AHC: Largest possible US population.

Deleted member 97083

??? Why do you assume birthrates were affected only by the revolution? That doesn´t seem the case.
A variety of specific reasons have been theorized for the French demographic decline, but the Revolution appears to be when the decline started.

zUVpmcv.png


Why though? Spain will or would be forced to accept immigration from other areas as well, surely Italy at the very least.
The Spanish Empire won't necessarily want immigration to Spanish America, as they only want Spain proper to industrialize while the colonies remain a source of raw materials, focused on plantation economy and intensive mining. This continued after independence IOTL, but the profits went to the British and French through capitalism.

There would still be immigration from Spain to her own colonies, much as there was Spanish immigration to Cuba. But the millions of German, Irish, Czech, Italian, Lebanese, and French immigrants to Latin America, would be much less likely to go to colonies of the Spanish Empire without incentives (such as the OTL Blanqueamiento subsidies). Especially if the criollo class is suppressed in some way in favor of peninsulares. There were only small areas that were suitable for European settlement anyway, and tropical diseases were common.

On the other hand the US and Canada had the same climates as Europe and were industrializing, so they will be first choice, in many cases, for those millions of people.

Seems highly unlikely.
Well even if OTL Germany and Britain went to war in the 1890s, Canada would be weakly defended enough for the OTL US to take it, if they had motivation. Maybe an alternate "McKinley" pushes for Canada instead of Cuba and the Philippines.

Wouldn't a long war prevent emigration for a long time?

Just avoid communism/fascism, they are going to block emigration from happening and if not kill so many people that few are left to emigrate. Plus all those wars are actually going to be bad for emigration, not good. More so if the USA is intervening(internament camp and what not)
As far as I know, while European immigration to the USA slowed during WWI and WWII, it increased in the interwar and postwar periods. The post-WW2 immigration was the last major wave of immigration from Europe, IIRC.

Once Europe becomes prosperous, far fewer people actually want to leave in the first place.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A variety of specific reasons have been theorized for the French demographic decline, but the Revolution appears to be when the decline started.

zUVpmcv.png
I´ve heard the decline started before, around 1750. It would be nice to see what came before.

The Spanish Empire won't necessarily want immigration to Spanish America, as they only want Spain proper to industrialize while the colonies remain a source of raw materials, focused on plantation economy and intensive mining. This continued after independence IOTL, but the profits went to the British and French through capitalism.
That´s not how the Spanish dealt with migration though, and there is a limit on how much they can enforce.

There would still be immigration from Spain to her own colonies, much as there was Spanish immigration to Cuba. But the millions of German, Irish, Czech, Italian, Lebanese, and French immigrants to Latin America, would be much less likely to go to colonies of the Spanish Empire without incentives (such as the OTL Blanqueamiento subsidies). Especially if the criollo class is suppressed in some way in favor of peninsulares. There were only small areas that were suitable for European settlement anyway, and tropical diseases were common.

On the other hand the US and Canada had the same climates as Europe and were industrializing, so they will be first choice, in many cases, for those millions of people.
I can see non catholic immigration not being a thing, but that would still leave a lot of room. European cold live there and they did, from Argentina to Colombia, European immigrated pretty much everywhere.

Well even if OTL Germany and Britain went to war in the 1890s, Canada would be weakly defended enough for the OTL US to take it, if they had motivation. Maybe an alternate "McKinley" pushes for Canada instead of Cuba and the Philippines.
But the USA-Britain relation were too economical interdependent to become hostile, if they are hostile immigration is going to be less a thing given the USA could be potentially a less isolationistic and more militarized.

As far as I know, while European immigration to the USA slowed during WWI and WWII, it increased in the interwar and postwar periods. The post-WW2 immigration was the last major wave of immigration from Europe, IIRC.

Once Europe becomes prosperous, far fewer people actually want to leave in the first place.
True, but I´d argue that without any super big war you would more overall immigration, maybe with economic decline and some minor civil wars or border wars.
 

Deleted member 97083

That´s not how the Spanish dealt with migration though, and there is a limit on how much they can enforce.
The Spanish didn't allow non-Spanish immigration until the late 1700s, and even when they did, it was pretty slow until the Americas rebelled and formed their own nations. It doesn't seem too far out that the Spanish would neither need to, nor want to provide blanqueamiento incentives to European immigrants. Since criollos are rebellious, and the Spanish would keep slavery longer than the independent republics did (meaning the price of labor is low, deterring immigration), they don't necessarily want non-Spaniards to immigrate to the colonies.

Also if Spain dominates the economy of Latin America instead of France and Britain dominating Latin America, then Spain will be able to feed its growing industrializing population in the 19th century., and maybe prevent some of the civil wars So there may be more Spaniards ITTL, meaning more peninsular settlers to fill up Latin America, pushing even more of the non-Spanish Europeans to the US and Canada. The additional Spaniards may settle in the United States, as well.

I can see non catholic immigration not being a thing, but that would still leave a lot of room. European cold live there and they did, from Argentina to Colombia, European immigrated pretty much everywhere.
Because of intentional promotion of European immigration, and also because slavery was abolished in most Latin American countries earlier than the US (except in Brazil) meaning cheap labor from Europe was needed. Neither will be the case in a surviving, semi-reactionary Spanish Empire.

Only in Argentina, Uruguay, and Chile would you see European immigration happen anyway, because those climates are temperate and suitable for European farming. In Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Brazil, Paraguay, Venezuela, and Central America, European immigration was only suitable in very small regions along rivers and mountains, which can easily be filled up by Spaniards and Italians.

But the USA-Britain relation were too economical interdependent to become hostile, if they are hostile immigration is going to be less a thing given the USA could be potentially a less isolationistic and more militarized.
Well, the US can always trade with Germany, a more populous France, the Spanish Empire, Russia, Japan, China, etc. There are plenty of agricultural and industrial nations to trade with, even while trade with Britain is temporarily limited.

And the US had huge tariffs on manufactured goods from 1783-1945. So a war with Britain in the 1890s, especially if the US already had the good parts of Ontario, would only cause a temporary recession.

Militarized? No reason for it to last longer than the war itself. Even if it does though, military buildup, at least before the last third of the 20th century, is a significant injection into the economy. In the late 19th century, such buildup would be largely naval and unimposing on the nation as a whole.

True, but I´d argue that without any super big war you would more overall immigration, maybe with economic decline and some minor civil wars or border wars.
That's a valid idea as well, although if some of the countries in Europe are still prosperous, then 20th century Europeans will simply migrate to other European countries, rather than to America. If the US population is to be maximized, the whole European continent has to be weakened. (Rather macchiavellian, but it's the scenario at hand.)
 
The Spanish didn't allow non-Spanish immigration until the late 1700s, and even when they did, it was pretty slow until the Americas rebelled and formed their own nations. It doesn't seem too far out that the Spanish would neither need to, nor want to provide blanqueamiento incentives to European immigrants. Since criollos are rebellious, and the Spanish would keep slavery longer than the independent republics did (meaning the price of labor is low, deterring immigration), they don't necessarily want non-Spaniards to immigrate to the colonies.
Slavery in Spanish America was of a different kind compared to the one in Dixieland, I´d argue that,given the indigenous population declined up to the start of the 20th century and that the slave trade was abolished, Spain would at the very least allow Italian immigrants, if not Catholic ones in general(Irish as well if they wanted but is less likely).

Also if Spain dominates the economy of Latin America instead of France and Britain dominating Latin America, then Spain will be able to feed its growing industrializing population in the 19th century., and maybe prevent some of the civil wars So there may be more Spaniards ITTL, meaning more peninsular settlers to fill up Latin America, pushing even more of the non-Spanish Europeans to the US and Canada. The additional Spaniards may settle in the United States, as well.
I know Spain suffered civil wars, but I still doubt they would change anything, you´d have to prove the casualties were big enough to affect the demographics well enough.

After all, Spaniards already moved in masse to the region and to Maghreb and France as well, there is little reason for them to go to the US.

Because of intentional promotion of European immigration, and also because slavery was abolished in most Latin American countries earlier than the US (except in Brazil) meaning cheap labor from Europe was needed. Neither will be the case in a surviving, semi-reactionary Spanish Empire.
Ex-slaves were still cheap, is not like they were treated that better, plus for the reason above the system just won't endure.

Only in Argentina, Uruguay, and Chile would you see European immigration happen anyway, because those climates are temperate and suitable for European farming. In Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Brazil, Paraguay, Venezuela, and Central America, European immigration was only suitable in very small regions along rivers and mountains, which can easily be filled up by Spaniards and Italians.
Actually that´s not really true, outside the Andes region, Amazons and generally unhospitable areas European pretty much went everywhere, in the tropical regions they mostly weren´t that many compared to the locals or just were around the same numbers, thus mixed. But they did pretty much go in every country.

Well, the US can always trade with Germany, a more populous France, the Spanish Empire, Russia, Japan, China, etc. There are plenty of agricultural and industrial nations to trade with, even while trade with Britain is temporarily limited.
Sigh, problem is we are so far into your tl that you could justify even an invasion of Mars with the butterflies involved. The thing is that if the UK are still a global power in this TL, they are going to put the US in a position worse than a recession, plus whatever countrya helps them between France and Germany is potentially or actually certainly going to involve the other on the British side. In general I´d have you annex Canada from the get go in 1776 or 1812. It's overall easier and could tap into the Canadian immigrants early on, plus make the UK recede in status thus redirecting immigrants to the US.

The problem with Britain is not merely trade, is the control the British have over trade routes. The USA were just establishing themselves around IOTL.

And the US had huge tariffs on manufactured goods from 1783-1945. So a war with Britain in the 1890s, especially if the US already had the good parts of Ontario, would only cause a temporary recession.
Decreasing immigration for quite a while though, creating internal problems with the Quebecois and Canadian loyalists. Stuff the USA would probably want to avoid.

Militarized? No reason for it to last longer than the war itself. Even if it does though, military buildup, at least before the last third of the 20th century, is a significant injection into the economy. In the late 19th century, such buildup would be largely naval and unimposing on the nation as a whole.
Is it though, everything I've heard so far tells the opposite, saying the US can just go at war against the stronger naval power and not have any problems is so hyperbolic that I don't know where to start.

That's a valid idea as well, although if some of the countries in Europe are still prosperous, then 20th century Europeans will simply migrate to other European countries, rather than to America. If the US population is to be maximized, the whole European continent has to be weakened. (Rather macchiavellian, but it's the scenario at hand.)
I'd say weakening France and the UK is enough, those were pretty much the only major immigration hubs.
 
Top