"No Foreign Entanglements" Written Into the Constitution

[Super_Cool]

What would happen if this managed to get in there, barring the U.S. from getting involved in foreign conflicts or having peacetime military alliances?

For the short term, it means no Monroe Doctrine, and in the long term, no NATO or any other Cold War pact... How would this play out? Could we see a "Scramble for South America" alongside the one for Africa?

[Dave Howery]

it's very likely that it would be negated by amendment early in the 20th century at the latest. True, the US has gone through periods of isolationism, but once the US starts becoming part of the international business loop, it will sink in sooner or later that we need friends overseas, and that sources of foreign goods vital to our economy have to be protected. Plus, when the likes of Nazism and Communism come into being, philosophies that take no notice of the USA's isolationism, it'll be brought home hard to the US population that the world is an unfriendly place, and we'd better have allies...

[caspian88]

Maybe it wouldn't be negated by amendment, but the amendment would be taken to mean something other than its original intention, I'd think. Either way, the US would become involved in world affairs.

[Carinthium]

Wouldn't the butterfly effect prevent the Louisana Purchase anyway?

[Super_Cool]

Originally Posted by Carinthium

Wouldn't the butterfly effect prevent the Louisana Purchase anyway?

How does it break the rule of "no foreign entanglements?" Congress would still be able to negotiate treaties in this timeline, which is what Jefferson used to make the deal.

[Lord Grattan]

No War of 1812 or Mexican-American War.

[Ofaloaf]

Originally Posted by Super_Cool

How does it break the rule of "no foreign entanglements?" Congress would still be able to negotiate treaties in this timeline, which is what Jefferson used to make the deal.

Originally Posted by Lord Grattan

No War of 1812 or Mexican-American War.

What the devil is the definition of "foreign entanglement" in this case? The Louisiana Purchase involved the US buy Spanish land from France, with vaguely defined borders that later be dealt with via the Adams-Onis Treaty, shenanigans in Oregon, and more. That seems like some sort of entanglement, especially since so many other diplomatic moves with foreign powers had to be made afterwards.

And why wouldn't there be a War of 1812?

[JohnJacques]

No binding alliances.

but thats all.

[Super_Cool]

Originally Posted by Ofaloaf

What the devil is the definition of "foreign entanglement" in this case?

I think the proper definition for "foreign entanglments" if you would have asked Washington is not getting involved in affairs that don't concern the United States.

For example, the U.S. could not stop the European powers from colonizing Latin America. The U.S. would not have been able to start the Spanish-American War since what was going on in Cuba didn't affect America at all. Nor could it enter World War I or II because they were European conflicts. The United States also would not be able to send troops to stop Communist revolutions since they were in foreign nations.

However, the War of 1812 would still happen due to impressment and the Mexican-American War would still happen because Polk claimed the Mexican troops started the fight on the border, meaning both were defensive wars (), and therefore, concerned the U.S.

[Ardimis]

The U.S. would not have been able to start the Spanish-American War since what was going on in Cuba didn't affect America at all.

Didn't that war start because one of our boats got sank and we blamed it on the Spanish not being able to keep a handle on Cuba?

[Solomaxwell6]

It wouldn't matter that much in the case of war. If another country attacked, obviously the US needs to fight back. In the case of things like the Span-Am War, I doubt SCOTUS would do much after the fact. I can't see the president and half of Congress getting shipped off to prison for fighting a successful war that followed national sentiment, particularly with something like the sinking of the USS Maine as a casus belli.

Didn't that war start because one of our boats got sank and we blamed it on the Spanish not being able to keep a handle on Cuba?

Sort of. The USS Maine got sank, and the US ended up basically endorsing Cuban independence. Spain got pissed off, and declared war on us. A lot of people think that the USS Maine was sabotaged by the government specifically so we would have a reason to go to war, or something like that (haven't taken US history in three years ;-) ), but it was definitely the almost immediate cause of the war.

[xchen08]

Originally Posted by Solomaxwell6

Sort of. The USS Maine got sank, and the US ended up basically endorsing Cuban independence. Spain got pissed off, and declared war on us. A lot of people think that the USS Maine was sabotaged by the government specifically so we would have a reason to go to war, or something like that (haven't taken US history in three years ;-) ), but it was definitely the almost immediate cause of the war.

There is no evidence whatsoever that the U.S. government or any part of the U.S. government had any part in the destruction of the Maine. There were conspiracy theories blaming WRHearst, but no evidence for that either. The most likely explanation is a coal bunker explosion.

[Solomaxwell6]

There is no evidence whatsoever that the U.S. government or any part of the U.S. government had any part in the destruction of the Maine. There were conspiracy theories blaming WRHearst, but no evidence for that either. The most likely explanation is a coal bunker explosion.

Alright. All I remembered was that it probably wasn't actually Cubans/Spanish.