Additional realistic U.S. territorial acquisitions?

[WolfBear]

I apologize if I already previously created a thread about this topic. However, here goes:

Which additional territories could the U.S. have *realistically* acquired at various points in its history?

Also, please keep in mind that it would be very nice if these additional territorial acquisitions *don't* butterfly away any of the U.S.'s other territorial acquisitions.

Anyway, any thoughts on this?

[SolomonW]

Post by WolfBear
Which additional territories could the U.S. have *realistically* acquired at various points in its history?
Also, please keep in mind that it would be very nice if these additional territorial acquisitions *don't* butterfly away any of the U.S.'s other territorial acquisitions.
Anyway, any thoughts on this?

Caribbean ???

[Dean]

Post by WolfBear
Which additional territories could the U.S. have *realistically* acquired at various points in its history?
Also, please keep in mind that it would be very nice if these additional territorial acquisitions *don't* butterfly away any of the U.S.'s other territorial acquisitions.
Anyway, any thoughts on this?

Baja California as a result of the Mexican War.

[jerry kraus]

Post by WolfBear
Which additional territories could the U.S. have *realistically* acquired at various points in its history?
Also, please keep in mind that it would be very nice if these additional territorial acquisitions *don't* butterfly away any of the U.S.'s other territorial acquisitions.
Anyway, any thoughts on this?

Well, Wolf, it was entirely the choice of the American government not to take the whole of Mexico following the Mexican American War.

[The Horny Goat]

On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 06:00:37 -0800 (PST), jerry kraus

Post by jerry kraus

Post by WolfBear
Which additional territories could the U.S. have *realistically* acquired at various points in its history?
Also, please keep in mind that it would be very nice if these additional territorial acquisitions *don't* butterfly away any of the U.S.'s other territorial acquisitions.
Anyway, any thoughts on this?

Well, Wolf, it was entirely the choice of the American government not to take the whole of Mexico following the Mexican American War.

The slogan '54-40 or fight' would have meant war with Britain but for
sure the boundary could have been different.

However moving the US-Canadian border even to 50N (instead of 49N)
would have been catastrophic for Britain as Vancouver is a natural
location for a port - one of the best on the North American coast in
fact - and is N of 49 and S of 50.

I'm not at all sure that was clearly understood at the time the 49th
parallel was chosen as the boundary. Similarly the Alaska/Yukon border
and the panhandle (which were two separate issues) could have been
different lines.

In the 1880s there were American expeditions in what is now the
Canadian Arctic archipelago - though putting in competing claims could
have meant trouble with London. I see little chance of eastward
exploration from the north slope of Alaska in that era.

[David Tenner]

Post by WolfBear
Which additional territories could the U.S. have *realistically*
acquired at various points in its history?
Also, please keep in mind that it would be very nice if these additional
territorial acquisitions *don't* butterfly away any of the U.S.'s other
territorial acquisitions.
Anyway, any thoughts on this?

The US could have obtained southern Ontario in the Treaty of Paris:
https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/us-gets-southern-ontario-in-treaty-of-paris.324380/

As I note in that post, Bradford Perkins has argued that in the event of
such an acquisition, "The future of Canada would have been extremely
problematic, American sovereignty over the entire Canadian west very
likely,"

--
David Tenner
***@ameritech.net

[WolfBear]

Post by David Tenner

Post by WolfBear
I apologize if I already previously created a thread about this topic.
Which additional territories could the U.S. have *realistically*
acquired at various points in its history?
Also, please keep in mind that it would be very nice if these additional
territorial acquisitions *don't* butterfly away any of the U.S.'s other
territorial acquisitions.
Anyway, any thoughts on this?

https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/us-gets-southern-ontario-in-treaty-of-paris.324380/
As I note in that post, Bradford Perkins has argued that in the event of
such an acquisition, "The future of Canada would have been extremely
problematic, American sovereignty over the entire Canadian west very
likely,"
--
David Tenner

Makes sense!

However, two questions:

1. Would a U.S. which has an easy path towards acquiring all of Canada have been as eager to acquire additional territory at Mexico's expense?

2. Which additional territories, if any, do you think that the U.S. could have realistically acquired?

[Rich Rostrom]

Post by WolfBear

Post by David Tenner
As I note in that post, Bradford Perkins has argued that in the event of
such an acquisition, "The future of Canada would have been extremely
problematic, American sovereignty over the entire Canadian west very
likely,"
--
David Tenner

Makes sense!
1. Would a U.S. which has an easy path towards acquiring all of Canada///

Not "all of Canada", only southern Ontario and the West. Britain would keep
Quebec, northeastern Ontario, the Maritimes, and the Arctic.

Post by WolfBear
... have been as eager to acquire additional territory at Mexico's expense?

Texas and California were eagerly settled well before anyone
much moved into the Prairie Provinces. They were seen as far
more desirable, and were more accessible to American pioneers.

[The Horny Goat]

On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 20:21:43 -0600, Rich Rostrom

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by WolfBear
1. Would a U.S. which has an easy path towards acquiring all of Canada///

Not "all of Canada", only southern Ontario and the West. Britain would keep
Quebec, northeastern Ontario, the Maritimes, and the Arctic.

I dunno - there WAS US exploration in the Arctic islands but Canada
mostly got there first. I would think that in a world where British
North America was essentially emasculated that the way would be clear
for the US.

In particular there would be no 1870 Canadian acquisition of the
Hudsons Bay Company lands (which is essentially the entire basin that
drains into Hudsons Bay excluding the small portion Canada already
owned) which is basically northern Ontario and everything on the
Canadian mainland east of the Rockies as far north and west as the
Yukon/Alaska boundary.

[There's a small section near the ND/MN boundary that is part of the
Hudsons Bay system south of the 49th parallel that the US and Britain
swapped for a smaller slice of southern Alberta/Saskatchewan which in
this scenario would have remained American of course]

[Rich Rostrom]

Post by The Horny Goat
In particular there would be no 1870 Canadian
acquisition of the Hudsons Bay Company lands (which
is essentially the entire basin that drains into
Hudsons Bay ...

The US would not be interested in the Arctic
Islands, the shores of Hudson's Bay, or the
Northwest Territory. They _would_ be
interested in the prairies of southern
Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba, which
were technically HBC territory, but I don't
think there was much actual HBC activity there.

OTL British Columbia would be US, despite HBC
presence, but it has no real connection to
the Arctic.

[The Horny Goat]

On Sat, 23 Dec 2017 10:07:01 -0600, Rich Rostrom

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by The Horny Goat
In particular there would be no 1870 Canadian
acquisition of the Hudsons Bay Company lands (which
is essentially the entire basin that drains into
Hudsons Bay ...

The US would not be interested in the Arctic
Islands, the shores of Hudson's Bay, or the
Northwest Territory. They _would_ be
interested in the prairies of southern
Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba, which
were technically HBC territory, but I don't
think there was much actual HBC activity there.
OTL British Columbia would be US, despite HBC
presence, but it has no real connection to
the Arctic.

British Columbia definitely controls access to the Yukon goldfields
particularly if the British claim on the Alaska panhandle dispute is
accepted. Bear in mind that in OTL the arbitrator was Kaiser Wilhelm
II who at that point was determined to screw over Britain wherever
possible without war.

There was a lot of HBC activity on what is now the Canadian prairies
but even more Northwest Company activity (HBC's arch-rivals who were
eventually taken over by HBC)

Fact it there WAS significant US exploration in the Arctic
archipelago, there was not in the Canadian prairies (for the very good
reason 49N was established as the boundary relatively early before
either the US or Canada were major players west of the Mississippi)

[WolfBear]

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by The Horny Goat
In particular there would be no 1870 Canadian
acquisition of the Hudsons Bay Company lands (which
is essentially the entire basin that drains into
Hudsons Bay ...

The US would not be interested in the Arctic
Islands, the shores of Hudson's Bay, or the
Northwest Territory. They _would_ be
interested in the prairies of southern
Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba, which
were technically HBC territory, but I don't
think there was much actual HBC activity there.
OTL British Columbia would be US, despite HBC
presence, but it has no real connection to
the Arctic.
--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

Who would get the northern/Arctic territories of Canada in this TL?

[The Horny Goat]

Post by WolfBear

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by The Horny Goat
In particular there would be no 1870 Canadian
acquisition of the Hudsons Bay Company lands (which
is essentially the entire basin that drains into
Hudsons Bay ...

The US would not be interested in the Arctic
Islands, the shores of Hudson's Bay, or the
Northwest Territory. They _would_ be
interested in the prairies of southern
Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba, which
were technically HBC territory, but I don't
think there was much actual HBC activity there.
OTL British Columbia would be US, despite HBC
presence, but it has no real connection to
the Arctic.

Who would get the northern/Arctic territories of Canada in this TL?

I'm mystified about your comment about the US not being interested in
OTL's Canadian Arctic particularly once gold is found in the Klondike
in 1897. (With various other minerals found in the early 20th century)

Not sure how you get US possession of Canada without war with the UK.
The most likely scenario for US acquisition of British Columbia is a
filibuster during the 1857-58 Barkerville Gold Rush. Bear in mind this
was AFTER the foundation of the Crown Colony of Vancouver Island in
the 1840s and BEFORE the foundation of the Crown Colony of British
Columbia in 1864 (and the merger of both in 1866)

I have previously argued here that 1st chief justice of British
Columbia Matthew Begbie (your prototypical circuit judge) was one of
the 'great men of history' in that he more or less single-handedly
maintained law and order in British Columbia during the 1860s until BC
joined Canada in 1871 and single-handedly prevented a US filibuster
which in my opinion would have been VERY possible if law and order had
broken down. I consider this scenario far more likely than the "54-40
or fight" scenario to end with US control of OTL's British Columbia
and thus a continuous US coastline from San Diego through the
Aleutians.

Had this happened then the Klondike goldfields would have been in US
hands which would definitely have been a key factor in America's favor
in the pre WW1 era.

[WolfBear]

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by WolfBear

Post by David Tenner
As I note in that post, Bradford Perkins has argued that in the event of
such an acquisition, "The future of Canada would have been extremely
problematic, American sovereignty over the entire Canadian west very
likely,"
--
David Tenner

Makes sense!
1. Would a U.S. which has an easy path towards acquiring all of Canada///

Not "all of Canada", only southern Ontario and the West. Britain would keep
Quebec, northeastern Ontario, the Maritimes, and the Arctic.

Post by WolfBear
... have been as eager to acquire additional territory at Mexico's expense?

Texas and California were eagerly settled well before anyone
much moved into the Prairie Provinces. They were seen as far
more desirable, and were more accessible to American pioneers.
--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

Out of curiosity--had western Canada been a part of the U.S., would it have had more people by now?

Also, would the rest of the U.S. have had slightly less people right now or would it have had the same amount of people right now as in our TL?

[The Horny Goat]

Post by WolfBear
Out of curiosity--had western Canada been a part of the U.S., would it have had more people by now?
Also, would the rest of the U.S. have had slightly less people right now or would it have had the same amount of people right now as in our TL?

Bear in mind that Washington achieved Statehood in 1889 while British
Columbia merged into a single British colony in 1866 and joined Canada
in 1871.

Most of the towns north of Seattle through the US / Canadian border
were founded in the 1875-78 period with most of the towns near the
border being names prominent in Washington DC at that time - Blaine,
Bellingham, Custer, Everett, Alger, Kirkland, Redmond plus a few like
Mt Vernon and Arlington which weren't people but certainly with famous
namesakes in the DC area.

On the Canadian side you have names like Victoria, Vancouver (after
the British explorer who mapped this area), Surrey, New Westminster
plus a LOT of place names that had to do with personalities in the
"Glorious 1st of June" (e.g. 1 June 1794) battle against the French
which was the greatest British naval victory before Trafalgar.
(Pender, Mayne, Burrard) along with several native Indian names
(Squamish, Nanaimo, Chilliwack, Kitsilano - that's a neighbourhood in
Vancouver, Saanich, Qualicum not to be confused with Squalicum which
is a lake near Bellingham on the US side)

[Graham Truesdale]

Post by WolfBear
Which additional territories could the U.S. have *realistically* acquired at various points in its history?
Also, please keep in mind that it would be very nice if these additional territorial acquisitions *don't* butterfly away any of the U.S.'s other territorial acquisitions.
Anyway, any thoughts on this?

Presumably https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Ghent could have resulted in more territory for the US? See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812#American_expansionism

[tu160]

To me it seems that a logical piece of territory to gain would be that part of Canada on the south bank of the St Lawrence; ie New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and part of Quebec. Come to think of it - why isn't that part of the USA?

Another area might be Cuba, we could have made it a territory after the Spanish American war like we did Puerto Rico.

Declared Liberia a colony

Kept the city of Vera Cruz after the Mexican-American war or the 1914 Tampico affair (along the lines of Hong Kong)

Declared the Panama Canal Zone (or even all of Panama) a territory, a "protectorate" or colony. Ditto for Haiti, the Dominican Republic or any of the other places where we sent in the Marines during the Banana Wars