AHC: Make North America.....less North American

What I mean by less North American, I mean more corruption and more poverty. In other words more down-trodden and not at the least bit un-industralized.

When would the POD be?
 

archaeogeek

Banned
What I mean by less North American, I mean more corruption and more poverty. In other words more down-trodden and not at the least bit un-industralized.

When would the POD be?

Clearly they have to be administrated by the Spanish. And stay catholic, that's important too. More mixed cultures with native influences are obviously a must. France and Portugal are okay if Spain is busy elsewhere.

(More seriously: I suspect a defeat in the ARW could lead to such a situation as they now have those rebellious colonies which tried to get independence and so as punishment the crown will probably enact even more mercantilist policies, and with tory imposed governments which will probably end up not being very favourable to the dismantling of slavery - that or a multiple ways ACW where the union falls apart).
 
Clearly they have to be administrated by the Spanish. And stay catholic, that's important too. More mixed cultures with native influences are obviously a must. France and Portugal are okay if Spain is busy elsewhere.

You damn racist. :p

(More seriously: I suspect a defeat in the ARW could lead to such a situation as they now have those rebellious colonies which tried to get independence and so as punishment the crown will probably enact even more mercantilist policies, and with tory imposed governments which will probably end up not being very favourable to the dismantling of slavery - that or a multiple ways ACW where the union falls apart).

I agree.
 

archaeogeek

Banned
You damn racist. :p
But I thought it was the consensus on the Latin America thread! ;) (more seriously aside: even Duplessis in Quebec had this weird feeling of inferiority where he acted a lot like a tinpot strongman and liked to fashion himself as a strong powerful latin leader like Franco or Mussolini but at the same time saw the people he led as likely unable to industrialize on its own and in need of American industrial saviours to do the job)


Now that was succinct. But yeah, I feel a highly developed US is less likely in a British victory in 1783 given what just happened - white or not, they're still colonials (creoles in latin parlance ;) ) and they're still going to be punished, I'd expect émigrés to leave for the more enlightened countries - it would take a pre-war political resolution for this kind of wank to be realistic imo.
 
Last edited:
No racial based slavery. Indentured servitude continues for a time, with both blacks and whites eventually obtaining small free holdings. A shortage of land breaks the back of tobacco/plantation economy, and farmers diversify into other crops. The colonies are a poorer, less populated, more egalitarian place.
 
Somehow have Crawford win in 1824? An administration actively hostile to industrialization, and favoring small farmers over large planters...keep it up for a while (give Crawford 2 terms, and a like-minded successor - Calhoun?) and we can have a less industrialized state that still tangles with Mexico, only this time it's a close-run thing...
 
What you'd want to do is to prevent any one strong centralized government from controlling so much fertile land and rich resources. I'd say that should Louisiana remain a mostly ignored backwater colony of Spain or France (or Britain, if attitudes towards colonialism in North America change), no power emerging from the East Coast (whether it be British-derived or another nation/culture) could expand reasonably to become an economic powerhouse like the OTL US.

Of course you'd still get wealthy, stable nations in TTL's North America, but you'd probably get just as many semi-failed poor nations.
 
Fascinating...

... I was astonished to find an ASB posting with Archaeogeek called a racist by Sa'id Mohammed...

... Isn't it unrealistic?
 
You damn racist. :p



I agree.

2 People support it.

In general that one of the reason why i hate so much the Brito/american wank, they ignore more of the true problem of my contient(the british economical imperialism who is zenith was the War of Triple Alliance against a Paraguay who start to become: a dangerous model in the world)
 
Are you certain?

Britain shudders at 1066, but is South America more affected by General Whitelock than by the antics of Pizarro?

I always thought Paraguay's attempts at empire were a home-grown idea. British investment in Argentina only started to take off in the meat plus railways era. Controversial, I agree.

And you'll find I dislike 'wanks' - survival and development, yes, but generally by hard work and with occasional defeats. That's life.
 

archaeogeek

Banned
Britain shudders at 1066, but is South America more affected by General Whitelock than by the antics of Pizarro?

I always thought Paraguay's attempts at empire were a home-grown idea. British investment in Argentina only started to take off in the meat plus railways era. Controversial, I agree.

And you'll find I dislike 'wanks' - survival and development, yes, but generally by hard work and with occasional defeats. That's life.

Modern south america, yes very much. A lot of british money went into the industrialization of much of the americas and Britain did have favourites in the process (Argentine, the US, Brazil for example).
 
What's wrong with Argentina?

... And don't forget Chile (nitrates, RN South American Squadron base)

UK and US also invested in rubber from Brazil. So what's the problem?:confused:
 
The USA breaks apart into 3 or 4 separate countries after the American Revolution. There is fighting between them over disputed borders west of the Mississippi, causing bad blood that lasts for generations. None of these nations have the resources to purchase Louisiana from France, and Britain ends up taking much of the Louisiana territory, while the southern part (roughly OTL Louisiana and Arkansas) becomes an independent Republic. The various Anglophone republics and Louisiana fight several wars during the rest of the 19th century, against each other, Britain, and Mexico. Their smaller size and more militarized nature make them less economically prosperous and attractive to immigrants than the USA of OTL. Most of what would be the USA west of the Mississippi in OTL ends up as part of the British colonies of Missouri, Oregon, remains as part of Mexico, or becomes part of an independent California under heavy British and Mexican influence.

By the early 20th century, the several nations of North America have gone almost 30 years without a major war, but they have lots of problems. The earlier wars have left long-standing grudges, and in a couple of the nations, a tradition of military leaders taking very active role in politics. Slavery is still in force in parts of the cotton and rice belt, while politics in the nations further north is increasingly dominated by both class tensions in cities and hostility between protestant natives and Catholic/Orthodox/Jewish new immigrants. The British territories in the north and west are divided into four separate dominions, rather than a single one. Tension is strong in various places between French and English speakers, between descendants of British settlers and descendants of settlers from the ex-USA republics, and between social and religious groups. The Californian Republic has a much more even split in power and wealth between English and Spanish speakers, and relations between the two are not always amicable.

Compared to OTL, Mexico is actually the part of North America that has done better, with more economic development and political stability under the constitutional monarchy that has evolved under the house of Iturbide.
 
The Louisiana Purchase for one reason or another doesn't go through, either too much US domestic opposition or Napoleon decides to keep it and develop it himself along with Haiti. After Napoleon is beaten it reverts back to Spain and is mostly neglected. Come the War of 1812 and the US loses badly enough that they're forced to cede the Indiana Territory to become a Native state that's a British protectorate as a buffer between them and Canada, muxh like in 'The Crown and the Tomahawk'. Texas rebels as in our timeline but Polk is either not as expansionist or not elected so they stay independents and eventually pick up New Mexico as well. Later when oil is discovered it becomes a kleptocracy along the lines of Nigeria and its oil wealth. Fast forward to the early 1860s and the South wins the Civil War well enough that the states that seceded, minus Louisiana and Arkansas that are still Spanish, are able to gain their independence but not take West Virginia or Kentucky which they claimed. Meanwhile out in the West the Republic of Pacifica after a time follows Texas' lead and rebels against the Mexican government eventually growing to cover Idaho, Utah, (possibly Arizona) and the coastal states to the west of them.

That gives you five new countries and splits things up enough to negate a lot of the advantages our timelines America had. The US in the north-east will probably be the most industrialised, the CSA will creak on but without much success, the Indiana Territory protectorate will be even less developed to start with, Spanish Louisiana will stay mostly an agricultural area selling their produce to the surrounding countries and be generally ignored by Spain, and Pacifica without access to the rest of the US will grow more slowly. How feasible all this is is the question.
 
In general that one of the reason why i hate so much the Brito/american wank, they ignore more of the true problem of my contient(the british economical imperialism who is zenith was the War of Triple Alliance against a Paraguay who start to become: a dangerous model in the world)

*snort*. Actually, most of Paraguayan industrialization in that period was done by British businessmen hired by López. The idea of Paraguay representing some sort of economical threat to British interests in South America is one of the myths of the Triple Alliance War that just won't go, just like the one that says the war killed around 90% of Paraguayan men.
 
In general that one of the reason why i hate so much the Brito/american wank, they ignore more of the true problem of my contient(the british economical imperialism who is zenith was the War of Triple Alliance against a Paraguay who start to become: a dangerous model in the world)

Well no, one Latin American problems with the British economic world system was that it encouraged Ricardo-esque specialisation, and in Latin America that meant plantations and agriculture at the expense of any possible industrial development.

Even if such a system was imposed on North America, due to the differing resource and population circumstances, the profit would be in industrialisation for the vast majority of areas east of the mississippi (albeit as part of a global supply chain rather than everything within the country) and that would lead to long term wealth for the inhabitants.
 
Ran out of men???

Ah... Like this?

Superbly-ambiguous caption :
A Paraguayan cavalry unit (left) is attacked by that of the allies (right). After the first few years of the war, the Paraguayans had to eat their horses in order to survive. By the late years of the conflict they also ran out of men (Harper's New Monthly Magazine, Vol. 40, 1870).

Bless them - Harper's probably didn't mean to imply cannibalism. Wiki just repeated the clanger in its entry on the War of the Triple Alliance.

 
The USA breaks apart into 3 or 4 separate countries after the American Revolution. There is fighting between them over disputed borders west of the Mississippi, causing bad blood that lasts for generations. None of these nations have the resources to purchase Louisiana from France, and Britain ends up taking much of the Louisiana territory, while the southern part (roughly OTL Louisiana and Arkansas) becomes an independent Republic. The various Anglophone republics and Louisiana fight several wars during the rest of the 19th century, against each other, Britain, and Mexico. Their smaller size and more militarized nature make them less economically prosperous and attractive to immigrants than the USA of OTL. Most of what would be the USA west of the Mississippi in OTL ends up as part of the British colonies of Missouri, Oregon, remains as part of Mexico, or becomes part of an independent California under heavy British and Mexican influence.

By the early 20th century, the several nations of North America have gone almost 30 years without a major war, but they have lots of problems. The earlier wars have left long-standing grudges, and in a couple of the nations, a tradition of military leaders taking very active role in politics. Slavery is still in force in parts of the cotton and rice belt, while politics in the nations further north is increasingly dominated by both class tensions in cities and hostility between protestant natives and Catholic/Orthodox/Jewish new immigrants. The British territories in the north and west are divided into four separate dominions, rather than a single one. Tension is strong in various places between French and English speakers, between descendants of British settlers and descendants of settlers from the ex-USA republics, and between social and religious groups. The Californian Republic has a much more even split in power and wealth between English and Spanish speakers, and relations between the two are not always amicable.

Compared to OTL, Mexico is actually the part of North America that has done better, with more economic development and political stability under the constitutional monarchy that has evolved under the house of Iturbide.


I like this one.
 
Simple challenge with a simple POD:

Confederates win the Civil War.

The independent Confederacy would have some problems waiting for it that would turn it into the North American version of Pakistan. :(

Or for a more obscure POD James Garfield is never assassinated.
 
Top