WI/AHC: USA Gets in the Scamble for Africa

[Unholy Mistress]

This is a WI and a AHC, What happens if the USA decides to join in on the European's Scamble for Africa, and is there a plausible scenario where this happens? (that's where the AHC challenge come from)


A American Colonial Empire, is it possible?

 

[abc123]

This is a WI and a AHC, What happens if the USA decides to join in on the European's Scamble for Africa, and is there a plausible scenario where this happens? (that's where the AHC challenge come from)


A American Colonial Empire, is it possible?

Not really plausible, but first step could be taking over of Liberia...

 

[Emperor-of-New-Zealand]

Not really plausible, but first step could be taking over of Liberia...

It's possible with the right POD and butterflies. What you need to do is get a USA more inclined for overseas expansion. Maybe one that loses out in the Mexican-American War. This POD is early enough to allow the USA to actually gain some decent footholds in Africa.

Jycee's timeline is the sort of situation that creates a plausible smaller America vs. a plausible larger Mexico, with neither side feeling particularly happy about it. The US that stems from it could eventually turn inwards, focussing on removing slavery and forcing the South to comply before a Civil War, or it could turn outwards and broaden the horizons of America's Manifest Destiny to something along the lines of 'rival the European empires' rather than conquering North America.

So this US jumps into the Scramble for Africa. In OTL, the USA was included in the Berlin Conference, but did not take much of a role in it. Perhaps in this ATL Berlin Conference, the USA has annexed Liberia (could also help subjugate the south - free the slaves, and send them away). But what else? The Congo River mouth wasn't grabbed by Belgium until the 1870s. ITTL, the Congo interior is much the same - disease-ridden and underexplored. American adventurers, working for the American Colonial Society (I think that's what it was called in OTL), might make this one of their targets.

The problem with Africa is that while other nations had clear motives (Britain's Cape-to-Cairo empire, Portugal's attempt at the Pink Map, France wanted a connection from Dakar to Djibouti), adding a new nation to the scramble (such as America or even the Netherlands) mixes up these motives. Who knows where exactly the US would colonise, but there is surely a way for it to happen.

 

[Emperor-of-New-Zealand]

Also, this is in the wrong forum. Scramble for Africa was in 1885, which is obviously not after 1900

 

[fly.fearless]

So this US jumps into the Scramble for Africa. In OTL, the USA was included in the Berlin Conference, but did not take much of a role in it. Perhaps in this ATL Berlin Conference, the USA has annexed Liberia (could also help subjugate the south - free the slaves, and send them away). But what else? The Congo River mouth wasn't grabbed by Belgium until the 1870s. ITTL, the Congo interior is much the same - disease-ridden and underexplored. American adventurers, working for the American Colonial Society (I think that's what it was called in OTL), might make this one of their targets.

The problem with Africa is that while other nations had clear motives (Britain's Cape-to-Cairo empire, Portugal's attempt at the Pink Map, France wanted a connection from Dakar to Djibouti), adding a new nation to the scramble (such as America or even the Netherlands) mixes up these motives. Who knows where exactly the US would colonise, but there is surely a way for it to happen.

Liberia does seem to be the most plausible site for the USA rooting itself firmly in the Scramble for Africa.

Is there any possibility that the Barbary Wars get out of hand at the beginning of the 19th century, leading to a coalition of European nations alongside the USA to declare war on Algiers and Tunis to keep Mediterranean shipping routes open? If so, perhaps the Americans are granted some foothold by the international community for their active military role in such an effort?

 

[SunilTanna]

What if the New England, and perhaps more breaks away relatively early in US history,

The Rump US is more Southern in character. It can still expand westwards, but slavery is pretty much universal. At some point, it decides, it needs to import more slaves...

 

[Emperor-of-New-Zealand]

Liberia does seem to be the most plausible site for the USA rooting itself firmly in the Scramble for Africa.

Is there any possibility that the Barbary Wars get out of hand at the beginning of the 19th century, leading to a coalition of European nations alongside the USA to declare war on Algiers and Tunis to keep Mediterranean shipping routes open? If so, perhaps the Americans are granted some foothold by the international community for their active military role in such an effort?

Perhaps. But I doubt they'll be granted any territory outright in North Africa. It was supposedly firmly within the sphere of influence of Mediterranean Europe. If they have a pre-existing colony, they may be allowed to settle some claims.

Maybe they'll be granted some trading rights in the region too.

 

[Emperor-of-New-Zealand]

What if the New England, and perhaps more breaks away relatively early in US history,

The Rump US is more Southern in character. It can still expand westwards, but slavery is pretty much universal. At some point, it decides, it needs to import more slaves...

Eh...depends on the rest of world history. If Britain is still massively opposed to the slave trade, along with much of Europe, by the time of the Scramble for Africa, then there's no chance the slave-shipping routes will stay open between Africa and the *US.

 

[Eigenwelt]

The Congo River mouth wasn't grabbed by Belgium until the 1870s. ITTL, the Congo interior is much the same - disease-ridden and underexplored. American adventurers, working for the American Colonial Society (I think that's what it was called in OTL), might make this one of their targets.

I'm imagining a world with four Columbias. A District of Columbia, a British Columbia up north, an Equatorial Columbia in South America, and a Columbia Meridionalis (or Southern Columbia) in the center of Africa.

American industry could find ample natural resources there, the legacy of which is enough mining wealth floating around by the end of the 20th century to turn the skyline of Washington-on-the-Congo into one of the wonders of Africa.

 

[Emperor-of-New-Zealand]

I'm imagining a world with four Columbias. A District of Columbia, a British Columbia up north, an Equatorial Columbia in South America, and a Columbia Meridionalis (or Southern Columbia) in the center of Africa.

American industry could find ample natural resources there, the legacy of which is enough mining wealth floating around by the end of the 20th century to turn the skyline of Washington-on-the-Congo into one of the wonders of Africa.

The Belgians didn't find that use for it in OTL and they were an incredibly undustrious nation. That just isn't the nature of colonialism, which is to exploit a colony for the good of the mother country. This ATL supposes the Congo is treated as an American colony, not a state or a territory.

Also, it's Colombia on the equator, not Columbia .

 

[Eigenwelt]

Ha. I'll chalk the Colombia/Columbia thing up to me posting at 6am when I've not yet been to bed after a night of (relatively) mild drinking.

Also I was unclear in my post. I was suggesting that Columbia Meridionalis be used as OTL by the Americans. But the larger infrastructure and industry investment they would make compared to the Belgians (much larger home market, no King to rule it for most of the colonial period) would leave a legacy after it gains independence. That legacy plus continued contact with the American industrial and commercial sectors would position it to be far more successful economically compared to Zaire/DRcongo as we know it.

Imagine a DR Congo that was stable, free from war, had its shit together industrially, and didn't have most of its vast mineral wealth smuggled off to be sold to China.

 

[Kevin Renner]

The best (if one can call it that) way to make this happen is for the US to decide to ethnic cleanse itself by removing all people of color to an African Colony.

 

[Tocomocho]

Imagine a DR Congo that was stable, free from war, had its shit together industrially, and didn't have most of its vast mineral wealth smuggled off to be sold to China.

Now, that's an entirely different question. The closest thing we have to an ex-American African colony is Liberia and it isn't precisely milk and honey.

But I suppose the OP is doable. At the time of the Berlin Conference France, Britain and Germany agreed on leaving the Congo to anyone that wasn't Britain or France. Come with something to make the Americans interested in African colonies and you have it.

 

[Nugax]

Ha. I'll chalk the Colombia/Columbia thing up to me posting at 6am when I've not yet been to bed after a night of (relatively) mild drinking.

Also I was unclear in my post. I was suggesting that Columbia Meridionalis be used as OTL by the Americans. But the larger infrastructure and industry investment they would make compared to the Belgians (much larger home market, no King to rule it for most of the colonial period) would leave a legacy after it gains independence. That legacy plus continued contact with the American industrial and commercial sectors would position it to be far more successful economically compared to Zaire/DRcongo as we know it.

Imagine a DR Congo that was stable, free from war, had its shit together industrially, and didn't have most of its vast mineral wealth smuggled off to be sold to China.

Yeah this is pretty much bull with the inherent assumption of American industry compared to shiftless Europeans. The Belgians did what they could to make a profit and little more, including the massive capital injection needed to bypass the Livingston Falls by railway, why would Americans exceed that, especially when America is going through the high point of its own industrialisation and will have rather less capital to spare for overseas operations than the Belgians did, and the resources the Congo produces are rather directly competing with American extractive industries.

The Philippines hardly had model infrastructure after american rule - you seem not to get that the Congo is fucking big and rugged.

 

[Johnrankins]

One big question is why would it bother? The US at this period is settling the middle of its own continent. That is keeping it very busy. Any effort in Africa is a drain of resources that can be used to develop its own territory.

 

[Falecius]

Now, that's an entirely different question. The closest thing we have to an ex-American African colony is Liberia and it isn't precisely milk and honey.

But I suppose the OP is doable. At the time of the Berlin Conference France, Britain and Germany agreed on leaving the Congo to anyone that wasn't Britain or France. Come with something to make the Americans interested in African colonies and you have it.

The whole point of the Berlin Conference was, for a large part, that Leopold really wanted Congo already. Without his demands, the Conference may not even be convocated. However, Henry Stanley had proposed to claim the area for both Britain and, IIRC, the US before turning to Leopold. So it should be workable. The point is that Portugal woul likely oppose rather vocally any attempt to claim the mouth of the Congo River. OTL, a mix of great powers pressure and Leopold's strong determination overcame that obstacle. The US are more likely to step down if Portugal objcts strongly enough.

 

[Emperor-of-New-Zealand]

One big question is why would it bother? The US at this period is settling the middle of its own continent. That is keeping it very busy. Any effort in Africa is a drain of resources that can be used to develop its own territory.

The whole point of the Berlin Conference was, for a large part, that Leopold really wanted Congo already. Without his demands, the Conference may not even be convocated. However, Henry Stanley had proposed to claim the area for both Britain and, IIRC, the US before turning to Leopold. So it should be workable. The point is that Portugal woul likely oppose rather vocally any attempt to claim the mouth of the Congo River. OTL, a mix of great powers pressure and Leopold's strong determination overcame that obstacle. The US are more likely to step down if Portugal objcts strongly enough.

Like I pointed out in my own longish post, there is a way to make it plausible with the right POD. The POD need not even be related to Africa. It is all about the American attitude as predisposed by the POD.

 

[Johnrankins]

Like I pointed out in my own longish post, there is a way to make it plausible with the right POD. The POD need not even be related to Africa. It is all about the American attitude as predisposed by the POD.

It is hard to do. The whole middle of the continent is mostly empty of White settlers. Until that area is settled I can't see why the US is interested in anything in Africa. I can't see the Mexican-American war losing the US more than TX. The idea of shipping back Blacks to Africa was absurd to anyone who looked carefully into it at the time. It would be way too expensive to ship a meaningful number back to Africa. It was a political ploy, nothing more.

 

[wolf_brother]

What if we're looking at this the wrong way? Let's say there's a larger black-led Back to Africa movement in the early and mid-19th century, while also the ACW results in a Radical Republican Reconstruction that brings about racial equality in the US - by force if needed. As the 19th century continues along the United States and Liberia draw closer together, until by the dawn of the 20th century the latter is essentially a protectorate of the former.

 

[Kingp]

Perhaps a US that fails to gain the Louisiana purchase and has its expansion cut off at the Mississippi turns inward and becomes more mercantile, subsequently going overseas and then into Africa seeking markets for it's products and in order to obtain raw resources.(Like most of the OTL European colonizers)

A longer lasting Federalist party/movement would probably help achieve this by making the government slightly less set on inward expansion and a bit more interested in expanding America's trade networks and industry.

The loss of the Louisiana purchase is crucial IMO because as long as the US has an unobstructed path past the Mississippi, it will be busy expanding west at least until the 1870s regardless of the result of the Mexican-American war. Remember, there is still the oregon country/pacific northwest and the high plains even in the event of a failed Mexican war.

Also preventing Jefferson's presidency might be a good start. Trouble is that you need to basically bury the Louisiana purchase before it gets off the ground as once it's on the table it will likely be made.

In conclusion, a substantial American presence in Africa requires an early halt to westward expansion and that requires that the US never gets past Mississippi.