AHC: Screw the USA Post-Civil War

There are plenty of 'more successful Confederacy' timelines, but how can things go badly wrong if the Civil War ends as OTL? I'm not thinking of outright dystopia but rather something that ends with the 20th C US being about the equivalent of Brazil or Argentina.

Sticking near the ACW POD, the three biggest things would be economic collapse, limiting US expansion, or limits to political/military influence.

Lots of possibilities for economics -- earlier, worse depression, etc.

As far as expansion:
- AK. US doesn't buy AK and Russia builds it up more (or the UK gets it)
- HI. Things evolve differently so the US has less influence, the US isn't able to lease bases, and other powers (UK mainly) get involved so HI remains independent.
- West. Native American conflicts in the West are worse, go on longer, and aren't settled with similar treaties. So, many of the (post ACW) states aren't admitted until much later and some native nations maybe even retain some independence.
- Spanish possessions. The Spanish-American War never happens or goes poorly for the US. The US doesn't get Guam, PI, and Puerto Rico. Cuba becomes an independent nation and resists US influence.
- Panama Canal. The French, or others, build the canal instead of US and exert their influence there.
In general, US interests in the Pacific are reduced and influence dramatically curtailed.

For political/military influence, different US presidencies/congresses could focus differently, screw the US up diplomatically, turn the US more strongly isolationist, and keep the military much weaker. In these scenarios, the US is lessened as a power, might never get involved in WW1, etc.
 
Sticking near the ACW POD, the three biggest things would be economic collapse, limiting US expansion, or limits to political/military influence.

Lots of possibilities for economics -- earlier, worse depression, etc.

As far as expansion:
- AK. US doesn't buy AK and Russia builds it up more (or the UK gets it)
- HI. Things evolve differently so the US has less influence, the US isn't able to lease bases, and other powers (UK mainly) get involved so HI remains independent.
- West. Native American conflicts in the West are worse, go on longer, and aren't settled with similar treaties. So, many of the (post ACW) states aren't admitted until much later and some native nations maybe even retain some independence.
- Spanish possessions. The Spanish-American War never happens or goes poorly for the US. The US doesn't get Guam, PI, and Puerto Rico. Cuba becomes an independent nation and resists US influence.
- Panama Canal. The French, or others, build the canal instead of US and exert their influence there.
In general, US interests in the Pacific are reduced and influence dramatically curtailed.

For political/military influence, different US presidencies/congresses could focus differently, screw the US up diplomatically, turn the US more strongly isolationist, and keep the military much weaker. In these scenarios, the US is lessened as a power, might never get involved in WW1, etc.

All of that's true, but it's ASB to get the Western American Indians (I'm sure you're thinking of the Sioux, Comanche, etc.?) to survive as anything but larger reservations with maybe slightly more autonomy with a post-Civil War POD. No foreign power will support them, their livelihood with the buffalo is rapidly vanishing, in part because of their own economic activities (selling buffalo hides to traders). Even by the Civil War they were increasingly dependent on the American government. It would take

There's also the matter of American corporations in Latin America, which helped American power in those countries. The UK, of course, had plenty of interests and influence as well, but to screw American interests there, we need to screw not only the American government, but American business as well (as much as "American business" and "American government" were synonymous in the late 19th century).
 
Griffon makes good points. The USA not getting Alaska and/ or the Panama Canal are both doable, and would both hinder the country's expansion down the road.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
If taking a big honking defeat would help, a vaguely OTL US would be very vulnerable to that in pretty much the period 1880-1900.
 
All of that's true, but it's ASB to get the Western American Indians (I'm sure you're thinking of the Sioux, Comanche, etc.?) to survive as anything but larger reservations with maybe slightly more autonomy with a post-Civil War POD. No foreign power will support them, their livelihood with the buffalo is rapidly vanishing, in part because of their own economic activities (selling buffalo hides to traders). Even by the Civil War they were increasingly dependent on the American government. It would take

There's also the matter of American corporations in Latin America, which helped American power in those countries. The UK, of course, had plenty of interests and influence as well, but to screw American interests there, we need to screw not only the American government, but American business as well (as much as "American business" and "American government" were synonymous in the late 19th century).

All to true. I'm primarily suggesting that expansion will be limited in some cases (AK, HI), delayed in others (NW), and US influence limited elsewhere. Overall it'll reduce US power and influence, especially in the Pacific and Latin America.
 
All to true. I'm primarily suggesting that expansion will be limited in some cases (AK, HI), delayed in others (NW), and US influence limited elsewhere. Overall it'll reduce US power and influence, especially in the Pacific and Latin America.

The US is still a superpower without Alaska and Hawaii. US influence in the Pacific existed since very early thanks to whalers as well as the actions of certain American naval officers (for instance the Marquesas Islands have the alternate name of the "Washington Islands"--not to be confused with the Washington Isles or nowadays Haida Gwaii). It's just the need to keep Britain the top dog in Latin America (Mexico is probably lost to US influence without a much stronger Mexico).

Still, the result is the US with the power of a Germany instead of, well, the United States.

Keeping the US military weak is easy since the Armed Forces had plenty of opportunities and offers to reform post-Civil War but rejected all of them (their enemies were American Indians, and those enemies were generally pretty weak). Even the Navy was weak until the end of the 19th century. Still, because of the sheer potential of the US, it was easy to create a decently strong force when needed which could dominate the hemisphere. And honestly, I don't see how the US could ever lose a war on their home soil post-1865, with their demographic advantage and industrial potential.

With that in mind, a post-1865 Latin America wank (at least the Southern Cone) is needed, to draw off as much immigration as possible, as well as an early immigrant ban in the US. Need to re-route those Italians, Poles, Jews, and other Southern/Eastern Europeans/"undesirables" to Latin America.
 
An early introduction of migration controls would be a hard break on American strength.

Historically there was about 10,000,000 immigrants between 1870 and 1900. Decimate that somehow and you might kill off America the Superpower.

Most importantly it could result in a stronger and thus less America dependent UK Australia and Canada.
 
An early introduction of migration controls would be a hard break on American strength.

Historically there was about 10,000,000 immigrants between 1870 and 1900. Decimate that somehow and you might kill off America the Superpower.

Most importantly it could result in a stronger and thus less America dependent UK Australia and Canada.

Great point. That would have a huge impact and would slow development out West as well, possibly delaying statehood for several states.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Bring out that nativist streak in US politics, basically. Find some way to break the institutions.


...perhaps J.P.Morgan or John D. Rockefeller can go for the Presidency, and do so with ludicrous bribes?
 
I'm wondering how much immigration restrictions would do in the long term. Would the population of the U.S if Asian immigration restrictions remained in place as IOTL and restrictions on non protestant countries came into place be so low as to really make the U.S a lot weaker? A couple dozen million by the world wars, might have an effect but the U.S is still a superpower presumably. By 2017 the U.S population is probably closer to 150 million than 330 million if we are talking about the long term. That could have some serious Cold War implications.
 
A problem with American nativism is it brings the question of "Who will work our jobs". Hence why many populists and other groups who claimed to represent the poor supported nativism against the elites who supported immigration simply because it gave them a bigger workforce able to work for less. Seems once again we need weaker American capitalism.

I'm wondering how much immigration restrictions would do in the long term. Would the population of the U.S if Asian immigration restrictions remained in place as IOTL and restrictions on non protestant countries came into place be so low as to really make the U.S a lot weaker? A couple dozen million by the world wars, might have an effect but the U.S is still a superpower presumably. By 2017 the U.S population is probably closer to 150 million than 330 million if we are talking about the long term. That could have some serious Cold War implications.

Certainly, but even 150 million Americans makes a nation which is one of the world's great powers. It could make a better-off Brazil and Argentina a great power alongside, and hurt American influence in Latin America.

I don't think the Asians are too much of an issue compared to more enforcement against Italians and other Catholic groups (Poles, Irish, etc.). Even though no fresh blood post WWII would have huge impact on the Chinese community in the US.
 
A weaker USA post Civil war? Hmmmmm................

*grabs ASB folder*

ZOMBIES!!!!

Kidding wrong forum. A second civil war during isolationism or have a dystopian coup would probably be the way to reduce American influence abroad.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Even having neither World War would leave the US relatively weaker compared to everyone else. It would be a Great Power still, and it's entirely possible it would be the first-ranked Great Power, but it would not reach the OTL heights it had in the early 1990s (that is, superpower sans peur)
 
Top