how big could this USA grow

How big could an USA along these lines grow.
1) Revolution includes upper and lower Canada and the Maritimes including Newfoundland Island
2)Slavery is dealt with early
3)no institutional racism of course there will be individual racism but free blacks then freedmen along with "civilized Indians" and other groups who find themselves in American territory are made citizens and have same rights as whites
4) a new founding father manages to convince the others that the best way to preserve their hard won liberty is through a policy of peace through strength
5) they are very expansionist
6) after the revolution the first major war is the eventually come to join the coalition against Napoleaon
 
How big could an USA along these lines grow.
1) Revolution includes upper and lower Canada and the Maritimes including Newfoundland Island
2)Slavery is dealt with early
3)no institutional racism of course there will be individual racism but free blacks then freedmen along with "civilized Indians" and other groups who find themselves in American territory are made citizens and have same rights as whites
4) a new founding father manages to convince the others that the best way to preserve their hard won liberty is through a policy of peace through strength
5) they are very expansionist
6) after the revolution the first major war is the eventually come to join the coalition against Napoleaon

Depends. Does it have to be democratic?

If you want it to be a representative democracy like OTL, I'd say the farthest it could expand (with ridiculous, but non-ASB levels of luck) is most of North America, the Philippines, a lot of smaller Pacific Islands (Guam, Marianas, Hawaii, etc.), and maybe Australia+NZ (again, assuming an insane amount of luck).

If you don't mind this ATL US being completely evil, then you could have it go on the warpath once it becomes a global power, conquering most of South America and large parts of Asia before finally being brought down by a coalition of European powers.

1) Very hard to pull off, but not impossible.
2) Hard to do without an earlier Civil War.
3) Not really possible. In the OTL pre-1900s South, you can either have slavery or institutional racism.
4) Isn't "peace through strength" the policy of every military in the world?
5) Easy. The US was already like that in OTL.
6) Very doable, and probably my favorite pre-1800 PoD. The US will probably end up with the Louisiana Territory (unless Britain nabs it first). If they're lucky, and Spain remains allied with France, American might even pick up California (just like in Blochead's Franco-American War of 1798 TL.
 
3) Not really possible. In the OTL pre-1900s South, you can either have slavery or institutional racism.

It's doable if you have an earlier boll weevil(say, 1790s) that causes slavery to never expand into cotton. Without King Cotton, slavery continues to grow unprofitable, with the slave states gradually abolishing slavery and the slaves being sold south, eventually to the Caribbean and Latin America. Though Alt-US would be less racist not due to enlightened thinking but solely because it's far more racially homogeneous(ie if alt-South Carolina in 1855 is 85% white as opposed to 40% white IOTL, there is no need for a repressive structure to be in place in order to maintain white supremacy).

Even that's a long shot. I don't know what to do about Native Americans, or the white ethnics whose immigrant labor would probably replace slavery in some parts of the country.
 
It's doable if you have an earlier boll weevil(say, 1790s) that causes slavery to never expand into cotton. Without King Cotton, slavery continues to grow unprofitable, with the slave states gradually abolishing slavery and the slaves being sold south, eventually to the Caribbean and Latin America. Though Alt-US would be less racist not due to enlightened thinking but solely because it's far more racially homogeneous(ie if alt-South Carolina in 1855 is 85% white as opposed to 40% white IOTL, there is no need for a repressive structure to be in place in order to maintain white supremacy).

Even that's a long shot. I don't know what to do about Native Americans.

The boll weevil might severely damage slavery, but there are plenty of crops that slaves were used for (mainly tobacco and rice). Virginia, North Carolina, and Tennessee were all dependent mainly on tobacco, not cotton, but they all cared about slavery enough to secede IOTL.
 
The boll weevil might severely damage slavery, but there are plenty of crops that slaves were used for (mainly tobacco and rice). Virginia, North Carolina, and Tennessee were all dependent mainly on tobacco, not cotton, but they all cared about slavery enough to secede IOTL.

Fair enough. Regardless, in order to get rid of slavery one must first get rid of the economic conditions that made slavery profitable. Maybe Europe is WAY more chaotic throughout the 17th-19th centuries, leading to a massive steady flow of indentured servants? Though this would cause serious butterflies that would probably prevent a US from existing in the first place.

EDIT: You'd probably also have to change the reason southern states rebelled from Britain in the first place. The North was dependent on commerce, so the British taxes and regulations hurt them. In the South, each plantation was more or less self-sufficient, except for certain luxury goods, so the new taxes and regulations didn't hurt them as much. What really made a lot of Southerners livid was when British authorities began to offer slaves freedom in exchange for fighting for the Regular Army. This meant that for half the country, the War of Independence was in part a defense of the right to own slaves. That would have to change if there was any hope of abolition in the US.
 
Last edited:
How big could an USA along these lines grow.
1) Revolution includes upper and lower Canada and the Maritimes including Newfoundland Island
2)Slavery is dealt with early
3)no institutional racism of course there will be individual racism but free blacks then freedmen along with "civilized Indians" and other groups who find themselves in American territory are made citizens and have same rights as whites
4) a new founding father manages to convince the others that the best way to preserve their hard won liberty is through a policy of peace through strength
5) they are very expansionist
6) after the revolution the first major war is the eventually come to join the coalition against Napoleaon
How expansionist could it possibly without institutional racism? The policy of taking land away from Native Americans is institutional racism.
 
How expansionist could it possibly without institutional racism? The policy of taking land away from Native Americans is institutional racism.

Good point. The Louisiana Territory and the Mexican Cession were both based on the idea that the people actually living there had no rights at all.
 
How expansionist could it possibly without institutional racism? The policy of taking land away from Native Americans is institutional racism.
Maybe no Indian Removal Act of 1830 makes the US look west for land instead of taking what was already there away from the Native Americans? If the US is even a little more respectful of Native American lands and reservations then they could push west faster and maybe look to take some more of what is the west coast of Canada OTL before Britain is able to really settle there. That and use the need for room to take more land from Mexico during the Mexican-American War or another future conflict.
 
I'm going to try to answer the original question - taking the initial POD's as read.

Easy to include:
All of the current USA
All of Canada
Bahamas
Bermuda
All of Mexico north of Durango, including all of Baja
Cuba
Panama
Most islands in the Pacific
Philippines

More of a stretch:
Rest of Mexico
Jamaica
Greenland
Belize
Guatemala
Fiji
Liberia

Pretty tough:
New Zealand
New Guinea
Australia
Iceland
Rest of Central America
Rest of the Caribbean
Galapagos
The Azores
 
1) Revolution includes upper and lower Canada and the Maritimes including Newfoundland Island

Probably all of OTL continental US and Canada…

2)Slavery is dealt with early

How early? “1820s Virginia emancipates” early?

…who find themselves in American territory…

Gonna have trouble taking territory from others at all, then.

4) a new founding father manages to convince the others that the best way to preserve their hard won liberty is through a policy of peace through strength

Not hard to imagine, but sort of hard to keep the US the US with that policy to the extreme.

5) they are very expansionist

As arbitrary as this is, as big as you want, then.

6) after the revolution the first major war is the eventually come to join the coalition against Napoleaon

Against? US takes the French islands in North America, then. GOOD LUCK WITH HAITI, GUYS.
 
Maybe no Indian Removal Act of 1830 makes the US look west for land instead of taking what was already there away from the Native Americans? If the US is even a little more respectful of Native American lands and reservations then they could push west faster and maybe look to take some more of what is the west coast of Canada OTL before Britain is able to really settle there. That and use the need for room to take more land from Mexico during the Mexican-American War or another future conflict.

....You do realize that the US looking west for land was also taking what was already there away from the Native Americans, right?
 
Easy to include:
All of the current USA
All of Canada
Bahamas
Bermuda
All of Mexico north of Durango, including all of Baja
Cuba
Panama
Most islands in the Pacific
Philippines

More of a stretch:
Rest of Mexico
Jamaica
Greenland
Belize
Guatemala
Fiji
Liberia

Pretty tough:
New Zealand
New Guinea
Australia
Iceland
Rest of Central America
Rest of the Caribbean
Galapagos
The Azores

I'd say that Greenland and Iceland are easy. They're nearly empty and strategic locations for military bases defending against trans-Atlantic or Arctic routes. Just as in WWII the US grabs them during a conflict but this time doesn't return them (in OTL the US tried to buy Greenland postwar). Same thing with the Galapagos and Azores.
 
I'd say that Greenland and Iceland are easy. They're nearly empty and strategic locations for military bases defending against trans-Atlantic or Arctic routes. Just as in WWII the US grabs them during a conflict but this time doesn't return them (in OTL the US tried to buy Greenland postwar). Same thing with the Galapagos and Azores.

Greenland certainly aren't that hard (as it for all intends and purposes were a colony), but Iceland is more of a tough sell (being a nation in itself that were ruled from europe)
 
Greenland certainly aren't that hard (as it for all intends and purposes were a colony), but Iceland is more of a tough sell (being a nation in itself that were ruled from europe)

If we're assuming that this version of the US is completely imperialist and not at all democratic, taking Iceland would be very easy. For most of its history, it only had a few thousand people. It would be no problem to just deport all the troublemakers to Denmark or Norway.
 
If we're assuming that this version of the US is completely imperialist and not at all democratic, taking Iceland would be very easy. For most of its history, it only had a few thousand people. It would be no problem to just deport all the troublemakers to Denmark or Norway.

Yep. During WWII the US soldiers stationed outside Reykjavik actually outnumbered the entire population of the capitol. On the whole island there was at one point 60,000 US soldiers to 120,000 Icelanders. It's kind of surprising that nobody has ever tried to conquer it actually. I guess until WWII it just wasn't worth the trouble.
 
Top