Challenge: US skips ACW and goes straight to imperialism

Status
Not open for further replies.

Straha

Banned
How could you get a timeline where the united states skips the Civil war and goes into the age of imperialism in full force?
 
I do recall that a possible mission for Andrew Jackson after his incursion into, and essentially seizure of, Florida was to likewise annex Cuba. Cuba could then be a staging point for other similar incursions into Spanish-held islands in the Caribbean in the early-to-mid nineteenth century. However, this would probably also be a catalyst for a civil war, much like the annexation of Texas was in OTL. Spain allowed slavery at this time, so there would have been a number of slaves already on the islands, making their entry into the union as states controversial. So the Civil War wouldn't necessarily be skipped, just the order of imperialism vs. ACW just switched in time.

It would be pretty tough, generally speaking, to come up with a TL where the US didn't have a civil war and still had imperialism, as the ACW is what really established the supremacy of the federal government over the states. Without a strong central power, you can't really have much of an empire.

EDIT: I had an epiphany as soon as I clicked the "post" button. There were also fears that Andrew Jackson would have marched on Washington, DC, if they had censured him for his actions in FL (ala Napoleon). Jackson was wildly popular with the people, so if he had staged a coup, there may not have been a popular uprising against him. This would have allowed Jackson to center authority in Washington w/o a civil war, and then he could have launched incursions in any direction he chose to establish a true empire.
 
csa945 said:
I do recall that a possible mission for Andrew Jackson after his incursion into, and essentially seizure of, Florida was to likewise annex Cuba. Cuba could then be a staging point for other similar incursions into Spanish-held islands in the Caribbean in the early-to-mid nineteenth century. However, this would probably also be a catalyst for a civil war, much like the annexation of Texas was in OTL. Spain allowed slavery at this time, so there would have been a number of slaves already on the islands, making their entry into the union as states controversial. So the Civil War wouldn't necessarily be skipped, just the order of imperialism vs. ACW just switched in time.

It would be pretty tough, generally speaking, to come up with a TL where the US didn't have a civil war and still had imperialism, as the ACW is what really established the supremacy of the federal government over the states. Without a strong central power, you can't really have much of an empire.

EDIT: I had an epiphany as soon as I clicked the "post" button. There were also fears that Andrew Jackson would have marched on Washington, DC, if they had censured him for his actions in FL (ala Napoleon). Jackson was wildly popular with the people, so if he had staged a coup, there may not have been a popular uprising against him. This would have allowed Jackson to center authority in Washington w/o a civil war, and then he could have launched incursions in any direction he chose to establish a true empire.
hmm, interesting stuff. all hail Emperor Jackson!
 

Straha

Banned
Emperor seems too... european. A more plausible title for an american Autocrat could be "Chief"(blame POTUS P. diffin for that one).
 
Straha said:
Emperor seems too... european. A more plausible title for an american Autocrat could be "Chief"(blame POTUS P. diffin for that one).

I would think he might just keep the old title, president. With as comparatively few people that were allowed to vote back then, I doubt many people would even notice the difference as long as he keeps the rights from the Bill of Rights in place -- even if he officially does away with the constitution.
 
Something about Jackson makes me think that we would actually be quite a populist and may even focus on assimalating the Indians a la Canada, instead of killing them outright. But then again, he did have the trail of tears, but was that more the state of Georgia kicking the Natives out or was that the Federal Government? He was a populist so even if he did oppose it he wouldn't have stood in the way, he'd rather have given the people what they wanted. I think of that Indian kid he adopted. I also could see him kicking the Spanish out of this Hemisphere all together with possible English support, if he can personally got over the injustice done to him during the ARW when a British cavalier officer cut his face with his saber after a young Andy Jackson refused to shine his boots.
 
Superdude said:
Or he just suspends Congress while he gets fixes the USA, as he would say.

Knowing Jackson, his idea of "fixing" the USA would be to end property qualifications for voting and maybe, just maybe, allow direct election of Senators (though that's doubtful without the egregious corruption in the Senate to get people to forget the intent of the Senate is to represent the States, not the people).

He would thus end up with a wildly pro-Jackson Congress. No need to be dictator after that.
 
Here's a thought:

Perhaps, to have imperialism without a supreme Federal gov't, you can have the states do a little "freelance imperialism" on their own.

Say, Mexico collapses into civil war. The state gov't of California, perhaps using cross-border banditry as an excuse, occupies Baja California. Texas could do the same with some of the more lightly-populated regions of northern Mexico. The states all had militias in those days, which later formed the core of the Civil War armies, so they must have been capable.

If the territories taken are small (esp. in the case of Baja California), they can be incorporated directly into the state.
 
Three problems I see with this. The first is that we're still talking about the early American Republic. No matter how popular a politician might be, they weren't going to allow a coup that would destroy their democratic republic, especially since they had just fought a second war where it was feared that Britain, and therefore the British crown, would reconquer the US. Second, the American people and many of the Founders had a deep-seeded fear of military despotism. Lastly, Jackson himself was a staunch supporter of limited government (though he did oppose nullification). Just take a look at his reasons for opposing the Second National Bank.

Looking at which personalities you could tap for this type of scenario, It is surprisingly hard to create an early American dictatorship with out some major deviations, though personalities like Burr or possibly Hamilton offer some possibility.
 
Last edited:

Dirk_Pitt

Banned
Something about Jackson makes me think that we would actually be quite a populist and may even focus on assimalating the Indians a la Canada, instead of killing them outright. But then again, he did have the trail of tears, but was that more the state of Georgia kicking the Natives out or was that the Federal Government? He was a populist so even if he did oppose it he wouldn't have stood in the way, he'd rather have given the people what they wanted. I think of that Indian kid he adopted. I also could see him kicking the Spanish out of this Hemisphere all together with possible English support, if he can personally got over the injustice done to him during the ARW when a British cavalier officer cut his face with his saber after a young Andy Jackson refused to shine his boots.

It wasn't the State of Georgia OR the Federal Government: It was Jackson. There was a supreme court case about the issue. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the indians. Jackson ignored them and ordered their removal anyway. Jackson was a real bastard.

State Governments getting their imperialistic freak on is a no go. That was clearly defined in the Consititution. Maybe have more successful Jackson-like generals making Florida-like conquests.

Also Jackson capturing Cuba is ASB.
 
An idea that I have is that Jackson declares himself "consul" and then maybe if the CSA trys to split away he could have two consuls similar to the situation with the Eastern and Western Roman Empires.
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top