquises takes a longer look at El Salvador when the idea is first put out (assuming, of course, El Salvador even desires it). There are so many butterflies that it can become quite ridiculous.
Note the US's aims: Continental domination of North America is the most important part, followed by domination of the Caribbean, and then the Pacific. Those second two take a backseat to the first. Anything outside of those regions becomes a side note unless it is so easily protected/unimportant that no one wants it. That gives you a few routes:
US Continental domination. From the start of the nation, it controls all of Canada outside of Quebec, an independent state to the north. The US expansion proceeds roughly similar to OTL, but no War of 1812 means US-British relations repair faster. Eventually, with Rupert's Land becoming relatively unimportant in the grand scheme without access to the lakes, Britain sells the territories to the US (and possibly Quebec) for a hefty sum. The US probably goes to war with Mexico eventually (Texas likely still happens in some form.) and they secure everything down to San Diego (it is a good port, after all) and eventually buys Alaska as well. That gives you your largest continental borders, though the southern border can be farther north than OTL. Not necessarily, but it can be.
US Pacific domination. Say from the acquisition of the Marquises Islands, the US slowly expands through Polynesia (basically making Tahiti a protectorate before the French), with similar actions happening in the Line Islands. This accelerates once the US has a Pacific Coast; an expedition to Borneo by a similar adventurous Consul creates a US friendly sultanate/kingdom there. Carry on that line of thought and the US suddenly controls vast stretches of water... probably more surface territory than the previous would contain.
Of course, there is the Latin-America direction, with the US going along the route with several pieces of Latin America being slowly subsumed. First El Salvador, then Rio Grande, then Santo Domingo, then Cuba... This US has a large Catholic influence, along with Caribbean due to sheer numbers. Perhaps this leads to the US intervening more into South America than OTL?
And so on and so forth. And there are always mediums between all of these; an individual event could happen and it has no noticeable effect on much of the gains made. The US could look very similar to OTL with one of these changes. It could look very different.
The important part about writing a timeline is to center it on one important change or a series of changes and consider how events may flow naturally from that point of divergence.
My example: If I were to work on a hypothetical timeline about a US that possesses North Borneo in some form, I go to look and see why it failed. Then I try to think of a PoD that makes it work without being so off the wall that it alters the whole timeline. Then once I have established the new Rajah of Ambong & Maroodoo, I let it evolve naturally from there. Does it stay independent? Become a US territory? Commonwealth? State? Does it fail? Is it sold? Etc. Every timeline has a story, but that must be balanced with any desire to shoehorn in other changes for the sake of an ultimate objective.
It's basically saying in this case "the US has had North Borneo for some well explained reason and now suddenly they have the Line Islands, because". ...I hope I make sense with my argument.
Just to emphasize: this was done without permission of the US government. They did not desire US territory, especially after the Civil War. This was all done independently by the US Consul. This is also the reason that he had someone else made the Rajah: He remained as a US consul and held the Rajah in debt to him. This is, of course, when the trouble started.
The Sultan of Brunei believed that, by doing this, he could play Ambong & Maroodoo off of Sarawak in order to preserve Brunei. Northern Borneo was mostly wild, from which the Sultan extracted as much tax as possible. To note: this only applied to the western portion of North Borneo as well; the Sultan of Sulu still owned the eastern half of what would become North Borneo. He ceded a small portion of territory, as a vassal of the Sultan of Brunei. It is also of note that the English version of the treaty included Palawan as part of the possessions ceded by Brunei/Sulu. The Malay treaty did not say that. Possibly conflict with Spain there.
Only one US Naval Ship ever docked at Elena, as it was rumored to be a US port in the region to have coal, but what coal they had was of poor quality. The best coal was located in Brookshaven, if I recall correctly, and that eventually became part of Sarawak. By the time another ship came, the colony had failed completely.
In all seriousness, if I remember right, after WW1 the possibility of selling Martinique to the USA in repayment of the French debt was evoked.
Last edited: