In 1805, a mixed force of American Marines, sailors and local mercenaries helps deposed Pasha Hamet Karamanli recover his throne from his younger brother Yusuf. (OTL Yusuf signs a treaty before this takes place). As a result of this , Tripoli(Libya) becomes a defacto American protectorate. What effect might this have on future developments in the region and on American events?
The Shores of Tripoli, America's African Province
- Thread starter wemayberry
- Start date
Potentially, it might serve to draw the americans into the wider Napoleonic wars. My knowledge of American political attitudes in this era is sketchy, but if this happens it must mean the US has abandoned its earlier decision to not get entangled in european politics, what was the political POD here? Secondly, IIRC the US had a more favourable attitude to the French, add to this the British practice of stopping American ships to look for deserters etc, it seems plausible that the US may well throw their lot in with Napoleon.
The butterflys now take flight en masse
Would the wars widen to the americas?
Would the battle of Trafalgar still take place and be as favourable to the British?
Would the Peninsular army still go the peninsular, or would it end up in Canada?
I dont think that on balance the outcome would be that favourable to the US, at this stage in history if Britain is determined enough and commits the manpower and resources the US is in deep trouble. In the war of 1812 OTL, Britain was distracted and didnt particularly want a serious war in the Americas. Again, IIRC this war was a draw, with both sides exercising a degree of maturity and deciding that a negotiated settlement would pave the way for centuries of good relations between the US and GB.
If the US is allied with France, attitudes may very well harden on both sides. If GB wins and imposes a harsh peace treaty on the US, then the Americans may well look to rebuild their power base and get more actively involved in Eurpoean politics, initially as a minor player, but gradually becoming a more important player as the 19h century draws to a close.
With a non-isolationist and annoyed US, anything is possible at this stage.
A US/GB naval race. American participation in the carve up of Africa. A greater desire to formally dominate the Pacific and stop other european powers getting it first. This could lead to clashes with Fance, Germany, Russia (in Alaska) and GB.
Would the ACW still happen, would other powers be drawn into it. What if GB supported the rebs, would France declare war on GB in support of America? Would Bismarck use this as an oppurtunity to widen Prussian control in Germany? Would Austria stand for this? Would the Ottomans seize the oppurtunity to pick up a few african provinces? Would Russia use the oppurtunity to make a grab for Constantinople?
Imagine a series of wars all loosely connected with other, the sides being roughly US/France/Austria/Russia vs GB/Prussia/CSA/Ottomans.
Anyway, i'll stop there (maybe i should go away and write this TL).
My main stumbling block is a - the US getting entangled in Africa at this stage and b - their ability to project sufficient force to make it a reality.
The butterflys now take flight en masse
Would the wars widen to the americas?
Would the battle of Trafalgar still take place and be as favourable to the British?
Would the Peninsular army still go the peninsular, or would it end up in Canada?
I dont think that on balance the outcome would be that favourable to the US, at this stage in history if Britain is determined enough and commits the manpower and resources the US is in deep trouble. In the war of 1812 OTL, Britain was distracted and didnt particularly want a serious war in the Americas. Again, IIRC this war was a draw, with both sides exercising a degree of maturity and deciding that a negotiated settlement would pave the way for centuries of good relations between the US and GB.
If the US is allied with France, attitudes may very well harden on both sides. If GB wins and imposes a harsh peace treaty on the US, then the Americans may well look to rebuild their power base and get more actively involved in Eurpoean politics, initially as a minor player, but gradually becoming a more important player as the 19h century draws to a close.
With a non-isolationist and annoyed US, anything is possible at this stage.
A US/GB naval race. American participation in the carve up of Africa. A greater desire to formally dominate the Pacific and stop other european powers getting it first. This could lead to clashes with Fance, Germany, Russia (in Alaska) and GB.
Would the ACW still happen, would other powers be drawn into it. What if GB supported the rebs, would France declare war on GB in support of America? Would Bismarck use this as an oppurtunity to widen Prussian control in Germany? Would Austria stand for this? Would the Ottomans seize the oppurtunity to pick up a few african provinces? Would Russia use the oppurtunity to make a grab for Constantinople?
Imagine a series of wars all loosely connected with other, the sides being roughly US/France/Austria/Russia vs GB/Prussia/CSA/Ottomans.
Anyway, i'll stop there (maybe i should go away and write this TL
).My main stumbling block is a - the US getting entangled in Africa at this stage and b - their ability to project sufficient force to make it a reality.
This is a intriguing POD,l and has a potential to be a very good TL if someone Develops it further. I wish I knew a little bit more about North African society in the early 19th though lol...Will Jefferson push to have it become more
Americanized? Will early pioneers be pushed to settle the province to level the terms? What effect doesths have on the settlement and colonization of Liberia? It does raise some good questions
Americanized? Will early pioneers be pushed to settle the province to level the terms? What effect doesths have on the settlement and colonization of Liberia? It does raise some good questions
MrP
Banned
I remember reading an article about this expedition some years ago - sounded very intriguing! Best get Abdul Hadi Pasha in here to check up on the viability of any long-term American control of Tripoli - he might pooh-pooh the idea, but better he does it sooner, rather than later once one's all vested in the glories of an American Empire in Tripoli!
67th Tigers
Banned
I remember reading an article about this expedition some years ago - sounded very intriguing! Best get Abdul Hadi Pasha in here to check up on the viability of any long-term American control of Tripoli - he might pooh-pooh the idea, but better he does it sooner, rather than later once one's all vested in the glories of an American Empire in Tripoli!
It brings the US into conflict with other European nations though. The butterflies could be enormous. Remember the war between an allied Britain and France against the US in the late 1830's?
(When Anglo-American relations OTL plummeted over US backing of the 1837 rebellions in Canada and OTL France was moving into North Africa).
This may prevent the creation of Liberia.
The American Colonization Society may feel it is easier and cheaper to send people to Tripoli. While not located in sub-Saharan Africa, where most slaves were taken from originally, the ACS may see no difference in northern or southern Africa at this time.
Tripoli has several advantages over territory in West Africa. Disease will be less of a problem. The area in which the colonists would move to is closer to Europe, which would be easier for the colonists to obtain items of need or comfort. The indigenous people are already "civilized", if not American/European style "civilized", compared to the peoples of West Africa. This could help lessen the hostility between the indigenous people of the area and the colonists. Tobacco also grows around Tripoli in OTL, so there is a cash crop for the colonists, and Europe is nearby to sell it to. Tripoli would have the US Navy visiting to keep other potential pirates from attacking American shipping, so the coloists of this Liberia would have some military protection.
The American Colonization Society may feel it is easier and cheaper to send people to Tripoli. While not located in sub-Saharan Africa, where most slaves were taken from originally, the ACS may see no difference in northern or southern Africa at this time.
Tripoli has several advantages over territory in West Africa. Disease will be less of a problem. The area in which the colonists would move to is closer to Europe, which would be easier for the colonists to obtain items of need or comfort. The indigenous people are already "civilized", if not American/European style "civilized", compared to the peoples of West Africa. This could help lessen the hostility between the indigenous people of the area and the colonists. Tobacco also grows around Tripoli in OTL, so there is a cash crop for the colonists, and Europe is nearby to sell it to. Tripoli would have the US Navy visiting to keep other potential pirates from attacking American shipping, so the coloists of this Liberia would have some military protection.
Last edited:
Point of order, Tripoli is north of the Sahara (this side of Egypt and across the water from the Adriatic. Even the most clueless plantation lordlings know the Barbary states are a far cry from the Slave Coasts.
Besides, I doubt the locals will be any more happy about the freedmen settlements than the ones in Liberia... and are far better positioned to wage effective war over it. Assimilation might happen, although the trans-saharan Slave Trade may color the issue.
Better to establish the place as a state with an even odder de facto Official Faith....
HTG
Sorry, I was rewriting it while you were posting and put in "While not Located..."
Or, alternatively, the US knows that it can't defend its overseas possession from the might of the greater powers such as Britain or France, and instead is more honostly neutral, rather than merely isolationist. Knowing that it can never hope to beat the British navy, the US makes sure to never risk the loss, and doesn't risk it's African presence over Canada. No War of 1812, no reverse to the Anglo-American reconciliation. Possibly no undeclared naval war with France (which saw massive damage to the US merchant marine), and I could see the Embargo Act being butterflied away by the need for ports in the Mediterranean, which would help the New England shipping industry and remove a root of the War of 1812 as well.
Around the same time IOTL, IIRC, the US was approached by one of the Scandinavian countries and offered part of a neutrality alliance of the time, in which members of the alliance stuck together to defend each other's shipping. The US declined IOTL, but here, with a real need for safe shipping into the Mediterranean, the US could accept.
Also IIRC, and Abdul would remember what I'm talking about, the US and the Ottomans at one time signed a treaty of friendship, promising mutual friendship and that the US wouldn't suppress/oppose Islamic worship. With an Islamic population under its influence/rule, the US-Ottoman ties would likely be much stronger.
Around the same time IOTL, IIRC, the US was approached by one of the Scandinavian countries and offered part of a neutrality alliance of the time, in which members of the alliance stuck together to defend each other's shipping. The US declined IOTL, but here, with a real need for safe shipping into the Mediterranean, the US could accept.
Also IIRC, and Abdul would remember what I'm talking about, the US and the Ottomans at one time signed a treaty of friendship, promising mutual friendship and that the US wouldn't suppress/oppose Islamic worship. With an Islamic population under its influence/rule, the US-Ottoman ties would likely be much stronger.
This would make it really interesting, and my idea of a "Liberia" set around Tripoli would work slightly better with this scenario. Didn't the Ottoman's already have a good influence over this area at the time, while not really controlling it outright? A US-Ottoman alliance of open ports would make shipping easier for both. And as to the aggreement not to suppress/oppose Islamic worship i would think go in the other direction, with no suppression of the christian "Liberian" colonists.
Trade for the Northern/New England states would be more profitable in the Mediterranean, rather than West Africa. The abolitionist members of the ACS could help the freedmen move to Tripoli, bring back a better profit, and buy more slaves' freedom in order to move them to Tripoli.
Selim III, with ties to the US, might prevent the British from sailing into Istanbul to demand they yeild to Russia.
"Alliance" is likely far too strong, especially if we go on the idea that a vulnerable N. African possession will make the US more neutral in the Anglo-French rivalry. Open ports? Sure. And we might see what actually did happen in the Philippines almost a century later: the US promises not to oppose the free religion of the islamic inhabitants, and the Ottoman ruler uses his religious authority and calls for the Islamists to not oppose the US rulers. The US has a bit more accepting populace, and the Ottomans have a (weak, neutral) friendly Christian nation who won't try and drive out the Islamic religion. A nice relationship, but the US is far too weak for an alliance to be of any value.
While expanded American trade in the Mediterranean is an excellent point, I doubt that it would be as self-funding a cycle as you imagine.
Another trade aspect in the Mediterranean would be how the US acts to French and British shipping. Foolishly try the embargo act in the Mediterranean? Leave the ports open to both? (Unless they go into a war that they lose Tripoli in, it would seem to me that swallowing the bitter insult of search and seizures is a given, at least until the British stop on their own (which they did OTL).
I doubt that: the US is far too weak to make such a move.
I was actually going to make a thread about this last week, but I cancelled because I thought that there would be a few dismissals and that would be the end of it. Considering the amount of discussion here, does anyone want to attempt a timeline?
Someone did, awhile back. It was a very eccentric timeline with few cliches, even if it had its own problems. It featured an American presence in North Africa, extreme struggle for westward settlement, and a Spanish-American alliance in which Spain supported and sold off territories to the US piece by piece in exchange for monetary and military support.
Can't remember who or what it was called, though.
Can't remember who or what it was called, though.
The whole idea is just so wonderfully bizarre. A newborn nation having overseas colonies in Africa just like that? A nation that had been against foreign entanglements and for proto-self-determination since the get-go?
This needs to be explored more. Ditto for the overrated Civil Wartime Yankee-Russian alliancer.
This needs to be explored more. Ditto for the overrated Civil Wartime Yankee-Russian alliancer.
