America keeps most of its economic and immigration policies going for a while longer

[Jiraiyathegallant]

The US went a long time in the 1800s with no income tax, central bank, very few restrictions on immigration, and staying out of the rest of the Europe's affairs.

With a POD of 1900, would it have been possible for this to have continued until around WWII or even later, until Japan bombs Pearl Harbor or something? What would the impact have been?

[Alamo]

It's already far too late. By 1900, the Progressivists were already one of, if not the, dominant force in American national politics, and most of those policies (a national bank, a national income tax, and a more internationally oriented nation) were a major goal of theirs. You would probably have to go back into the immediate post-Civil War era to try and get a realistic POD.

[stubear1012]

You would need something to reduce the labor unions opposition to immigrants. The US labor movement pushed for limits for immigration since many large companies used immigrants to work in place of union members. Large companies used the immigrants since they worked for cheaper than the union members. They also used immigrants to break unions during strikes.

You would need something to eliminate the impact of the closing of the frontier. With the disappearance of the free land for homesteading, more and more of the native born moved to the cities to work in factories. Even if they did not join a union, there would be a backlash against the immigrants competing for jobs.

You would also need something to reduce the prejudice against the Eastern Europeans and Jews that were coming over. There is a long history of prejudice against immigrants when they are from a different ethnic group than the ones in America. In fact the name for it was "Pulling up the Gangplank". As an immigrant group became more Americanized and the immigration patterns changed, the newly Americanized group would want to greatly reduce immigration of the different group.

Stubear1012

[snerfuplz]

You would need something to eliminate the impact of the closing of the frontier. With the disappearance of the free land for homesteading, more and more of the native born moved to the cities to work in factories.


The problem is that the frontier was actually a very poor place to live due to poor soil was not conducive to farming. In fact the "Wild West" was filled with silver miners, ranchers especially before the expansion of the railroad, and poor tenet farmers indebted to large land owners.

But yes as everyone said the Progressives were already on the rise. The problem is that these economic conditions also gave rise to extreme economic crisis. Let us not forget that when the Civil War ended in 1865, the United States was in the midst of the Long Depression that stretched from 1870's-to the discovery of more gold in the late 1890s. Even then economic turbulence continued with the Panic of 1907 barely avoided by bankers moving resources from bank to bank preventing them from collapsing. It is not as if the United States can get off of the gold standard during this time as it was fears that the USA was doing just that that led to British investors from pulling their funds and was one of the causes of the 1890 Depression (which was the worst depression until the Great Depression and was probably in my opinion worse then the Great Depression). Thus I doubt that the Progressives will be butterflied away and if they do the Socialists, which were the rising party before the Progressives stole their protest votes, would rise to power.

As for immigrants I doubt there can be no restriction on immigration. The United States was just too racist and economic competition for jobs so high during this time to allow the unrestricted flow of immigrants is ASB

[jkay]

I'm afraid you've been reading too much rightie propaganda; none of that is really true. We had real taxes, they were just mostly tariffs, because that was felt to easier and less intrusive. Even President Washinngon had a central bank, fortunately, becuase real economies need real money and, later, they cut down on economic cycles. I think we probably even had more early immigration limits than you think.

And, we never were isolationists. Washington's speech was entirely about practicality that we a tiny, powerless nation, and so just a pawn to the superpowers of the day. That didn't keep him from liking intervening against the Barbary pirates, or liking his expansionist role in the 7 Years War as a colonial officer.

The natives we ethnically cleansed and the Mexico we took turf from certainly agree.

[Jiraiyathegallant]

I'm afraid you've been reading too much rightie propaganda; none of that is really true. We had real taxes, they were just mostly tariffs, because that was felt to easier and less intrusive. Even President Washinngon had a central bank, fortunately, becuase real economies need real money and, later, they cut down on economic cycles. I think we probably even had more early immigration limits than you think.

And, we never were isolationists. Washington's speech was entirely about practicality that we a tiny, powerless nation, and so just a pawn to the superpowers of the day. That didn't keep him from liking intervening against the Barbary pirates, or liking his expansionist role in the 7 Years War as a colonial officer.

The natives we ethnically cleansed and the Mexico we took turf from certainly agree.
Nothing you said contradicts anything I said at all. Everything in my post was true.

[Snake Featherston]

Yes, and it's worth noting that without the income tax and central banking that the USA had an army that was in the tens of thousands at the most generous and primarily dependent on obsolescent weaponry and concepts, guaranteed to take heavier losses than it needed, and was in many ways immensely poorer then with that system than it is now with its more centralized, modern system.

[MAlexMatt]

Yes, and it's worth noting that without the income tax and central banking that the USA had an army that was in the tens of thousands at the most generous and primarily dependent on obsolescent weaponry and concepts, guaranteed to take heavier losses than it needed, and was in many ways immensely poorer then with that system than it is now with its more centralized, modern system.

This is going to get moved to chat extremely quickly.

The US army being so small was WAD: The system as it existed then was designed to keep power diffuse and decentralized.

We're wealthier today because technology has advanced in leaps and bounds since then, not because we adopted a central bank (which, by the way, presided over the longest, deepest depression the nation ever experienced).

EDIT: To contribute to the OP, it is key to push off WWI. More minor factors are things like keeping the technocratic wing of the progressive movement out of power, which means keeping Presidents like Wilson out of office. That's going to be kind of difficult: Progressivism, like technocracy, socialism, and fascism in Europe in later years, were popular ideologies of urbanizing society. The middle classes become uncomfortable and scared of the rapid social changes going on and react. You need some kind of alternative, something which preserves the status quo as much as possible but still sates this reactionary instinct. I think the mild social liberalism of the contemporary UK is an interesting one, but I don't know if it will ever pass on the Federal level. You might need to re-shape the Populists to your own ends to really get anywhere near it.

[jkay]

Jiraiyathegallant wrote:
Nothing you said contradicts anything I said at all. Everything in my post was true.I wish you'd reread more carefully. My count is that you're down to half a point, no income tax, though tariffs are still just as real money.

We're wealthier today because technology has advanced in leaps and bounds since then, not because we adopted a central bank (which, by the way, presided over the longest, deepest depression the nation ever experienced).Are you sure? Then why did Jackson's stopping the bank land us in a massive, long Depression? Why have we had no depressions since the Fed started being used to inject money in financial crises like the recent one? All coincidence, of course?

Haven't massive government bonds also helped enrich us by highway and train spending, letting us travel easily, including for business?

EDIT: To contribute to the OP, it is key to push off WWI.REALLY? Do tell - I could've sworn that was Germany's fault. Zimmermann telegram ring after German unconditional sub warfare ring a bell? Wouldn't Shrub have gone to war far earlier if he'd been 'in' by ASB?

Or are you going to tell me that the mere presence of we liberal commies anywhere near office caused Willy II to agree to his buddy the Emperor of A-H's idea of starting the war? Really? Not that Wilson was liberal.

[Jiraiyathegallant]

I wish you'd reread more carefully. My count is that you're down to half a point, no income tax, though tariffs are still just as real money.

Everything I said is true and your post did little to contradict mine. My post was...

The US went a long time in the 1800s with no income tax, central bank, very few restrictions on immigration, and staying out of the rest of the Europe's affairs.

With a POD of 1900, would it have been possible for this to have continued until around WWII or even later, until Japan bombs Pearl Harbor or something? What would the impact have been?

Your response was...

I'm afraid you've been reading too much rightie propaganda; none of that is really true. We had real taxes, they were just mostly tariffs, because that was felt to easier and less intrusive. Even President Washinngon had a central bank, fortunately, becuase real economies need real money and, later, they cut down on economic cycles. I think we probably even had more early immigration limits than you think.

And, we never were isolationists. Washington's speech was entirely about practicality that we a tiny, powerless nation, and so just a pawn to the superpowers of the day. That didn't keep him from liking intervening against the Barbary pirates, or liking his expansionist role in the 7 Years War as a colonial officer.


I made four claims, being "The US went a long time in the 1800s with no income tax, central bank, very few restrictions on immigration, and staying out of the rest of the Europe's affairs".

You claimed that these were all incorrect. Your reasoning as to why the claim "The US went a long time in the 1800s with no income tax" was wrong was because we had tariffs, which are not an income tax (nor did they garner anywhere near the revenue). Other than a brief income tax during the Civil War, there was no income tax during the entire 19th century, validating my claim.

You said that my second claim of "The US went a long time in the 1800s with no central bank" was wrong because there was a central bank under Washington, and there were two central banks up until 1836. That does not change the fact that there was no central bank from 1836-1913.

You said my third claim of "The US went a long time in the 1800s with very few restrictions on immigration" was wrong for unnamed reasons. There were a few immigration laws (like the Chinese Exclusion Act), but there were still relatively few immigration laws up until the Progressive Era and the 1920s.

Then you said that my final claim of "The US went a long time in the 1800s staying out of the rest of the Europe's affairs." was incorrect, by falsely claiming that I said the US was isolationist. I would agree that the United States was not isolationist for any significant length of time in our history, but we did not send a single troop to Europe until 1917, validating my statement.

It seems that you criticized a bunch of claims I did not make. I don't care to discuss this any further, but nothing you said contradicts what I said.

[MAlexMatt]

Are you sure? Then why did Jackson's stopping the bank land us in a massive, long Depression? Why have we had no depressions since the Fed started being used to inject money in financial crises like the recent one? All coincidence, of course?

Because Nick Biddle had been consciously building an absolutely absurd credit bubble in the fight to save the Bank. This over-extension of credit found its way into Western land speculation, driving a land price bubble, which Jackson popped with the Specie Circular.

Quite similar to the recent housing bubble, actually, in kind if not in size.

A central bank is not a necessary component of a flexible money supply, which responds to changes in liquidity preferences, only sufficient. The problem was that the US had the worst possible combination of a total lack of a central monetary agent to run monetary policy and a decentralized system which was forced by contemporary regulations to be unable to do so on its own.

Bond-security requirements made it so that national banks had to back their bank notes (the largest portion of the money supply in those days) 100% with Federal Treasury Bonds. This made the money supply only as flexible as the supply of Treasury Securities, a supply which was getting increasingly scarce over the post-bellum decades as the Federal government paid down its Civil War debts. In doing so, it directly constrained the money supply (to the extent that you could call such a thing 'monetary policy', this would be a severely contrationary long-run monetary policy, equivalent to the Fed Chairman doing quantitative tightening).

There was actually a competing political group that was against a central bank but in favor of loosening regulations on national and state banks. The Asset Currency movement, however, ultimately lost because the interests in favor of a central bank were simply too strong. When the National Monetary Commission was put together to study alternatives to the then existing financial system of the United States, the chair, Senator Aldrich, started with the idea that we needed a central bank and went from there, rather than actually looking into the whole range of alternatives.

Haven't massive government bonds also helped enrich us by highway and train spending, letting us travel easily, including for business?

The government is perfectly capable of borrowing from the public without a central bank as fiscal agent, it's just less convenient and it doesn't get preferential interest rates to do so.

REALLY? Do tell - I could've sworn that was Germany's fault. Zimmermann telegram ring after German unconditional sub warfare ring a bell? Wouldn't Shrub have gone to war far earlier if he'd been 'in' by ASB?

Well, the causes of WWI are tied up in the contemporary situation in Europe. I wouldn't say it is all Germany's fault, but that discussion is kind of irrelevant to the one we're having.

WWI was vital in upsetting the balance of the then-existing international system. It destroyed what little liberalism remained in Western and Central Europe and brought the politics and nationalism and planning right up to the forefront. This, in turn, directly effected how Americans thought about their place in the world, Return to Normalcy or no Return to Normalcy. More importantly, it set the stage for WWII, which finally forced (or, 'forced') America to play a more important role in global security.

By preserving the antebellum balance, it becomes easier for the pre-war situation in America to be preserved, as well. If you throw in the failure of the technocratic wing of the progressives to attain high office, you've got a pretty potent recipe for continued liberal policy in the United States.

[Snake Featherston]

This is going to get moved to chat extremely quickly.

The US army being so small was WAD: The system as it existed then was designed to keep power diffuse and decentralized.

We're wealthier today because technology has advanced in leaps and bounds since then, not because we adopted a central bank (which, by the way, presided over the longest, deepest depression the nation ever experienced).

Yes, because the Founders feared a large army was a menace to civil liberties and that as such too many soldiers could not be trusted, armies were thus evil.

[Henriksson]

If the jump in taxes following the American Revolution is anything to go by, remaining a British colony might be the best bet.
Yes, because the Founders feared a large army was a menace to civil liberties and that as such too many soldiers could not be trusted, armies were thus evil.
Similar to how the nobility in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth considered concepts such as "manufacturing industry", "functional state apparatus" and "infantry" to be the Devil's work, and was slapped silly by tiny countries like Sweden as a result.

[SergeantHeretic]

The US went a long time in the 1800s with no income tax, central bank, very few restrictions on immigration, and staying out of the rest of the Europe's affairs.

With a POD of 1900, would it have been possible for this to have continued until around WWII or even later, until Japan bombs Pearl Harbor or something? What would the impact have been?
If this happens the the United States will neverbecome a world power, let alone a superpower.

EVER!

She will never have a big enough army, she will never have a big enough economy, she will never have any significant influence with any other nation in the world.

She will remain a little nation of little people.

At the mercy of tevery other powerful empire.

[SergeantHeretic]

In Short Jiralyathegallant, if The United States of AMerica doesn't want to grow up, she won't.

As a direct consequence she will remain a child and be treated as such by the great Empires, and the only thing she'll take from them is untold buckets of SHIT!

[Dave Howery]

you might possibly keep the USA out of the world wars, but mainly by the actions of others... Germany will have to go the extra mile to placate the USA in WW1, Japan will have to not attack at Pearl Harbor, Hitler will have to restrict his war in Europe, etc. The main problem is that the USA is increasingly tied up in the global economy after 1900, importing and exporting, and with that comes the need to have friends overseas (which invariably leads to having enemies overseas), and to protect your lines of communication and trade. The USA can stay out of the world's conflicts only if you prevent the rise of such powers as Nazi Germany, the USSR, etc., powers that want to be big on the world stage. Basically, everyone will have to act as the USA does, being concerned solely with economic issues and no international aggression. That's tough to achieve...

[Jiraiyathegallant]

If this happens the the United States will neverbecome a world power, let alone a superpower.

EVER!

She will never have a big enough army, she will never have a big enough economy, she will never have any significant influence with any other nation in the world.

She will remain a little nation of little people.

At the mercy of tevery other powerful empire.

The US had the largest economy in the world by 1900 IIRC.

[snerfuplz]

The US had the largest economy in the world by 1900 IIRC.

Ironically it also had a smaller army then Italy

[snerfuplz]

EDIT: To contribute to the OP, it is key to push off WWI. More minor factors are things like keeping the technocratic wing of the progressive movement out of power, which means keeping Presidents like Wilson out of office. That's going to be kind of difficult: Progressivism, like technocracy, socialism, and fascism in Europe in later years, were popular ideologies of urbanizing society. The middle classes become uncomfortable and scared of the rapid social changes going on and react. You need some kind of alternative, something which preserves the status quo as much as possible but still sates this reactionary instinct. I think the mild social liberalism of the contemporary UK is an interesting one, but I don't know if it will ever pass on the Federal level. You might need to re-shape the Populists to your own ends to really get anywhere near it.

Wilson Progressivism was about as conservative of reform as you can get. It would be ASB to attempt to preserve the literal status quo without some major butterflies at the founding of the Republic or at the end of the Civil War.

[snerfuplz]

Just a question to the OP do you want the *USA to continue OTL USA's policy of allowing immigrants to vote without citizenship?

[MAlexMatt]

Yes, because the Founders feared a large army was a menace to civil liberties and that as such too many soldiers could not be trusted, armies were thus evil.

Indeed. Traditional English mistrust of standing military establishments expressed on American shores.

you might possibly keep the USA out of the world wars, but mainly by the actions of others... Germany will have to go the extra mile to placate the USA in WW1, Japan will have to not attack at Pearl Harbor, Hitler will have to restrict his war in Europe, etc. The main problem is that the USA is increasingly tied up in the global economy after 1900, importing and exporting, and with that comes the need to have friends overseas (which invariably leads to having enemies overseas), and to protect your lines of communication and trade. The USA can stay out of the world's conflicts only if you prevent the rise of such powers as Nazi Germany, the USSR, etc., powers that want to be big on the world stage. Basically, everyone will have to act as the USA does, being concerned solely with economic issues and no international aggression. That's tough to achieve...

The US was very tied into international trade more or less from the beginning. A large component of the annual harvest was exported and hundreds of thousands depended on this export for their livelihoods even in the early 19th century.

The issue surrounding WWI was that, for the first time, the US was becoming a major creditor to the warring powers, meaning the politically powerful financier class suddenly had a serious interest in 'bailing out' one of the sides in the war which they would have pursued with vigor no matter who was elected President in 1912 and 1916. That's why I said it was important to push WWI back altogether, not just US involvement in the war (which is almost inevitable if you've got a Federal Reserve Act in 1913 and a war any time after that).

Wilson Progressivism was about as conservative of reform as you can get. It would be ASB to attempt to preserve the literal status quo without some major butterflies at the founding of the Republic or at the end of the Civil War.

The whole Progressive movement puts the lie to the left-right scale of things. Wilson was a serious centralizer who set the stage for the changes that came after, from the Immigration Reforms of the 20's to the more radical changes of the 30's, and everything else since. Without that foundation to build on, the 19th century status quo, or at least a recognizable variant thereof, can continue indefinitely.

[SergeantHeretic]

The US had the largest economy in the world by 1900 IIRC.
SOmething witch is completly irrelevent to the reality that we had an army and navy smaller than ITALY!

Why? no income taxes, no way to pay for an army that would actually be able to defend us from a 20th century agresssor.

This would have placed us at the mercy of anyone ith and expiditionary navy and the desire to get them a piece of the largest economy i nthe world.

SO your point is well taken, thank you for pointing out to the rest of us that the United States was a REALLY juicy target with a really TINY military, and no economic framework to build a real army.

[MAlexMatt]

SOmething witch is completly irrelevent to the reality that we had an army and navy smaller than ITALY!

Why? no income taxes, no way to pay for an army that would actually be able to defend us from a 20th century agresssor.

This would have placed us at the mercy of anyone ith and expiditionary navy and the desire to get them a piece of the largest economy i nthe world.

SO your point is well taken, thank you for pointing out to the rest of us that the United States was a REALLY juicy target with a really TINY military, and no economic framework to build a real army.

Everyone with any real influence anywhere understood just how stupid it would be to poke the US in the eye, small army or no small army. Everyone remembered the three million soldiers that popped up out of the soil to serve in the US Civil War.

This is seriously a stupid point. The lesson of the 19th century was that, at least in the context of the times, a standing army wasn't necessary for the US and was mostly useful as a tool for power hungry imperialists to push around other, weaker nations.

[SergeantHeretic]

Everyone with any real influence anywhere understood just how stupid it would be to poke the US in the eye, small army or no small army. Everyone remembered the three million soldiers that popped up out of the soil to serve in the US Civil War.

This is seriously a stupid point. The lesson of the 19th century was that, at least in the context of the times, a standing army wasn't necessary for the US and was mostly useful as a tool for power hungry imperialists to push around other, weaker nations.
Really?

Really?

Do you have any idea how kind and gentle history has been to the AMericans over the past 100 years, sir?

Do you have any idea how long it would take to raise an army in a defensive war.

It took MONTHS not weeks to raise the Union Army that waged the war between the states and in a 20th century war on our own soil there is absolutly no guaruntee we would have that kind of time.

And by the evidence of both spain in 1898 and the Mexican incursion into New Mexico in 1912 not EVERYONE got that memo.

And by the way calling my point stupid does NOT alter the fact that an export level economy such as the U.S> HAS to protect its sea lanes and trade routs doesn't it?

Navies are bloody expensive, sir.

[MAlexMatt]

Really?

Really?

Do you have any idea how kind and gentle history has been to the AMericans over the past 100 years, sir?

Do you have any idea how long it would take to raise an army in a defensive war.

It took MONTHS not weeks to raise the Union Army that waged the war between the states and in a 20th century war on our own soil there is absolutly no guaruntee we would have that kind of time.

And by the evidence of both spain in 1898 and the Mexican incursion into New Mexico in 1912 not EVERYONE got that memo.

And by the way calling my point stupid does NOT alter the fact that an export level economy such as the U.S> HAS to protect its sea lanes and trade routs doesn't it?

Navies are bloody expensive, sir.

Do you have any idea the kind of logistical preparations there would be necessary to launch a trans-Atlantic invasion strong enough to overwhelm the part-time defensive force of the militias and (after 190...3?) the National Guard units?

Do you realize the kind of international diplomatic situation that would have to arise for such a thing to be even thinkable to major shot-callers back then?

Such a situation would be seen coming from years, not months or weeks, away. It's not like the Kaiser can just up and decide to land 100,000 troops in New York Harbor (no matter that, laughably, these plans were actually made). You would need MILLIONS of soldiers to even HOPE to permanently occupy even a portion of the Americana mainland, total war mobilization, and you would be risking the entire force being cut off and destroyed in coming years.

Seriously, I called your protest stupid because it IS stupid. It shows total and complete ignorance of the realities of the 19th century and 20th century. Even today the most globalized military force out there (The US military) needs local bases and allies to invade a piddling little nation like Iraq. In order to invade and topple the US government in an alt-1940 where the 19th century status quo is more or less preserved, you would need to have both Canada and Mexico on your side, the capacity to prepare for the invasion (a process YEARS in the making) without the Americans noticing (That is, you would need the ability to do the impossible), and you would need to make damned sure the US never either built its own navy or got allies who could seriously contest the seas with you because your logistical train across the Atlantic is a pipeline made of glass.

[SergeantHeretic]

O.K.

Fair enough, please forgive me for uttering my stupid opinion in the face of your impeccable logic. it won't happen again.

You are right and I am wrong, and Things like income taxes and central banks and federal treasuries are evil.

Yes, it's all so very clear to me, now, my carree as a soldier for 20 years was based on a tremendous lie and I ought to be quite properly ashamed of having defended those evil terrible warlike imperialists.

(SARCASM!!!!!!!!!!!)

[Killer300]

I'm going to take a middle point with military spending.

While the US doesn't need a large army because, yes, it's IMPOSSIBLE to invade the US logistically. Anyone justifying large militaries through that excuse seriously needs to learn logistics.

With that in mind, I don't see the US not funding a huge navy unless you're going to stop it from being imperialist, which just isn't possible.

[SergeantHeretic]

The United States is an Empire. everything we have and enjoy is a direct benefit of that imperial status.

That imperial status means we have imperial expences.

If we wish to give up all of those imperial benefits, then yes, we can forgoe those imperial benefits.

"If I must live i na world of Empires and those at the mercy of Empires, I would much prefer to be an Empire"--Abraham Lincoln paraphrased.

[MAlexMatt]

O.K.

Fair enough, please forgive me for uttering my stupid opinion in the face of your impeccable logic. it won't happen again.

You are right and I am wrong, and Things like income taxes and central banks and federal treasuries are evil.

Yes, it's all so very clear to me, now, my carree as a soldier for 20 years was based on a tremendous lie and I ought to be quite properly ashamed of having defended those evil terrible warlike imperialists.

(SARCASM!!!!!!!!!!!)

Pointless sarcasm is perhaps the only dumber argument.

[Killer300]

Perhaps, however the US will inevitably engage in Imperialism, which will require a navy, and from which will require higher taxes, with all that brings with it.

This isn't even getting into the changes that Unions and the like are going to force through, because really, no, the US can't, despite what some may wash, stay static in the 19th century.

[snerfuplz]

The whole Progressive movement puts the lie to the left-right scale of things. Wilson was a serious centralizer who set the stage for the changes that came after, from the Immigration Reforms of the 20's to the more radical changes of the 30's, and everything else since. Without that foundation to build on, the 19th century status quo, or at least a recognizable variant thereof, can continue indefinitely.

I know you are getting a lot of responses but just to throw my two cents into this one.

You are correct Progressives are almost impossible to put on the left and right scale as they were both sorts of Progressives. During the 1912 election every party ran as a form of progressive (Wilson and TR versions of course but also Prohibition Progressives and Socialists Progressives as weird as that sounds). Wilson I would argue was not as much as a centralizer. After all his Federal Reserve system was one of the most conservative reform plans put out there. Bryan of course wanted a centralized public bank but instead we got a decentralized Federal Reserve that is privately owned (though to be fair the original design had a compromise to the Bryan faction and included two public officials on the board so not the most conservative). The true growth of the Federal government lies with TR, who was a believer of big government and big market, who set the foundation. However given the poor economic conditions (due to in part the small amount of gold creating deflationary pressure on the economy) during this time the creation of a similar foundation is quite likely. After all voters were both fed up with the parties and the protest vote was going to the Socialists before the Progressive Party.

Thus it is possible to get slightly more conservative reform (ie. the Aldrich Plan for the Federal Reserve) but not much more conservative then Wilson. Also state Progressive efforts (occurring earlier then Federal reforms beginning under TR) would eventually create a federal *Progressive governments.

[SergeantHeretic]

O.K., so The U.S. keeps her economic policies fro mthe lat 19th century intact with no change.

What does this mean?

Well it means she simply can't have a large proffesiona army.

EVER.

It also means she may not be able to afford a large moder navy reletive o the other empires.

That limits the AMerican's influence rather a lot. She may be a big economy, but she doesn't have the sheer brute force to enforce any of ther international wishes.

When she does percieve a real threat she'll have to resort to conscription of the general population in order to generate a large defensive force to face the agressor. She can do it, but in the short term in each and every case it will be horribly expensive.

And there WILL be occasional threats requiring this rapid and drastic force expansion.

Now, the U.S> as I mentioned won't have too much pull in terms of breaking her import goods into other overseas markets. This is a causualty of her persistent isolationism. She'll have some but other countries can impose import tarrifs on American goods at any amount they please. After all, what are the Yankees going to do about it, throw a snit from across their two precious oceans with a marginal Navy only large enough to police their own waters?

The U.S> won't get too much practice fighting modern wars, so when it does come up, and it will, the U.S> will pay a far higher price in blood than she otherwise might have had to.

Every time there is a war that directly concerns the United States.

ANd only a fecklessly naivee fool believes that no other major empire will have interest that comflict directly with the trading interests of the United States.

[SergeantHeretic]

So, The O.P. wants the U.S. to have a nineteenth century tax structure and economy up until World War Two.

O.K., wel lthat means no income tax and no large standing forces in peacetime.

It also means no public works or major infrastructure improvement.

That's going to be, kind of a problem for us as the rest of the world moves forward.

You fellah's realize that we're talking about no major electrification of at least a thirds of the country, right?

I mean sure, the east coast might modernize, sort of, but that's only in pockets.

Most of the country will still have 19th century roads, no power and small towns with backward road and rail networks funded largly for the benefit of corporate and industrial trusts.

Also, no nationwide education.

That one is REALLY going to sting, sirs.

I mean sure, most towns wil lhave their "Little red schoolhouse, but that won't apply to a crapload of kids living in the poorer sections of the East coast and southwest.

Guys, we're talking about a lot of kids never learing how to read or write.

That means when wars happen and they will when the U.S> has to scratchbuild yet another Army many of their conscripted recruits aren't even going to know how to read or cypher their numbers.

That will creat it's own problems as the guys you're trying to draft cannot read their draft notices.

This will result i na severely retarded(Pardon the awful pun) United States population.