America keeps most of its economic and immigration policies going for a while longer

MAlexMatt

Banned
Yes, because the Founders feared a large army was a menace to civil liberties and that as such too many soldiers could not be trusted, armies were thus evil.

Indeed. Traditional English mistrust of standing military establishments expressed on American shores.

you might possibly keep the USA out of the world wars, but mainly by the actions of others... Germany will have to go the extra mile to placate the USA in WW1, Japan will have to not attack at Pearl Harbor, Hitler will have to restrict his war in Europe, etc. The main problem is that the USA is increasingly tied up in the global economy after 1900, importing and exporting, and with that comes the need to have friends overseas (which invariably leads to having enemies overseas), and to protect your lines of communication and trade. The USA can stay out of the world's conflicts only if you prevent the rise of such powers as Nazi Germany, the USSR, etc., powers that want to be big on the world stage. Basically, everyone will have to act as the USA does, being concerned solely with economic issues and no international aggression. That's tough to achieve...

The US was very tied into international trade more or less from the beginning. A large component of the annual harvest was exported and hundreds of thousands depended on this export for their livelihoods even in the early 19th century.

The issue surrounding WWI was that, for the first time, the US was becoming a major creditor to the warring powers, meaning the politically powerful financier class suddenly had a serious interest in 'bailing out' one of the sides in the war which they would have pursued with vigor no matter who was elected President in 1912 and 1916. That's why I said it was important to push WWI back altogether, not just US involvement in the war (which is almost inevitable if you've got a Federal Reserve Act in 1913 and a war any time after that).

Wilson Progressivism was about as conservative of reform as you can get. It would be ASB to attempt to preserve the literal status quo without some major butterflies at the founding of the Republic or at the end of the Civil War.

The whole Progressive movement puts the lie to the left-right scale of things. Wilson was a serious centralizer who set the stage for the changes that came after, from the Immigration Reforms of the 20's to the more radical changes of the 30's, and everything else since. Without that foundation to build on, the 19th century status quo, or at least a recognizable variant thereof, can continue indefinitely.
 
The US had the largest economy in the world by 1900 IIRC.
SOmething witch is completly irrelevent to the reality that we had an army and navy smaller than ITALY!

Why? no income taxes, no way to pay for an army that would actually be able to defend us from a 20th century agresssor.

This would have placed us at the mercy of anyone ith and expiditionary navy and the desire to get them a piece of the largest economy i nthe world.

SO your point is well taken, thank you for pointing out to the rest of us that the United States was a REALLY juicy target with a really TINY military, and no economic framework to build a real army.
 

MAlexMatt

Banned
SOmething witch is completly irrelevent to the reality that we had an army and navy smaller than ITALY!

Why? no income taxes, no way to pay for an army that would actually be able to defend us from a 20th century agresssor.

This would have placed us at the mercy of anyone ith and expiditionary navy and the desire to get them a piece of the largest economy i nthe world.

SO your point is well taken, thank you for pointing out to the rest of us that the United States was a REALLY juicy target with a really TINY military, and no economic framework to build a real army.

Everyone with any real influence anywhere understood just how stupid it would be to poke the US in the eye, small army or no small army. Everyone remembered the three million soldiers that popped up out of the soil to serve in the US Civil War.

This is seriously a stupid point. The lesson of the 19th century was that, at least in the context of the times, a standing army wasn't necessary for the US and was mostly useful as a tool for power hungry imperialists to push around other, weaker nations.
 
Everyone with any real influence anywhere understood just how stupid it would be to poke the US in the eye, small army or no small army. Everyone remembered the three million soldiers that popped up out of the soil to serve in the US Civil War.

This is seriously a stupid point. The lesson of the 19th century was that, at least in the context of the times, a standing army wasn't necessary for the US and was mostly useful as a tool for power hungry imperialists to push around other, weaker nations.
Really?

Really?

Do you have any idea how kind and gentle history has been to the AMericans over the past 100 years, sir?

Do you have any idea how long it would take to raise an army in a defensive war.

It took MONTHS not weeks to raise the Union Army that waged the war between the states and in a 20th century war on our own soil there is absolutly no guaruntee we would have that kind of time.

And by the evidence of both spain in 1898 and the Mexican incursion into New Mexico in 1912 not EVERYONE got that memo.

And by the way calling my point stupid does NOT alter the fact that an export level economy such as the U.S> HAS to protect its sea lanes and trade routs doesn't it?

Navies are bloody expensive, sir.
 

MAlexMatt

Banned
Really?

Really?

Do you have any idea how kind and gentle history has been to the AMericans over the past 100 years, sir?

Do you have any idea how long it would take to raise an army in a defensive war.

It took MONTHS not weeks to raise the Union Army that waged the war between the states and in a 20th century war on our own soil there is absolutly no guaruntee we would have that kind of time.

And by the evidence of both spain in 1898 and the Mexican incursion into New Mexico in 1912 not EVERYONE got that memo.

And by the way calling my point stupid does NOT alter the fact that an export level economy such as the U.S> HAS to protect its sea lanes and trade routs doesn't it?

Navies are bloody expensive, sir.

Do you have any idea the kind of logistical preparations there would be necessary to launch a trans-Atlantic invasion strong enough to overwhelm the part-time defensive force of the militias and (after 190...3?) the National Guard units?

Do you realize the kind of international diplomatic situation that would have to arise for such a thing to be even thinkable to major shot-callers back then?

Such a situation would be seen coming from years, not months or weeks, away. It's not like the Kaiser can just up and decide to land 100,000 troops in New York Harbor (no matter that, laughably, these plans were actually made). You would need MILLIONS of soldiers to even HOPE to permanently occupy even a portion of the Americana mainland, total war mobilization, and you would be risking the entire force being cut off and destroyed in coming years.

Seriously, I called your protest stupid because it IS stupid. It shows total and complete ignorance of the realities of the 19th century and 20th century. Even today the most globalized military force out there (The US military) needs local bases and allies to invade a piddling little nation like Iraq. In order to invade and topple the US government in an alt-1940 where the 19th century status quo is more or less preserved, you would need to have both Canada and Mexico on your side, the capacity to prepare for the invasion (a process YEARS in the making) without the Americans noticing (That is, you would need the ability to do the impossible), and you would need to make damned sure the US never either built its own navy or got allies who could seriously contest the seas with you because your logistical train across the Atlantic is a pipeline made of glass.
 
O.K.

Fair enough, please forgive me for uttering my stupid opinion in the face of your impeccable logic. it won't happen again.

You are right and I am wrong, and Things like income taxes and central banks and federal treasuries are evil.

Yes, it's all so very clear to me, now, my carree as a soldier for 20 years was based on a tremendous lie and I ought to be quite properly ashamed of having defended those evil terrible warlike imperialists.

(SARCASM!!!!!!!!!!!)
 
I'm going to take a middle point with military spending.

While the US doesn't need a large army because, yes, it's IMPOSSIBLE to invade the US logistically. Anyone justifying large militaries through that excuse seriously needs to learn logistics.

With that in mind, I don't see the US not funding a huge navy unless you're going to stop it from being imperialist, which just isn't possible.
 
The United States is an Empire. everything we have and enjoy is a direct benefit of that imperial status.

That imperial status means we have imperial expences.

If we wish to give up all of those imperial benefits, then yes, we can forgoe those imperial benefits.

"If I must live i na world of Empires and those at the mercy of Empires, I would much prefer to be an Empire"--Abraham Lincoln paraphrased.
 

MAlexMatt

Banned
O.K.

Fair enough, please forgive me for uttering my stupid opinion in the face of your impeccable logic. it won't happen again.

You are right and I am wrong, and Things like income taxes and central banks and federal treasuries are evil.

Yes, it's all so very clear to me, now, my carree as a soldier for 20 years was based on a tremendous lie and I ought to be quite properly ashamed of having defended those evil terrible warlike imperialists.

(SARCASM!!!!!!!!!!!)

Pointless sarcasm is perhaps the only dumber argument.
 
Perhaps, however the US will inevitably engage in Imperialism, which will require a navy, and from which will require higher taxes, with all that brings with it.

This isn't even getting into the changes that Unions and the like are going to force through, because really, no, the US can't, despite what some may wash, stay static in the 19th century.
 
The whole Progressive movement puts the lie to the left-right scale of things. Wilson was a serious centralizer who set the stage for the changes that came after, from the Immigration Reforms of the 20's to the more radical changes of the 30's, and everything else since. Without that foundation to build on, the 19th century status quo, or at least a recognizable variant thereof, can continue indefinitely.

I know you are getting a lot of responses but just to throw my two cents into this one.

You are correct Progressives are almost impossible to put on the left and right scale as they were both sorts of Progressives. During the 1912 election every party ran as a form of progressive (Wilson and TR versions of course but also Prohibition Progressives and Socialists Progressives as weird as that sounds). Wilson I would argue was not as much as a centralizer. After all his Federal Reserve system was one of the most conservative reform plans put out there. Bryan of course wanted a centralized public bank but instead we got a decentralized Federal Reserve that is privately owned (though to be fair the original design had a compromise to the Bryan faction and included two public officials on the board so not the most conservative). The true growth of the Federal government lies with TR, who was a believer of big government and big market, who set the foundation. However given the poor economic conditions (due to in part the small amount of gold creating deflationary pressure on the economy) during this time the creation of a similar foundation is quite likely. After all voters were both fed up with the parties and the protest vote was going to the Socialists before the Progressive Party.

Thus it is possible to get slightly more conservative reform (ie. the Aldrich Plan for the Federal Reserve) but not much more conservative then Wilson. Also state Progressive efforts (occurring earlier then Federal reforms beginning under TR) would eventually create a federal *Progressive governments.
 
O.K., so The U.S. keeps her economic policies fro mthe lat 19th century intact with no change.

What does this mean?

Well it means she simply can't have a large proffesiona army.

EVER.

It also means she may not be able to afford a large moder navy reletive o the other empires.

That limits the AMerican's influence rather a lot. She may be a big economy, but she doesn't have the sheer brute force to enforce any of ther international wishes.

When she does percieve a real threat she'll have to resort to conscription of the general population in order to generate a large defensive force to face the agressor. She can do it, but in the short term in each and every case it will be horribly expensive.

And there WILL be occasional threats requiring this rapid and drastic force expansion.

Now, the U.S> as I mentioned won't have too much pull in terms of breaking her import goods into other overseas markets. This is a causualty of her persistent isolationism. She'll have some but other countries can impose import tarrifs on American goods at any amount they please. After all, what are the Yankees going to do about it, throw a snit from across their two precious oceans with a marginal Navy only large enough to police their own waters?

The U.S> won't get too much practice fighting modern wars, so when it does come up, and it will, the U.S> will pay a far higher price in blood than she otherwise might have had to.

Every time there is a war that directly concerns the United States.

ANd only a fecklessly naivee fool believes that no other major empire will have interest that comflict directly with the trading interests of the United States.
 
Starting from scratch for every war".

So, The O.P. wants the U.S. to have a nineteenth century tax structure and economy up until World War Two.

O.K., wel lthat means no income tax and no large standing forces in peacetime.

It also means no public works or major infrastructure improvement.

That's going to be, kind of a problem for us as the rest of the world moves forward.

You fellah's realize that we're talking about no major electrification of at least a thirds of the country, right?

I mean sure, the east coast might modernize, sort of, but that's only in pockets.

Most of the country will still have 19th century roads, no power and small towns with backward road and rail networks funded largly for the benefit of corporate and industrial trusts.

Also, no nationwide education.

That one is REALLY going to sting, sirs.

I mean sure, most towns wil lhave their "Little red schoolhouse, but that won't apply to a crapload of kids living in the poorer sections of the East coast and southwest.

Guys, we're talking about a lot of kids never learing how to read or write.

That means when wars happen and they will when the U.S> has to scratchbuild yet another Army many of their conscripted recruits aren't even going to know how to read or cypher their numbers.

That will creat it's own problems as the guys you're trying to draft cannot read their draft notices.

This will result i na severely retarded(Pardon the awful pun) United States population.
 
Top