AHC: Best possible USA

Acquiring Texas isn't all that difficult for a 'nicer' US; Mexico was plagued from the time of independence by conflict between liberal and reactionary factions, with the Texas Revolution being one of the many liberal revolts against a centralist reactionary government.
 
Acquiring Texas isn't all that difficult for a 'nicer' US; Mexico was plagued from the time of independence by conflict between liberal and reactionary factions, with the Texas Revolution being one of the many liberal revolts against a centralist reactionary government.
If the United States offered to pay for it, Mexico might be on board. Gets rid of a bunch of Anglo slavers and perhaps also comes with deals about restricting further US immigration (which granted might not be successful).

So, border-wise for this new USA we're looking at a Louisiana Purchase + Texas, with a bunch of alternate states all over the place. Perhaps also have US western coast territory go a bit farther north including parts of OTL British Columbia? Not necessary but since we're going for fun borders. :D

Then with Mexico I'm thinking an independent Republic of California. :cool: The rest I guess could stay with Mexico?
 

TFSmith121

Banned
The thing to remember with the Cession territories is they

The thing to remember with the Cession territories is they were close to "empty" in terms of "Western" settlement in the 1830s-1840s; there's a reason Texas won independence and the Californians came close with Alvarado's rebellion.

The problem for New Mexico and California in terms of staying Mexican is that along with Mexico's historical internal problems in the 1820s and 1830s (and consequent weaknesses on the "northern" frontier) is that their economies - such as there were beyond subsistence agriculture - were already more deeply tied with that of the US than they were with central Mexico, whether overland via the Santa Fe Trail to St. Louis or by sea from California to New England with the leather and hides trade.

These connection brought Americans and American capital into what were otherwise semi-feudal and largely cashless societies, which led - in the circumstances of North America in the 1820s-1840s - to eventual US control of the Cession territories.

Was it a foregone conclusion? Not necessarily, but the odds were very high that what became the American Southwest would, in fact, end up as part of the US; strategic vacuums tend to get filled.

Best,
 
Since I'm thinking 1840s let's look at the alternate list:
Delaware (free)
Pennsylvania (free)
New Jersey (free)
Georgia (slave)
Connecticut (free)
Massachussetts (free)
Maryland (free)
South Carolina (slave)
New Hampshire (free)
Virginia (free)
New York (free)
North Carolina (slave)
Rhode Island (free)
Vermont (free)
Kentucky (free)
Tennessee (free)
Ohio (free)
Louisiana (slave? We could probably make it free but just to make things fair we'll go slave)
Indiana (free)
Mississippi (slave)
Illinois (free)
Alabama (slave)
Maine (free)
Missouri (free)
Arkansas (Indian state, but slave state too)
Michigan (free)
Texas (admitted early, slave state)

That's a good list.
 
Some ideas going back to the POD (Aaron Burr as President):

If there's even a suspicion of foul play on Burr's part, this will cause quite an uproar with the Jeffersonian Republicans. Especially if Alexander Hamilton gets to stay on as Secretary of the Treasury.

So we will see Jefferson and his loyalists decrying the "Corrupt Bargain", but the "Revolution of 1800" has still happened, leaving the Federalists crippled. Lets posit that Jefferson runs again in 1804 against Burr. He'll probably see this coming and have to do somewhat noteworthy things just in his first term, to secure the popularity needed for re-election.

Maybe Burr runs as a FINO (Federalist in Name Only) just to secure some base of support (since the Feds are quickly becoming unpopular) while still basically maintaining his Dem-Rep ideas. I'd give it 50/50 odds, because I could also see him just telling them to fall in line.

Burr barely manages to get a second term and perhaps we see a shift as Adams and Jefferson want a more Democratic system to avoid the wheeling and deeling that got Burr elected, while Hamilton and Burr (Republicans) are in favor of a system run by the elite (while Burr paradoxically also favors women's rights - historical people are very weird sometimes).

So we've got a shift in American politics (The Second American Party System) and Burr probably wants to run in 1808 but maybe his lack of popularity convinces him to not run. Burr is fundamentally a man of ambition (since his wife's death) so I don't see him staying out of politics for long.

Perhaps with the shifting of American settlers towards the Kentucky/Tennessee area (Indian state in the Midwest) we see St. Louis (which IIRC already existed at this time) get a boost in settlers and Missouri* becomes a state much earlier. We could then see Burr become Governor of this state and set up a new Tammany, etc.

Fun idea: Burr (post-Presidency?) and Andrew Jackson fight each other in a duel. Whoever loses, the readers win. :cool:

Thankfully John Marshall was appointed to the Supreme Court before the POD; in OTL he ruled that the Indian expulsion was illegal to which Andrew Jackson replied "John Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it." (What an ass, am I right?). Hopefully the same decision is made under a friendlier President (probably someone we haven't heard of IOTL).

Theodosia Burr historically disappeared in 1813 at the young age of 29. Here she will die in 1853, having lived a full life. Theodosia was already a member of the South Carolina elite and this could perhaps help her if she becomes a feminist figure. In Texas feminism was framed in a very "proper Southern lady" fashion with feminist events being structurally very similar to Southern balls and such. This helped soften the blow when discussing radical matters like feminism. Perhaps Theodosia could do the same? :eek:
 
Regarding Burr, I agree, but it wouldn't have no effect. Especially if he does something concrete like actually getting suffrage passed in New York (which he tried to do OTL, as stated). That would give us New York and New Jersey as women voting states, then once the Mexican states start being added we get even more. The Mexican government's idea of voting rights was whether or not you owned land, not specific man vs woman thing which is why Texas was pretty friendly to women's rights IIRC.

As I said, I bow to your knowledge of Burr, not being an American specialist, but my point about suffrage and the waves of Feminism is that, in the early 1800s when Burr would be doing this you would not necessarily get a knock on into a demand for equality just by enfranchising women. Not every women, enfranchised or not, will agree with equality and many more will be divided as to what equality means. Many female rights campaigners in the mid 1800s, before the suffrage movement, argued instead for support for women's "natural" role as wife and mother, wanting state support for homes, children, marriage etc but not necessarily employment rights. You would need a movement that would develop FROM this POD. The point of departure itself would not, I feel, be sufficient.

I would tend to argue that, actually. The United States is the sort of country where it just makes sense to build a railroad. The push to build a railroad stepped on a lot of people which led to the Strikes in 1877. I'm not saying the timing would be exactly the same, but I don't particularly think ending slavery would remove the railroad.

My point was not that you wouldn't have socialism, but that it would develop differently. Whilst I agree with you that this board nurtures butterflies better than a f**king butterfly farm, the changes you are discussing in ending slavery in the mid 1800s would have a huge impact on the late 1800s/early 1900s for your socialist movement.

to quote:

One thing that I brought up while discussing this on another website is if we establish a semi-independent Indian state in the Ohio Basin area. This would push white settlers (who OTL settled the Midwest) into the Kentucky and Tennessee areas where they would set up the industries that IOTL made slavery not very practicle in the Midwest (speaking very generally here).

You are now talking about an industrial US that in c1870 is different in key ways:

*A greater concentration of industry across a broader area, from mid-west into Appalachia, down into the upper bits of the South (and maybe into the deep South too depending on what the economic upshot of ending slavery is)

*Black workers, spread across a wider area (less Great Migration to the midwest in the post-bellum), who have been a large section of the industrial workforce for longer - with possibly the attendant racism of OTL happening earlier. Remember OTL it took until the 1920s for a black trade union to gain recognition from the AFL: a union only necessary because black workers felt excluded from established unions.

*A wider spread of that 1870s-1910s wave of immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe across this industrial area - so more pockets of Italian/Slav/Hungarian/Russian/Polish communities etc etc in towns. This knocks on into the trade unionism movement as OTL but more broadly. In Pittsburgh in the 1890s you have factory foremen, men you would expect to be organizing forces for unions and the backbone of the socialist movement, complaining about having to work with all "the Hunkies (Hungarians)".

My point was that socialism would form in different ways, and different places, than OTL. Railroads don't automatically breed strike action - just look at all the Chinese Labour trodden on in the West to build railroads. Many white workers didn't care about that at all.

Hence my point about grafting modern ideas onto the past - thats fine is that marks out your end point, but you've got to hone in on those that you think would gravitate to such positions, how they would evolve, and where and why they would develop.
 
Hence my point about grafting modern ideas onto the past - thats fine is that marks out your end point, but you've got to hone in on those that you think would gravitate to such positions, how they would evolve, and where and why they would develop.
A very good point and you're right it is hard to figure out what would happen without talking about the people involved. So, I'll try to make a list here of who would and wouldn't effected signficantly by the early changes.

Will be similar people to OTL
  • John Quincy Adams (Born 1767) has already gotten his first taste of politics by the POD and due to his family relations will likely still be successful in Massachussetts politics. Historically supported the Louisana Purchase and broke with the Federalists as early as 1808 making him a prime candidate for the Burrite Democrats TTL. Hated slavery a LOT.
  • Andrew Jackson (Born 1767) actually more up in the air. He already both military and political experience by the POD, so it's really up in the air where he goes. I'm leading more towards remaining a military figure TTL.
  • Henry Clay (Born 1777) Historically defended Burr during the conspiracy trial (and also apparently anti-slavery early on before abandoning it?) but then flip flopped on both after talking with Jefferson. I would put him as part of the radical Jeffersonian Democratic-Republican faction (see below)
  • William H. Crawford (Born 1772) I would say he's a lock for a Jeffersonian Democratic-Republican.
  • Winfield Scott (Born 1786) probably earlier enough to change his character significantly, actually. He was briefly an attorney before committing his life to the military - perhaps we swap him out for Andrew Jackson (who instead goes the military route?). Let's put him as a Burrite.
  • Martin Van Buren (Born 1782) was already apart of Burr's New York political machine by the time of the POD. Would likely become apart of the Burr Democrat-Republicans.
  • William Henry Harrison (Born 1773) already a war hero and agressively pushing into politics by the time of the POD. Pro-slavery and probably a radical Jeffersonian Democratic-Republican.
  • Daniel Webster (Born 1782) also developed by the time of the POD. Decidedly anti-war and supporter of the national bank. Probably a good fit for the Burr D-Rs.
  • John C. Calhoun (Born 1782) will be an adult by the time of the POD. Given his personality (already developed by 1800) he will likely still go to school and run for Congress, becoming apart of the more radical Democratic faction (see below).
  • Zachary Taylor (Born 1784) supposedly bad at writing and also a career officer (not politician) Taylor doesn't seem like a good fit for political office ITTL despite holding for Burr D-R like views.

I think that Aaron Burr will likely get re-elected in 1804 due to popularity stemming from the Louisana Purchase which likely happens even earlier than OTL (as he had no qualms about it). This will discredit the Jeffersonian faction of the D-Rs leading to a rise of the George Clinton faction of the D-Rs who dislike the Lousiana Purchase.

So here's how I see things breaking down. Whether ironically or not, Jefferson would be very much opposed to many of the policies that he enacted as President IOTL seeing it as Presidential and governmental overreach. The loss to Burr in 1804 will definitely split the party and probably remove Jefferson as a possible candidate, but his rhetoric will remain important with the party. Beyond that, the Revolution of 1800 has still happened and the Federalists are on the decline.

Many of the same old lines will continue to divide politicians: the pro-British Federalists and the pro-French Democratic-Republicans could easily evolve into pro-War (against British impressment) Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans like Clay and Calhoun versus anti-War Burrite Democratic-Republicans like John Quincy Adams and Daniel Webster. The National Bank will still be a sticking point with Federalists (who align with the Burr Democratic-Republicans) supporting it and Jeffersonian Democatic-Republicans being against it. Lastly (and this is not right out the gate but rather further on) it will be the Burr faction of the Democratic-Republicans whom eventually morph into some sort of coherent anti-slavery party while the Jeffersonians take the opposite direction.

1808 would be seen as the end of the First Party System as former Federalists coalesce around whoever Burr's successor is and the Jeffersonians begin playing hardball. We could likely see new parties form but I'm unsure of the name. The Whigs were named for their opposition to the sitting government. Perhaps Jefferson's Republicans would (ironically) end up as the Whigs (in name) of TTL while Burr's group becomes the Democrats (with OTL Whig-like views).

Democratic Party
  • Prominent Figures: Aaron Burr, Alexander Hamilton, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, Martin Van Buren, Winfield Scott, Daniel Webster
  • Important positions: Anti-War, Pro-National Bank, Anti-Slavery

Whig Party
  • Prominent Figures: Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, George Clinton, Henry Clay, John C. Calhoun, William Henry Harrison, William Crawford
  • Important positions: Pro-War, Anti-National Bank, Pro-Slavery
 
The early women's rights movement will largely be decided by the acceptance or lack thereof from other high class ladies in the Washington environment. I see Abigail Adams (former First Lady) and the Schuyler sisters are formidable proponents for this cause, with perhaps reluctant help from Mrs. Monroe and IMO outright resistance from "proper ladies" like Mrs. Madison.

Of course, if Mrs. Madison got on board that would be wonderful as historically she was seen as a very charming woman. Most of the other people who's spouses I looked up only listed the barebones of their lives - upbringing and how many children they had. It makes it a bit hard to gain any insight into their potential personalities without more information.

For his part Aaron Burr kicks things off by mentioning something about his previous (OTL) idea of women's suffrage while at a White House get together. This certainly attracts the attention of many of the women present (including those listed above).

So we have Aaron Burr (and perhaps Hamilton) using their political prowess to get (limited) women's suffrage in the State of New York. Their sphere of influence plus the actual passage of the bill (thanks to the proto-Tammany which thinks it can use women's votes for them) allows New Jersey to prevent it's revoking of women's rights in 1807.

I picture John Adams as a more active player ITTL. While he had great respect for Thomas Jefferson, the idea of a "Corrupt Bargain" allowing Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton (whom Adams had a love-hate thing going on with, like veryone else) might make Adams and Jefferson unlikely allies against such awfulness. This could make John more active in Massachussetts and his wife Abigail (historically a feminist and very erudite and respected by Washington elite) convinces him to get on board with repealing Massachussett's restriction on women's voting which had been revoked in 1780.

Joseph Alston (Burr's son-in-law) appears to be a man who was on a good path until stuff like the Hamilton shooting and his wife and child's untimely death sent him into a spiral of despair. He historically advocated a "more equitable basis of representation" which for the sake of convenience I'm going to stretch here and have it so that (with Burr's urging) that he do something regarding women's suffrage. I'm not entirely sure how receptive South Carolina will be. He is in a position to befriend the historically important Pickney family whom had a correspondance with anti-slavery Southerner John Laurens.

Besides the state listed above (New York, New Jersey, Massachussetts) the only other state that had recently had women's suffrage was New Hampshire. I'm not really sure about any prominent political figures there but I'm sure I can imagine a scenario where it makes a comeback. So now we are talking above (at the very least) a Northeastern United States which had redeemed women's voting rights.

Hell, maybe it's seen as a good way to counter Southern voting power by enfranchising more voters. This creates a feedback loop where then Southern states need to enfranchise their women in order to "balance the scales" as part of ongoing regionalism. Of course women will be expected to vote with their husbands, but at least they get to vote.

This does all sound nebulous but I'm thinking that the first phase (Northeastern Suffrage) can be accomplished by ~1815. Bonus points for tying it into the War of 1812 in whatever form that takes.
 
Axing slavery early would be better in every possible respect for the US, particularly if its done gradually by the states themselves. Univ. suffeage is also a net positive, but it is quite possible that you may have many decades after emancipation without amy push for universal suffrage, which would have no impetus to be forced into law (like the civil war was).

However, you then run into a serious roadblock re: socialism. First of all, I strongly dispute that that would make for a better US. I hold that it would be worse in every respect. But the main problem from your point of view is that you've just butterflied away the main abenue throgh which the federal government was able to implement pretty much any of its policies internally after 1861. With no civil war, the states are much more powerful in relation to the federal government, which means that the economic system is going to be much less compatible with socialist policies, which tend towards centealization.
 
Axing slavery early would be better in every possible respect for the US, particularly if its done gradually by the states themselves. Univ. suffeage is also a net positive, but it is quite possible that you may have many decades after emancipation without amy push for universal suffrage, which would have no impetus to be forced into law (like the civil war was).
I understand. It didn't become national law until over half a century after the Reconstruction Amendments. However the existence of working suffrage in the Northeast will be a boost to early American feminism movements which historically met in Seneca Falls in '48. ITTL such a meeting would be of second or even third generation Feminists wishing to expand. Furthermore, the addition of Texas could actually be a boon to suffrage given Spanish>Mexican>Texan common law which was actually very friendly to women as long as they owned land. :cool:
However, you then run into a serious roadblock re: socialism. First of all, I strongly dispute that that would make for a better US. I hold that it would be worse in every respect. But the main problem from your point of view is that you've just butterflied away the main abenue throgh which the federal government was able to implement pretty much any of its policies internally after 1861. With no civil war, the states are much more powerful in relation to the federal government, which means that the economic system is going to be much less compatible with socialist policies, which tend towards centealization.
I understand that not everyone is a socialist. There won't be a reduction of federal power, though. The alt-Nullification Crisis will prove the Federal government's ability to keep the states in line and Burr's Democrats will be the sort who support the National Bank. If the Bank exists continuously instead of being removed and then reinstated we might see an accelerated timeline of the sort of excesses and corruption that Democratic-Republicans like Jefferson always complained would come of the National Bank. Combine that with the fact that it's supported by the two men who created the Tammany Machine and we're looking at a pretty toxic situation.

Basically Burr's Democrats would prove useful in the short term via abolition, suffrage (co-opted by Jefferson's Whigs), and then end up becoming the "bad guy" so to speak representing Big Banks and Big Business, performing hardcore strike break ups and generally enforcing (and later over-enforcing) Federal power onto the general populace thus laying the seeds for the Revolution. :cool:
How about a US that embraces Anti-Imperialism and Colonial Liberation ideology?
You know I actually was considering that when thinking of the War of 1812. I think America winning Canada throws too many butterflies into an already very packed timeline (not even getting into how likely it is).

What would be the chances of an America doing better in 1812* leading to the establishment of an independent Republic of Quebec? This might actually make the incentive less for the later admission of Texas. The establishment of multiple competing republics on the North American continent is intruiging but not exactly what I am going for. I'm thinking either Quebec has a period of independence prior to admission (like OTL Texas) or America just does roughly the same in 1812*.
 
An America that stretches over the entire globe.... :rolleyes:

If the US was not hypocritical and really lived up to the ideals of personal freedom, anti-colonialism, and the right of the people, then it would be a great place.
 
An America that stretches over the entire globe.... :rolleyes:
That's not really what I'm suggesting. If anything this America will be smaller.
If the US was not hypocritical and really lived up to the ideals of personal freedom, anti-colonialism, and the right of the people, then it would be a great place.
That is what I am suggesting.

Do you have any ideas to contribute?
 
The Quids were an OTL group that consisted of moderate Dem-Reps and Federalists - basically what I'm looking for in regards to Burr's party. Jefferson was increasingly hostile towards the end of the Adams term and would raise quite a fuss regarding the political scandal of Hamilton and Burr teaming up to take the Presidency in 1800. While Adams would be shocked, he may be too angry at Jefferson to make any appreciable condemnation until it is too late.

This is key to keeping Aaron Burr from facing significant judiciary challenges early on in his Presidency.

Having lost in '96 and '00 I don't see Jefferson running again in '04, with perhaps George Clinton running as the only counter to the unholy machine that will be Burr's Tammany and Hamilton's Cincinatti Society (IIRC). I'm thinking that they still beat out Clinton and Adams finally comes out against the corruption, allowing discontent to build until 1808. This one I see as being a Hamilton vs Madison election or perhaps even a three way involving Thomas McKean (a Quid). Hamilton is tainted by the Burr scandal and is crushed.

We still see the purchase of Louisiana and American yearning for Florida. This combined with an analogue to the Chesapeak-Leopold incident and the Peninsular War (don't see why it would be butterflied) means an American declaration against Spain and Britain. This might even lead to American stoking of the OTL Mexican War of Independence.

Obviously if this all happens there would need to be a stronger American military. Even Jefferson established a military academy (West Point IIRC) while curbing American naval power. I see Burr as being Jefferson-lite on some of these issues so perhaps a better American military is in place during this war (which will need a name).

If Burr also supports Haiti in some fashion in 1804 (unlike Jefferson) then this combined with stoking revolutions in Mexico might very well give America a much more revolutionary image than IOTL. I can't find a thread on the wiki about an earlier war so I'm not sure if it would go better or worse regarding British effectiveness - especially if America was split over the issue. Perhaps it would be better to just restrict the war to one with Spain? I did see a timeline about that (albeit involving Andrew Jackson as President in '08).

I think that we will need a very talented diplomat to negotiate with Tecumseh during the Burr presidency if we want to see the Indians remain in the Midwest. Might even need some sort of POD on the Indian tribe. This was also one of the first times in American history where a President allowed to expulsion of Indians (OTL Jefferson did it).
 
Top