Challenge: America remains a relatively Isolationist Laissez-Faire Nation

Say, avoid the Federal Reserve, Income Tax, Trust Busting, ect, up until 1960. This doesn't apply to Civil Rights, just economic and foreign policy. Have the South get rid of Slavery willingly by 1880 as well.

With a POD of 1850, how can the United States avoid the Civil War, Progressive Era(Economically speaking), a United Nation and Republic, remain fairly uninterested in much of the rest of the world for that long, and have the South get rid of Slavery willingly by 1880.
 
Last edited:
Say, avoid the Federal Reserve, Income Tax, Trust Busting, ect, up until 1960. This doesn't apply to Civil Rights, just economic and foreign policy.

With a POD of 1890, how can the United States avoid the Progressive Era(Economically speaking) and remain fairly uninterested in much of the rest of the world for that long(and remain a Republic)?

1890 is pretty late for a POD for such a thing. You almost have to go back to the Civil War. That's where the restraints on potential federal power were removed, and once that happens, it almost is inevitable that "reformers" or "progressives" of some stripe will rise up to use this new power to push their own agendas.
 
1890 is pretty late for a POD for such a thing. You almost have to go back to the Civil War. That's where the restraints on potential federal power were removed, and once that happens, it almost is inevitable that "reformers" or "progressives" of some stripe will rise up to use this new power to push their own agendas.
Good point, I'll edit this a bit. Its pretty close to ASB to do it after the Lincoln presidency.
 
I have doubts you could get it to last that long, eventually you'll get a situation where the non-regulation of the markets leads to an economic collapse like the Great Depression or the current debacle.

Beyond that America, except for the early years has never been truly isolationist, rather until the 20th century it was simply that we focused all of our attention on the Western hemisphere and did intervene quite a bit, indirectly mostly, but occasionally directly.

To actually get the desired up until 1920-1930 (which is the latest you're gonna actually be able to get), you'd have to start off much earlier, like at the beginning of the nation, one thing one should'nt forget, the founding fathers were not economic Libertarians, they were a mixture of what we now understand as modern liberalism economically and social democratic leaning, that is they did'nt trust big private banks, nor the accumulation of a great deal of wealth to a small amount of people, so you're going to have to essentially change the founding fathers for the economic part.

As for foreign affairs, well if you manage to get a United States comprising all of North America, the European powers leaving the hemisphere and the Caribbean and South American nations all loyal to the US then you could get a truly isolationist US.
 
they were a mixture of what we now understand as modern liberalism economically and social democratic leaning.
I don't believe comparing a group that believed in no income taxes, slavery, and states rights can be compared to any modern party. Those 3 criterias are a bit too big.
 
Alright, they were small government proto-left of center social democrats.

I know they can't be compared exactly, but if you take modern ideologies and look at some of the stuff they espoused, you can see their are similarities, and not all of them necessarily believed in all of that either, which complicates things more.

I suppose it's simpler to just say they were the liberals of their day or something along those lines.
 
IMHO, you'd need the ASBs to sub in nonhumans. It goes against human nature for people to be so unacquisitive of their neighbors' turf and set their greed aside from slavery; I don't think those can be done atall. Real people are also really rebellious when they see the bad working conditions and economic unfairness of the Gilded Age, or when they see situations like today where it's the big guys at the top who've failed the rest of us.

Nor is it enough for the US to be unacquisitive, all the rest of the world would have to be as well, or we still'd need a sizeable military and keep our noses in other peoples' turf.

OTL, the US' never been majority isolationist; the isolationism FDR saw was strictly a political reaction to FDR, not a genuine movement, and it clearly had nothing like the majority, did it? And don't confuse Washington's no foreign entanglements with isolationism; he was talking about subservient alliances with the kind of power we are now. He was for trade, and never made Jefferson stay home and stop talking up, say, about his anti-Barbary-pirate naval alliance, hardly an isolationist idea.
 

Deleted member 5719

Didn't the US use heavy tariff barriers to protect its developing industries in the 19th century? We can hardly call that "Laissez faire".

To my knowledge, no country has ever industrialised in a Laissez Faire system.
 
Remain? The US was not a relatively isolationist, laissez-faire nation in the first place.

In 1790, the First Bank of the United States was proposed by the 1st US Secretary of the Treasury in the 1st session of the 1st Congress. The tenets of what came to be known as the American System or National System (federal banks, internal improvements, etc.) were supported by the Federalist, Whig, and Republican Parties and such men as Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, James Madison, John Adams, John Marshall, Henry Clay, John Calhoun, John Quincy Adams, and Daniel Webster.

Far from being isolationist, the US was expansionistic and often interventionist. Examples of expansionism are the Louisiana Purchase (under Thomas Jefferson), West Florida (under Madison), East Florida (by John Quincy Adams during the James Monroe administration), Texas annexation (under John Tyler), Mexican-American War (under James Polk), public willingness to fight Britain over Oregon, the Gadsden Purchase (under Franklin Pierce), and the failed Ostend Manifesto (by James Buchanan and others).

Examples of US interventionism start in 1804 during the first Barbary War with the US attempting to replace the ruler of Tripoli with a more friendly candidate and continue from there. Then there are government positions like the Monroe Doctrine and popular movements like Manifest Destiny.

So to make the US into laissez-faire, non-interventionist country, you’re probably going to have change or eliminate the views of all of these individuals and groups. Note that this abbreviated list includes half of the 1st US Cabinet, the 1st Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 10th, 11th, 14th, and 15th Presidents of the US.
 
Remain? The US was not a relatively isolationist, laissez-faire nation in the first place.

In 1790, the First Bank of the United States was proposed by the 1st US Secretary of the Treasury in the 1st session of the 1st Congress. The tenets of what came to be known as the American System or National System (federal banks, internal improvements, etc.) were supported by the Federalist, Whig, and Republican Parties and such men as Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, James Madison, John Adams, John Marshall, Henry Clay, John Calhoun, John Quincy Adams, and Daniel Webster.

Far from being isolationist, the US was expansionistic and often interventionist. Examples of expansionism are the Louisiana Purchase (under Thomas Jefferson), West Florida (under Madison), East Florida (by John Quincy Adams during the James Monroe administration), Texas annexation (under John Tyler), Mexican-American War (under James Polk), public willingness to fight Britain over Oregon, the Gadsden Purchase (under Franklin Pierce), and the failed Ostend Manifesto (by James Buchanan and others).

Examples of US interventionism start in 1804 during the first Barbary War with the US attempting to replace the ruler of Tripoli with a more friendly candidate and continue from there. Then there are government positions like the Monroe Doctrine and popular movements like Manifest Destiny.

So to make the US into laissez-faire, non-interventionist country, you’re probably going to have change or eliminate the views of all of these individuals and groups. Note that this abbreviated list includes half of the 1st US Cabinet, the 1st Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 10th, 11th, 14th, and 15th Presidents of the US.
Probably Washington, as Well ...

As Noted Above, he Just didn't Want The Young Country to be EVERYONE's Bitch ...

Also, he Allied with The French to Win The American Revolutionary War, in The First Place!

:p
 
Say, avoid the Federal Reserve, Income Tax, Trust Busting, ect, up until 1960. This doesn't apply to Civil Rights, just economic and foreign policy. Have the South get rid of Slavery willingly by 1880 as well.

With a POD of 1850, how can the United States avoid the Civil War, Progressive Era(Economically speaking), a United Nation and Republic, remain fairly uninterested in much of the rest of the world for that long, and have the South get rid of Slavery willingly by 1880.


Jesus Christ! Can't anyone actually answer the question being asked, without going all federal case on questioning the question?!:confused::p


In the spirit of the OP, regarding peacefull end of slavery, how about having JOhn Brown succeed at one of his buisness ventures, thus not trying to start a slave revolt, thus not encouraging the revitalization of southern militas, thus as the political map becomes more and more unfriendly to slavery, there is less of an mental and material preperation for war.

So they bitch, resist, push back, ect. but never attempt to seceed, and thus do not provoke vast expansion of federal power.

Also greatly reducing America's military sub-culture and expericance.

FOr a good start, I would think.:)
 
well there is no way for your OP to work -- some changes can be made.

The direct election of Senators was sold as a way to remove Big Money/Special Interests from Politics [whe know how well that worked :rolleyes:]
It was a hard sell at the state level who saw this as a hit on States Rights and Power.

The Income Tax was very unpopular, It was sold by pointing out that only The top 3% of income makers would ever be affected [Welcome to the Top 3% :D]

Many opponents of Prohibition, pointed out this was not a province of the Federal Government, and while the Prohibition Amendment was repealed the increase in Federal Power wasn't.

Whe can have the Supremes grow a backbone and rules that while FDR has the power to raise the price the Government buys and sells it's Gold & silver stockpiles, It is not allowed to steal the citizens private supplies.

a few changes like these will give you a more "Libertarian US" However given the way the individual states were moving you can't stop the reforms.
 
Top