American Libertopia!

[Zyzzyva]

Well, no not really. But let's see...

The US Declaration of Independence includes the phrase "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the unanimous consent of the governed..." As a result, Albert Gallatin manages to handwave and scotchtape his way into dismantling the Constitution and reinstating the Articles of Congress in 1794. Then the Libertopia field turns off, and the USA has to deal with it's lack of central government like a grown-up country. What happens next?

(Alternately, if that POD doesn't work for you, the US never gets off the AoC in the first place.)

 

[David S Poepoe]

There is nothing really wrong with the AoC and its more than likely possible that the US could have continued with it. The various conventions held, ex. Annapolis, Philadelphia, could have lead to strengthening the weak points.

Its likely that some strengthening of the central government would occur in the aftermath of, say, the War of 1812. Tho, of course, the purchase of Louisiana is also another good thing to contemplate. New England considered secession over Jefferson's purchase since it would have lead to additional states in the Union.

 

[Raymann]

Never would have happened, the Founders would never have made a Constitution any fool could see was doomed to fail.

If they had for some reason done so then the US would be a very short lived country, the breakup would have happened as soon as discussion over the Northwest Territories came into play.

I'm a libertarian myself but L. Neil Smith got it wrong with that POD. I like weak Central governments but not too weak to stay together.

 

[Sigma7]

Never would have happened, the Founders would never have made a Constitution any fool could see was doomed to fail.

If they had for some reason done so then the US would be a very short lived country, the breakup would have happened as soon as discussion over the Northwest Territories came into play.

I'm a libertarian myself but L. Neil Smith got it wrong with that POD. I like weak Central governments but not too weak to stay together.

I wouldn't go so far as to say weak central government, the central government has to be strong for it's own enumerated powers (regulation of commerce, minting coin (hell, providing a standardized currency) and maintaining a strong national defense. For things like that, you need a strong central government.

I'd rather a smaller cental government, one that stays within the bounds of it's enumerated powers and leaves matters of the states TO the states.

You know, the exact opposite of what we have presently.

 

[Faeelin]

You know, one wonders if the author of that tract is aware of what happened to the Polish Sejm.

 

[Hendryk]

I can see a problem (among others) with the idea of everyone being allowed to print currency backed up by their own assets. What guarantee do the people taking the money have that said assets really exist? Not to mention that it would be ridiculously easy for a hostile foreign power (Britain, anyone?) to flood the country with fake money, resulting in economic chaos. After all, Britain did exactly that with the French assignats in the 1790s.

Now, something else that bugs me about The Probability Broach. How did America become this secular place where religion ceased to be either a political or a cultural factor? And in which racial prejudice faded away with such speed that there was a Cherokee president by 1840 and a Chinese one not long afterwards?

 

[superkuf]

You know, one wonders if the author of that tract is aware of what happened to the Polish Sejm.

To be fair the situations are very different. No nobility, no squeeze between three expanding powers etc. Also remember that a lot of the activities in NAC wasn't the result of government action, but voluntary work by individuals. NAC didn't join in WW1, but hundred of thousands inhabitants (since the concept of "citizen" doesn't exist in NAC) went to war, and in the end of the book a similar private-funded destabilisation campaign agains Earth was started.

 

[Spengler]

YOu do know that is actually quite unbelievable right? I mean hundreds of thousands of Americans taking part in the great war completely on their own volition? Don't make me laugh.

 

[stevep]

YOu do know that is actually quite unbelievable right? I mean hundreds of thousands of Americans taking part in the great war completely on their own volition? Don't make me laugh.

Not only that but those amateurs, with no experience of organised warfare or the necessary equipment and doctrine, manage to outfight the German army.

Steve

 

[Valdemar II]

Not only that but those amateurs, with no experience of organised warfare or the necessary equipment and doctrine, manage to outfight the German army.

Steve

Yes clearly the British and Russian played no part of WWII, we all remember the American liberation of Moscow and London.

 

[stevep]

Yes clearly the British and Russian played no part of WWII, we all remember the American liberation of Moscow and London.

Vlad

No, actually, in the book in question the war being waged is WWI. [Which is a farce in itself given a major POD in the 1780's that you still get something very similar to OTL WWI].

Steve