jasonsnow
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 569
Likes: 27
|
Post by jasonsnow on Apr 12, 2018 13:56:01 GMT
The US wouldn't be what it is today without the spirited, full-growth ideology of the forefathers that began the country. The 19th century was the century that led America into the superpower it is now, characterized by rapid, uncontrolled growth and unimaginable power, as well as accelerated territorial expansion worldwide. During this time, the US expanded westwards into the Pacific Ocean, bought Alaska and Hawaii, several territories and islands across the globe, and won wars against foreign powers, all as part of a grand quest to become the greatest country in the world, pushing millions into death and suffering and oppressing entire peoples.
But what if the US had taken on an anti-expansionist ideology? Let's say the American conservatives vowing for isolationism win in the American political theater during the late 1700's and early 1800's, meaning the US does not pursue an expansionist policy and "Manifest Destiny" does not occur. What would happen?
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,979 
Likes: 49,385
|
Post by lordroel on Apr 12, 2018 14:02:02 GMT
But what if the US had taken on an anti-expansionist ideology? Let's say the American conservatives vowing for isolationism win in the American political theater during the late 1700's and early 1800's, meaning the US does not pursue an expansionist policy and "Manifest Destiny" does not occur. What would happen? You mean the US being confided to the original 13 states it was made up at the beginning. |
|
jasonsnow
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 569
Likes: 27
|
Post by jasonsnow on Apr 12, 2018 14:12:34 GMT
But what if the US had taken on an anti-expansionist ideology? Let's say the American conservatives vowing for isolationism win in the American political theater during the late 1700's and early 1800's, meaning the US does not pursue an expansionist policy and "Manifest Destiny" does not occur. What would happen? You mean the US being confided to the original 13 states it was made up at the beginning. More less. It means its principal goal isn't acquiring territory and becoming mighty powerful, but minding its own business while growing the industry and economy internally. If it means keeping the original 13 states, then yes. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,979
Likes: 49,385
|
Post by lordroel on Apr 12, 2018 14:14:31 GMT
You mean the US being confided to the original 13 states it was made up at the beginning. More less. It means its principal goal isn't acquiring territory and becoming mighty powerful, but minding its own business while growing the industry and economy internally. If it means keeping the original 13 states, then yes. And how are governments who succeed going to follow this new total anti-expansionist ideology, you can not think that this is going to last for long. |
|
jasonsnow
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 569
Likes: 27
|
Post by jasonsnow on Apr 12, 2018 14:20:23 GMT
This is the things that the US would not undergo during this ATL:
-The Louisiana Purchase of 1806.
-The Florida Purchase of 1819.
-The annexation of Texas and the Mexican-American War.
-The territorial concessions made by the British in Canada.
-The Alaska Purchase of 1867
-The Newlands Resolution of 1898 (Hawaii Annexation).
-The Spanish-American War
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,979
Likes: 49,385
|
Post by lordroel on Apr 12, 2018 14:22:04 GMT
This is the things that the US would not undergo during this ATL: -The Louisiana Purchase of 1806. -The Florida Purchase of 1819. -The annexation of Texas and the Mexican-American War. -The territorial concessions made by the British in Canada. -The Alaska Purchase of 1867 -The Newlands Resolution of 1898 (Hawaii Annexation). -The Spanish-American War Now that would be a boring America to live in. |
|
jasonsnow
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 569
Likes: 27
|
Post by jasonsnow on Apr 12, 2018 14:23:18 GMT
More less. It means its principal goal isn't acquiring territory and becoming mighty powerful, but minding its own business while growing the industry and economy internally. If it means keeping the original 13 states, then yes. And how are governments who succeed going to follow this new total anti-expansionist ideology, you can not think that this is going to last for long. Let's day that during the old days of the Articles of Confederation (a turbulent, pre-Constitution period in the US where it looked more like confederation rather than a united republic), the conservatives take advantage a call an uprising against Washington's government, establishing a conservative, isolationist regime with monarchic ties and very little outer relations. This regime will oppress anti-expansionist ideas and maintain this hardline conservatism until well into the 60's. |
|
jasonsnow
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 569
Likes: 27
|
Post by jasonsnow on Apr 12, 2018 14:24:38 GMT
This is the things that the US would not undergo during this ATL: -The Louisiana Purchase of 1806. -The Florida Purchase of 1819. -The annexation of Texas and the Mexican-American War. -The territorial concessions made by the British in Canada. -The Alaska Purchase of 1867 -The Newlands Resolution of 1898 (Hawaii Annexation). -The Spanish-American War Now that would be a boring America to live in. Perhaps. In this case, who do you think will take the US's place as the dominant force, at least during the mid and late 1800's? |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,979
Likes: 49,385
|
Post by lordroel on Apr 12, 2018 14:25:45 GMT
And how are governments who succeed going to follow this new total anti-expansionist ideology, you can not think that this is going to last for long. Let's day that during the old days of the Articles of Confederation (a turbulent, pre-Constitution period in the US where it looked more like confederation rather than a united republic), the conservatives take advantage a call an uprising against Washington's government, establishing a conservative, isolationist regime with monarchic ties and very little outer relations. This regime will oppress anti-expansionist ideas and maintain this hardline conservatism until well into the 60's. The 1960s. So we will have a French Louisiana, a Spanish Florida and a very big Mexican Republic who if they can become stable can replace the United States as a global power. |
|
jasonsnow
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 569
Likes: 27
|
Post by jasonsnow on Apr 12, 2018 14:30:52 GMT
Let's day that during the old days of the Articles of Confederation (a turbulent, pre-Constitution period in the US where it looked more like confederation rather than a united republic), the conservatives take advantage a call an uprising against Washington's government, establishing a conservative, isolationist regime with monarchic ties and very little outer relations. This regime will oppress anti-expansionist ideas and maintain this hardline conservatism until well into the 60's. The 1960s. So we will have a French Louisiana, a Spanish Florida and a very big Mexican Republic who if they can become stable can replace the United States as a global power. Whoa there. I seriously don't think we'll have a Spanish Florida at this point. Most likely, seeing how far off Florida is from Spain and the great influence of the US, Spain can offer the US to buy Florida. Or, they can become an overseas department, something like what the UK does. Now, the reason France sold Louisiana was because Napoleon wanted to fund his war and the Louisiana territory was a painful burden. Perhaps they can sell themselves to the UK or Spain. You can probably see a collapse of this type of colonialism much later, as late as the 40's. Interesting factor for an alternate WWI. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,979
Likes: 49,385
|
Post by lordroel on Apr 12, 2018 14:37:06 GMT
The 1960s. So we will have a French Louisiana, a Spanish Florida and a very big Mexican Republic who if they can become stable can replace the United States as a global power. Whoa there. I seriously don't think we'll have a Spanish Florida at this point. Most likely, seeing how far off Florida is from Spain and the great influence of the US, Spain can offer the US to buy Florida. Or, they can become an overseas department, something like what the UK does. Now, the reason France sold Louisiana was because Napoleon wanted to fund his war and the Louisiana territory was a painful burden. Perhaps they can sell themselves to the UK or Spain. You can probably see a collapse of this type of colonialism much later, as late as the 40's. Interesting factor for an alternate WWI. Then why can the US not buy French Louisiana, you say yourself they can buy Spanish Florida which would mean they violate their own anti-expansionist ideology. |
|
jasonsnow
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 569
Likes: 27
|
Post by jasonsnow on Apr 12, 2018 14:41:49 GMT
Whoa there. I seriously don't think we'll have a Spanish Florida at this point. Most likely, seeing how far off Florida is from Spain and the great influence of the US, Spain can offer the US to buy Florida. Or, they can become an overseas department, something like what the UK does. Now, the reason France sold Louisiana was because Napoleon wanted to fund his war and the Louisiana territory was a painful burden. Perhaps they can sell themselves to the UK or Spain. You can probably see a collapse of this type of colonialism much later, as late as the 40's. Interesting factor for an alternate WWI. Then why can the US not buy French Louisiana, you say yourself they can buy Spanish Florida which would mean they violate their own anti-expansionist ideology. What I said is that Spain would be like, "Hey, US, want Florida?" rather than the US going "Hey, Spain, can I buy Florida?". In OTL, the US also asked France if they could buy Louisiana, rather than it being the opposite. In this TL, France simply retains Louisiana until a foreign power asks France if they can buy it, but that power won't be the US. Being offered something and taking it isn't a violation of the anti-expansionism. Going and asking for it is. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,979
Likes: 49,385
|
Post by lordroel on Apr 12, 2018 14:46:54 GMT
Then why can the US not buy French Louisiana, you say yourself they can buy Spanish Florida which would mean they violate their own anti-expansionist ideology. What I said is that Spain would be like, "Hey, US, want Florida?" rather than the US going "Hey, Spain, can I buy Florida?". In OTL, the US also asked France if they could buy Louisiana, rather than it being the opposite. In this TL, France simply retains Louisiana until a foreign power asks France if they can buy it, but that power won't be the US. Being offered something and taking it isn't a violation of the anti-expansionism. Going and asking for it is. I also can see Louisiana remain France and latter becomes part of the French oversee empire. |
|
jasonsnow
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 569
Likes: 27
|
Post by jasonsnow on Apr 12, 2018 15:01:00 GMT
What I said is that Spain would be like, "Hey, US, want Florida?" rather than the US going "Hey, Spain, can I buy Florida?". In OTL, the US also asked France if they could buy Louisiana, rather than it being the opposite. In this TL, France simply retains Louisiana until a foreign power asks France if they can buy it, but that power won't be the US. Being offered something and taking it isn't a violation of the anti-expansionism. Going and asking for it is. I also can see Louisiana remain France and latter becomes part of the French oversee empire. I can't really say. Louisiana was already a burden for France. Most likely, the UK would've bought it. Also, once Mexico breaks free from Spain, they'll have to retain their territory, which would probably stabilize things in North America. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,836
Likes: 13,224
|
Post by stevep on Apr 12, 2018 22:27:38 GMT
I think its unlikely that the US would restrict itself to the territory if formally claimed in 1783. Both because of the expansionist nature of the colonists and the sheer population they had. Also even if they did keep to east of the Mississippi only their likely to still be a huge power in the modern world. After all while California and Texas are now the most important states economically they were still [oil aside] relatively unimportant as late as 1945 and population and industrial power was centred in the east coast and between the Great Lakes and the Mississippi/Ohio rivers.
If they did for some reason stay that limited and I suspect considerable and prolonged internal problems and political divisions would be the only really practical way of that happening I suspect Louisiana would end up British. Presuming the French revolution and Napoleon develop as OTL that is. Its going to be too vulnerable to British naval power and I can't see anyone other than Britain or the US being interested in the territory. In theory Spain might seek to keep it but if its still a French ally Britain is probably going to take the New Orleans region at some point and without that and with the US out of play and Britain also in Canada its likely, albeit over time, to absorb the entire region.
|
|
