AHC Challenge: How could you make a timeline where the United States of America (completely) abandons its founding ideals? (No, I don't mean completely falling apart. Even so, some of the pieces may attempt to live up to the beliefs found in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution)?
America Abandons Its Founding Ideals (pre-1900) Challenge
- Thread starter sampleswift
- Start date
Isn't this somewhat OTL? Ok, I'll take it to chat. The best way is to have the Articles of Confederation stick and a balkanized US?
Doubtful; I'd say Americans today at least are trying. What I'm looking for is abandonment, as complete as possible. I'd also prefer for the US to not dissolve.
I guess that would mean establishing an official church, instituting hereditary political offices, doing away with jury trials, and criminalizing dissent.
We have gone from a Confederation with National government share of the economy at around 1%, 6% of the population voting, allowing states their own policy on things like race/religion/immigration/speech, where homosexuality was illegal, a lot of people being fine with a King as long as he doesn’t levy taxes without representation, most women stayed in home, we had virtually no power in our military, villages had a huge degree of autonomy, and quite a few other things to what we have today.
For better and worse on various things, the original country is long gone.
For better and worse on various things, the original country is long gone.
Last edited:
But there's definite political continuity from 1776 to today. It would be like claiming that the Late Republic and the Dominate are not the same state because of their differences. Furthermore, at least theoretically, certain cornerstones exist, like the Constitution, that serve as a thread connecting us with that past.
The continuity argument strikes me as ignoring real change in favor of what the official state identity happens to be. Granted, I would agree the Holy Roman Empire's claim to the imperial mantle is not as strong as the Byzantine one, but was Constantine XI's rump city state really the same state as the Roman Republic of Lucius Junius Brutus? At what point does that formal continuity cease to have any relevance? There has to be a middle ground.
Separation of Church and State
Freedom of Speech/Press
"All men are created equal"
Limited government
Etc.
I don't want this to become a chat thread.
I once started writing a timeline where the British intervened in the American Civil War and the Confederates were able to obtain independence. American politics becomes extremely polarized between those wanting to take a hard line against the CSA and the western European powers and those supporting normalized relations. Revanchism defines the platform of the emerging veteran league-founded National Party, which absorbs the remnants of the Republicans over the course of the 1860s and 70s. In 1892 a populist former general with overwhelming support among the military gains the National nomination and wins the popular vote but loses in the electoral college, and refuses to concede the election. He leads an armed march on Washington and seizes the machinery of government. The military deposes governors and state legislators who refuse to recognize the National government. The Democrats are banned. The US becomes a dominant party illiberal democracy for 30 years. Of course the constitution is the same, but the courts and states cease to act as any kind of check on the government's power.
A lot of these "founding ideals" were interpreted more narrowly than you seem to think.
(1) The First Amendment's Establishment Clause only prohibited the federal government from legislating about church establishments. In other words, it prohibited the federal government from establishing a national church like the Church of England--but it also prohibited it from interfering with state establishments, which would still exist for years after the adoption of the Constitution. It wasn't until 1833 that Massachusetts abolished the last Church establishment (Congregationalist) in the US.
(2) Freedom of Speech/Press. A plausible case can be made that "freedom of the press" only prohibited prior restraints (Blackstone's conception) and that the Sedition Act was therefore constitutional. True, the Jeffersonians opposed this interpretation and eventually won the battle, but even they thought the states had the right to punish seditious libel and in fact Jefferson encouraged prosecution of some Federalist publications.
(3) "All men are created equal." Notoriously for many decades a large number of Americans thought this clause was perfectly compatible with slavery and for decades more that it was compatible with segregation and discrimination.
(4) Limited government. Again the Constitution put relatively few limits on the powers of state governments.
Actually, besides "it only applies to white people" there was an even more limited interpretation of the Declaration possible, as expressed by the conservative political scientist Willmoore Kendall, though it is a dubious one:
Willmoore Kendall
Willmoore Kendall: Maverick of American Conservatives provides the first book-length study of a man long regarded as a founding father of American intellectual conservatism. This edited collection brings together a diverse range of perspectives on Kendall's life and work and places the...
books.google.com
Maybe a coup at some point? (Although I don't know whether or not that was a real possibility).
All empires change to some extent, and they evolve over time. And formal continuity gives rise to different change than a break in that continuity, similar to how OTL post-Fourth Crusade Byzantine Empire would be different from a hypothetical empire that never suffered it. It is also useful to look at the institutions, culture, and society to determine continuity, and identity was also important. The beleaguered defenders of Constantinople in 1453 still saw themselves as Roman, and the past Byzantines that connection to great effect in their propaganda, and it shaped them in return, so I would say formal continuity decreases in importance over time, but it doesn't become completely irrelevant unless there is a definite break.
I think either the Business Plot succeeds, or that you get a socialist/communist revolution somehow.
I had wrote a Hamilton-wank post a while back where he gets the Elected Monarchy he wanted and basically becomes a king. Hamilton would probably be canny enough to keep things together during his lifetime, but the problem with concentrating a lot of power in one man is the vacuum that opens up after they die, and the second act that follows them. Sometimes you get someone else just as competent and it works out (eg Caesar/Augustus), but a lot of times it doesn't (eg Bismarck/Wilhelm II), or it just falls apart (eg post-Napoleonic France).
Say Hamilton dies around 1820 after a decade-plus of ruling as a President-king. His apparatus of government is all going to be packed with Federalists, and the Democrat base shrivels up after a decade or so of being pretty much non-competitive. All the original Founding Fathers are either gone or nearing the end of their line, so without that big-name opposition, the budding Federalist machine "nominates" a bunch of younger Federalist toadies to run for king (a funny phrase for sure..). This new King openly plays the patronage and politics game, the army starts cozying up to the only Commander in Chief they'll have for the next 30 years, and the Republic veers towards a one-party dictatorship.
Having one party permanently in power doesn't always mean you're going to get some kind of dystopian fascist nightmare - Mexico held it together OK for 80 years - but it does open the door to get pretty abusive. If you want a Protestant state church to disenfranchise the Catholic Irish that will start coming in the 19th century, you could do that. If you want to shut down your political enemies in the press, you could do that. Democrats claiming violation of their 1st Amendment rights won't get a very sympathetic ear in a court system packed with nothing but Federalist-appointed judges.
Say Hamilton dies around 1820 after a decade-plus of ruling as a President-king. His apparatus of government is all going to be packed with Federalists, and the Democrat base shrivels up after a decade or so of being pretty much non-competitive. All the original Founding Fathers are either gone or nearing the end of their line, so without that big-name opposition, the budding Federalist machine "nominates" a bunch of younger Federalist toadies to run for king (a funny phrase for sure..). This new King openly plays the patronage and politics game, the army starts cozying up to the only Commander in Chief they'll have for the next 30 years, and the Republic veers towards a one-party dictatorship.
Having one party permanently in power doesn't always mean you're going to get some kind of dystopian fascist nightmare - Mexico held it together OK for 80 years - but it does open the door to get pretty abusive. If you want a Protestant state church to disenfranchise the Catholic Irish that will start coming in the 19th century, you could do that. If you want to shut down your political enemies in the press, you could do that. Democrats claiming violation of their 1st Amendment rights won't get a very sympathetic ear in a court system packed with nothing but Federalist-appointed judges.
America's founding politics and ideals were a balance between Massachusetts and Virginia, roundheads and cavaliers, New England town square democracy and Virginia slaveowner democracy. To move away from that, kill the founding fathers of Boston and Virginia in the Revolutionary war- Sam Adams when British occupation of Boston goes wrong and the Brits kill everyone in Boston, Washington in battle, Jefferson doesn't escape when the Brits burn Monticello, so forth. The British abandon the smoking ruins and now- Bad Hamilton Strikes! From his tower of Mordor on the Hudson, Hamilton rules with an iron fist in an iron glove!
Or, okay, you could just whack Virginia or Boston harder and leave the other alone so there's an imbalance. Virginia without Boston reaches Wisconsin, all slave territory. Boston after the Brits trash Virginia resettles Virginia with dark satanic mills combining the worst of both slave plantations and early Industrial Revolution factories.
Or, okay, you could just whack Virginia or Boston harder and leave the other alone so there's an imbalance. Virginia without Boston reaches Wisconsin, all slave territory. Boston after the Brits trash Virginia resettles Virginia with dark satanic mills combining the worst of both slave plantations and early Industrial Revolution factories.