AHC: Avoid a recognizably "American" state ending up in North America.

fashbasher

Banned
POD can be any time after 1 AD - no ASBs are allowed aside from existing epidemics occurring at an earlier or later point.

The things I want you to avoid, as many as possible, are:

-A large, space-filling power that is a major player in Afro-Eurasian geopolitics

-A large federation that, while it might be ethnically diverse, generally shares a common tongue and flag

-A major power that is markedly more capitalistic/consumerist/individualistic than most other countries at a comparable stage of development for much of its history (not necessarily more unequal, as at certain periods the capitalistic US was more egalitarian than the paternalistic countries of Europe)

-A widespread culture of self-defense/guns, agrarianism/suburbanization, and low-church religion

-A cultural abhorrence of unelected nobility, royalty, regulation, or hierarchies not driven by ability or wealth

-One of the world's dominant creative powers in technology, arts, literature, and film, with many if not most of the world's richest and most revered entertainers and innovators living there and a significant ceiling on one's success without doing business with that power

-Anything else you can think of that you'd associate with an "American" counterpart culture.
 
Have the US' attempts to form a government post-Revolution fail, so that the different states split up into independent countries. That would deal with points 1, 2, 3 and 6; points 4 and 5 would presumably vary from country to country.
 
Vinland bringing diseases to North America seems like a good bet. I don’t mean a long-term Norse presence, just enough to cause the plagues to hit early.

From there, the native populations will bounce back by the time colonization begins. A higher native population means that settlers cannot displace them as OTL. Instead, more like Central America the native population will assimilate to colonizers if they succeed, which is less likely ITTL. I’d expect some native states to last, especially with outside colonizers playing them off of each other.

In the long term, you could easily have:

-Multiple small, competing native and settler nations across the continent

-Rivalries fostered by the colonizers ensures federalism/unification will never occur

-Native communalist societies dominate; if any nation is capitalistic, it will still be influenced by its neighbors

-Gun culture will always be more likely in America due to geography. Agrarianism also, but some plains regions could have nomadic traditions à la modern Mongolia. Religion could be anything from loose paganism to strict Christianity from a non-English colonizer

-Alternate colonizers (France, Iberian, Italian states) could set up ruling dynasties for legitimacy

-Too many small nations for any one to dominate culturally
 

Md139115

Banned
Have Jane Seymour not give birth to a son (Edward VI) so everyone’s favorite King Henry has his worst nightmare come true and England tears itself to pieces in a civil war upon his death.

Alternatively, have Queen Mary and King Phillip have a male heir who, presumably, would rule over Spain, England, and the Netherlands in personal union. It is quite possible that there could be a civil war going on in the latter two nations as well.

My point is, make England unable to adequately colonize anything during the 16th Century and you really throw it behind the curve when the 17th comes along. Spain, having never lost the Armada and all those veteran sailors, would probably be much more able to sustain further ventures into North America.

It’s entirely possible that with the exception of some spoiler French and English colonies up by Canada and Newfoundland, the Americas could look like the vision of Tordesillas.

Anything existing in North America then would just be yet another Spanish Viceroyalty that could eventually become yet another Latin American country.
 
-The American southwest is part of Mexico. Like northern Mexico in OTL, it remained relatively underpopulated until around 1900, when population growth in the South lead to a lot of internal migration.

-Spain held onto Louisiana, Florida, and the Coastal parts of Alabama and Mississippi, called Spanish Florida. It became dependent on slavery like Cuba and the Southern U.S., and soon grew very wealthy off of it. In 1833 when a war in Spain broke out it took the opportunity to secede. It is richer than the rest of Latin America, but poorer than the other states of North America, its racial composition is similar to Cuba's.

-In OTL some French Huguenots established a settlement in Florida in 1562; they were later massacred by the Spanish. In TTL they tried again, settling New England in order to be a safe distance from the Spaniards, in hindsight, this is a much more hospitable climate to settle. Like in OTL New England, they grew rapidly after the first few years of acclimation, and were joined by more refugees as tensions flare up in France, at first the French government encouraged this, but later they sent Catholic rulers to the territory. This, along with anger over taxation led to a rebellion in 1660, establishing the Republic of French Florida. Boxed in by the French to the North and the Dutch to the West, French Florida did not expand, and so did not have the same "pioneering spirit" as other states and colonies of North America. It's population continued to grow until it was more densely populated than most of Europe, and there is little immigration from elsewhere. Like other Calvinist areas(Switzerland, the Netherlands, New England in OTL) it largely abandoned religion eventually and is today one of the most secular of the European-derived nations. Initially, it was largely an oligarchy, divided into "counties" with the governors of those counties, a position that is de-facto hereditary, sending representatives to a Governing Council. In 1819 a revolution occurred, replacing it with a democratic system of government. After initial border wars with France in 1687, and 1723-1732, New France largely avoided foreign entanglements.

-In Canada where Catholic French had settled before the revolt in French Florida, the French government endeavored to settle it with Catholic French, offering free land to Catholic migrants, Protestants were not allowed to enter. Like the Quebecois, their population grew rapidly, but was initially larger, with the result that the Quebecois are numerous enough to fill Ontario and the Great Lakes region, waring the with Dutch to the South, and meeting the Japanese in the West. In 1792 the French Revolution occurs and the radical leaders declare French Canada to be "self-ruling," however they interpreted it as a more symbolic gesture than the Canadians. In 1798, when the French government fired the Canadian born pro-revolution governor and sent someone from the metropole to replace him, he declared the colony independent. The French, busy with wars in Europe, do not put up much of a fight, but still claim the country until 1822. Canada becomes essentially a dictatorship under the rule of the governor-turned president, continuing through several dictator-presidents until 1873, when a limited-suffrage government is founded after a violent revolution. Universal male suffrage does not occur until 1905. Canadian opinion is broadly pro-French, and Canada quickly joins France's side in World War I and World War II.

-In the New Netherlands, the Dutch were successful in holding the colony, as the French in French Florida and Canada are busy fighting one another. It soon grows into a major economic center. The population here is the most diverse as OTL New Netherlands was, but eventually they fuse into a Dutch-speaking "American" identity. By the early 1700s there was major tension between the colonists and the Dutch appointed governors they replaced, however, there is no revolution, as the colonists do not want to fight the British to the South and the French to the North alone. But they get a chance once France invades the Netherlands. The new government is essentially a presidential dictatorship thereafter, with the successive presidents using the rivalry with Britain and Canada to silence opposition. The country expands to the West. In 1848 the revolutions in Europe spreads across the Atlantic, with the President making some reforms. in 1873 there is another revolution, soon followed by a dictatorship, which continues until a socialist revolution in 1911. Though the new government was not nearly as homicidal as the Soviet one, it severely mismanaged the economy. It was finally overthrown in 1935 following a war with the Japanese and democracy was restored. Socialism was democratic from then on, but still culturally and politically significant, like OTL France.

-The British established colonies much as in OTL in the American South, but they would be the only ones who remained British "colonies," eventually evolving into a Commonwealth Realm as Canada did in OTL, called Columbia. The colonists had conflicts with Britain about taxation and later about slavery but they did not secede in either case, owing to a desire to have British support in their rivalry with the Dutch to their North. Following a loss in a war with "America,"(i.e. Dutch America) in 1866 they agreed to a British plan for gradual, compensated emancipation. The British also have a colonies in Newfoundland and Nunavut, these are both governed as "crown dependencies."

-Rather than closing themselves off to the world the Japanese adopted Western ways and soon began to voyage to America to trade with the Spanish in Mexico. They established settlements on the coast of California and Oregon, though they are later driven out of the former by the Spanish. At first they were uninterested in colonizing North America, but soon trading posts evolved into colonies reinforced by refugees fleeing Japan's political conflicts. In 1678 these colonies seceded from Japan, whose rule over them had been nominal anyway. They soon expanded inland, eventually running into the Dutch and French. Their form of government was initially an Empire modeled after feudal Japan, but this was ill-suited to an area where peasants could simply move West. Wars are rampant throughout the country's history and it was often compared unfavorably with Japan, the latter seen as much more civilized. It was the last North American state to democratize, with the dictatorship overthrown in 1993.

-Russia establishes Alaska as in OTL and settles it in a similar manner and for similar reasons as it settles Siberia.

In each case the polity is more comparable to France or Germany, or a much smaller country, than to the United States. Britain is considered the world's strongest power, rivaling Russia. America(i.e. the former Dutch colony) is still noticeably more socialist than other American or European countries, while capitalism is more popular in Columbia. All the countries(except French Florida) are somewhat more agrarian and suburban than Europe, as is inevitable with lower population density, but Canada and Columbia industrialized more quickly, as they both had tariffs applying to their regions. In addition the most rural areas at the center of North America are not the "heartland" of their countries, instead they are the borderlands. There was a culture of abhorrence to hierarchy in America, though more reflective of European-style socialism than the OTL American variety. Hierarchy is viewed more favorably in French Florida, Columbia, and Canada, which were spared revolution of either the OTL American kind or the Soviet kind.

ahc north america.png
 

Maoistic

Banned
The French don't help the American revolutionaires and as such the 13 colonies remain part of the British Empire.
 

fashbasher

Banned
In each case the polity is more comparable to France or Germany, or a much smaller country, than to the United States. Britain is considered the world's strongest power, rivaling Russia. America(i.e. the former Dutch colony) is still noticeably more socialist than other American or European countries, while capitalism is more popular in Columbia. All the countries(except French Florida) are somewhat more agrarian and suburban than Europe, as is inevitable with lower population density, but Canada and Columbia industrialized more quickly, as they both had tariffs applying to their regions. In addition the most rural areas at the center of North America are not the "heartland" of their countries, instead they are the borderlands. There was a culture of abhorrence to hierarchy in America, though more reflective of European-style socialism than the OTL American variety. Hierarchy is viewed more favorably in French Florida, Columbia, and Canada, which were spared revolution of either the OTL American kind or the Soviet kind.

View attachment 364337

Would you say that Florida, Columbia, and America all are more Canada/Australia style countries than American-style, in that they're dependent on their relatively dense urban areas while still being more suburban?
 
A lot of comments here reek of American exceptionalism, IMO. If you butterfly away the conflicts that managed to make the UK the dominant power in the East Coast, ever so slightly buff Louisiana and Spanish North America, or even very slightly alter the course of events of the American Revolution, that's enough to completely change the face of the continent. Let alone other less plausible PODs like stronger natives or different colonial powers and strategies.

The fact that it seems inevitable is, IMO, more than anything a result of the fact that there's a lot of Amerocentrism and America-favoritism in popular culture and especially this board, and not particularly the result of any geographical inevitability.
 

fashbasher

Banned
A lot of comments here reek of American exceptionalism, IMO. If you butterfly away the conflicts that managed to make the UK the dominant power in the East Coast, ever so slightly buff Louisiana and Spanish North America, or even very slightly alter the course of events of the American Revolution, that's enough to completely change the face of the continent. Let alone other less plausible PODs like stronger natives or different colonial powers and strategies.

The fact that it seems inevitable is, IMO, more than anything a result of the fact that there's a lot of Amerocentrism and America-favoritism in popular culture and especially this board, and not particularly the result of any geographical inevitability.

The problem ends up being what you define as a "recognizably American" country; is a sea-to-shining sea Louisiana based on pioneer farmers with no real safety net or healthcare system more or less "American" than MegaCanada? I for one picked features of the US that can at least be tied to either the geography of North America, to disease patterns common among isolated populations, or to very broad-scale trends in European history that are hard to butterfly away (the Reformation and Enlightenment, which led both to new left-wing ideologies like socialism and to new right-wing ones like Evangelical Protestantism and libertarianism). I'm not asking about whether the country would speak English so much as whether it would share the ideological and geographic outlook of the US we all know and either love or hate.
 
A lot of comments here reek of American exceptionalism, IMO. If you butterfly away the conflicts that managed to make the UK the dominant power in the East Coast, ever so slightly buff Louisiana and Spanish North America, or even very slightly alter the course of events of the American Revolution, that's enough to completely change the face of the continent. Let alone other less plausible PODs like stronger natives or different colonial powers and strategies.

The fact that it seems inevitable is, IMO, more than anything a result of the fact that there's a lot of Amerocentrism and America-favoritism in popular culture and especially this board, and not particularly the result of any geographical inevitability.

Reminds me of the thread about stating fiction as predetermined due to geographic advantages.

Even if it was true that the USA has an unassailable geographic position in its current incarnation it certainly is not true that such a polity has to come into existence, it's like justifying the roman empire that currently rules Europe because the med, Atlantic and black Sea are unassailable borders so of course any entity in Europe would conquer everything and expand to there.

The easiest pod for me is vinland succeeding, allowing north America to stay in biological and technological communication with Europe.
 

fashbasher

Banned
Reminds me of the thread about stating fiction as predetermined due to geographic advantages.

Even if it was true that the USA has an unassailable geographic position in its current incarnation it certainly is not true that such a polity has to come into existence, it's like justifying the roman empire that currently rules Europe because the med, Atlantic and black Sea are unassailable borders so of course any entity in Europe would conquer everything and expand to there.

The easiest pod for me is vinland succeeding, allowing north America to stay in biological and technological communication with Europe.

Obviously a post-1900 leftward turn in the US wouldn't accomplish all of it, but even having the US and Canada stay united could do a lot of it (Canada and Australia have many attributes of both the US and Europe and are kind of a blend of the two; NZ is an edge case with the smaller amount of flat land and the strong Maori/Polynesian influence).
 
It seems there are two parts to this. The first is changing American culture, the second is no continent spanning North American power. I think these are separate questions.

Changing American culture is not difficult at all. There are lots of things that can be done, in no particular order:

1. The obvious one is that the colonies on the East Coast are not English. The Catholic powers pretty much did everything differently, from town planning to who was allowed to settle in the colonies to supervision of officials. Plus most Americans are Catholic, which is big in itself.

2. Or you can keep the English but make it a different England, for example England stays Catholic or having the stuarts win in the 17th century may be enough.

3. Even allowing Protestant Hanoverian England, you can do alot if they have much more restrictive immigration policies, no "benign neglect" but they actually invest in colonial officials that then manage (no customs officials pocketing their salaries and staying in England), set up Anglican bishops in the colonies. Hopefully this is enough to get rid of the "Great Awakening".

4. Keeping either/ both the Puritans and/ or the African slaves from coming to America would be huge. Its really hard to do this with the slaves, given the whole purpose of colonies then was to kill off the native,s import slaves, and work the resources and the American coloines were far from the worst cases from this. But it shouldn't be too difficult to keep the Puritans out.

No Puritans, tighter control by the European power, no Great Awakening, less liberal immigration, and stronger Catholic or high Anglican influence, with lots more slaves because you get rid of the Puritans, and you pretty much have yourself Brazil with colder weather.

This might be enough to keep American from spanning the continent. But add in no Louisiana purchase, and with a pre-1800 POD there are lots of ways to get this, and a partially successful independence movement that breaks off only about half of the East Coast. Brazil post independence held together, though it was somewhat touch and go, and didn't expand anywhere close to the extent the United States did.

Changes on the lines I speculated on means no Civil War or a very different one and that changes alot.

Even with PODs in the nineteenth century later, there is alot of stuff that can be done with no Civil War, the Republicans opting for a re-set and holding a new constitutional convention after the Civil War, no or a different "corrupt bargain" in 1876, a failed progressive movement, a much stronger socialist movement, or even no New Deal. You can get something like socialist America as in the other timeline, or a large, really backwards country that is simply too incompetent to have much influence in the world.
 
A lot is two words. I also had no idea that Brazil had more slaves than the USA.

Might Brazil not have been more successful had it been better positioned during the industrial era?
 
Top