Augustine Sedira
Banned
Somehow the USA has conquered/absorbed every inch of land and every inch of water. Let's make a realistic map of this world based on American rules for state creation etc.
Let's Make the United States of the World
- Thread starter Augustine Sedira
- Start date
SuperZtar64
Banned
Well, there's a lot to be said here.
What's the POD, specifically? If we could get that down we could get some ideas.
Moreover, what are these "American rules for state creation"?
Augustine Sedira
Banned
Maybe the Americans take the Monroe Doctrine one step further and state that the whole of the Americas must be under a single republic. Meanwhile, the concept of Liberia is put on steroids and the Americans attempt to carve out vast colonies to settle the African Americans after 'peacefully convincing them'. The Americans seize Japan and Korea to 'civilize them' and begin conquering countries not under the Europeans to 'save them from imperialism'. Finally, as the European empires collapse, the Americans seize their colonies and eventually seizes the whole of Europe. Finally, the whole world is under American control.
Of course, there might be better paths to America spreading over the whole world. I'm more interested in how it would look though and the cultural/social impact. Now that I think about it, we will need to have the history sorted to look at the social/cultural impacts.
SuperZtar64
Banned
It would definitely be ASB for sure, but an America Conquers the World Timeline would be honestly incredible - too bad the only one on the site isn't finished yet.
An American Empire plan like that would be pretty much infeasible until after the Civil War tho.
Augustine Sedira
Banned
Were it not for the fact that I'm not that knowledgeable on domestic American history and politics, I'd do such a TL. Though we could look at a broader view of such a TL.
I'd argue that this alternate United States views itself as a nation that must liberate the masses of the world through a global revolution of sorts. Maybe they start out with the Americas first and go from there? I think Simon Bolivar actually wanted Latin America and the US to unite into a singular republic, so if the former Spanish colonial empire could somehow be "annexed" into the United States you're already off to a good start.
I highly suggest looking at the timelines "Land of Freedom" and "Shield of Liberty" for ideas on this topic. Not only do both scenarios deal with an America-esque nation conquering all of Africa, but they also offer up some good ideas, such as associate states and connections with other large empires.
I highly suggest looking at the timelines "Land of Freedom" and "Shield of Liberty" for ideas on this topic. Not only do both scenarios deal with an America-esque nation conquering all of Africa, but they also offer up some good ideas, such as associate states and connections with other large empires.
Might suggest @Big Tex and his timeline Empire of Liberty, which is the (4th?) iteration of good old Ameriwank.
Of course, your question becomes this: is this a multilevel and fairly realistic attempt at a multilayered federation of federations inspired and based on the US system, but more multitiered and different from OTL?
Or are you imagining a system where there is D I R E C T R U L E F R O M D C and the US remains a single tier republic, with the subnational units being sovereign states, with them divided into counties or similar that are not?
Augustine Sedira
Banned
I feel bad for Bolivar and the Hispanics. They could have turned into a superpower like the USA but Spanish management of the colonies meant that they couldn't. Thanks for the recommendations, will definitely look at them.
I'm wondering, how do we overcome the racials divide between the Americans and the Hispanics?
Augustine Sedira
Banned
It is more of the latter. The USA takes over and divides the world into states and territories. However, it might be possible for there to be federations of states within the USA. However, direct rule from DC would be preferrable.
Augustine Sedira
Banned
Was going through American history and I have some concepts.
1. In 1805, Eaton gets his way and Hamet is placed in charge of Libya. This begins Tripoli's path to becoming an American puppet.
2. In 1808, the Second Barbary War breaks out due to the Barbary reaction to heavy American involvement in the region. Algeria has their governments overthrown and they essentially develop into puppets the same way Tripoli is. Would this butterfly away the War of 1812? If it still happens, would greater importance placed on the navy by the Americans cause any major changes? Will Washington DC be saved from burning?
3. In the 1830s and 1840s, the Americans involve themselves in Sumatra to stop Sumatran pirates. This results in a puppet state in northern Sumatra.
4. In the 1840s, the Americans seize Ivory Coast as part of Liberia following an expedition against native tribes.
5. What if in 1826, the Latin World unites with the USA and due to luck and republican fervour, this survives and after a few decades, becomes a solid system.
1. In 1805, Eaton gets his way and Hamet is placed in charge of Libya. This begins Tripoli's path to becoming an American puppet.
2. In 1808, the Second Barbary War breaks out due to the Barbary reaction to heavy American involvement in the region. Algeria has their governments overthrown and they essentially develop into puppets the same way Tripoli is. Would this butterfly away the War of 1812? If it still happens, would greater importance placed on the navy by the Americans cause any major changes? Will Washington DC be saved from burning?
3. In the 1830s and 1840s, the Americans involve themselves in Sumatra to stop Sumatran pirates. This results in a puppet state in northern Sumatra.
4. In the 1840s, the Americans seize Ivory Coast as part of Liberia following an expedition against native tribes.
5. What if in 1826, the Latin World unites with the USA and due to luck and republican fervour, this survives and after a few decades, becomes a solid system.
Need US to become a lot more internationalist and invested in the Middle East (as in making it a permanent station). I'm not well sure that it would result in a puppet situation. Someone more knowledgeable might correct me, but even if he became a puppet, his situation would be incredibly unstable. Though, that could preclude further American involvement in the region.
Though, here, yes. you can have potential US influence. In a WorldRaj analogy, the natural initial division is Tripolitania and Cyrenaica.... Or just have it remain a territory that is expanded over time into the Sahara, and eventually divided up later.
Have to be careful against too much intervention in the region, as the US isn't really prepared for actually putting any investment
And the best way to encourage a larger America is to eliminate Canada (essentially eliminating any pressure from the North that could result in a potential threat). That is best accomplished with a disastrous revolution (for the British), losing everything then. But if you want a Constitutional US as we know it, then War of 1812 would be the best time. (but requires actual American investment in the war in the leadup).
Though, so long as the barbary states no longer conduct piracy, what does the US gain out of doing more like keeping them as puppets.
-
I feel like you might be missing Quasi-War opportunities for the US. But the biggest issue is how is your US more militaristic? (Typically a Federalist US is needed, and one that is willing to support a standing army... which the US was opposed to OTL).
One way may mean successes lead to successes, granted. Just thinking out loud.
Is this reference the US ExEx? Not sure the US has the capability to reach this far on anything permanent... Especially as the US is just getting to the Oregon country. The earliest example of US annexation attempts in the Pacific is the Marquesas Islands in 1813 during the War of 1812, but that fell through. The ports of call for the US ExEx could become in this map to be the center of American territories/states.
Also... Just hazarding a guess, but North Sumatra (Aceh?) is the most heavily Muslim segment of Sumatra if I recall correctly. It would be very difficult to maintain it as a territory.
If you're looking at introduction of the US into Indonesia, I'd suggest looking at the failure of the American North Borneo Company, which founded a colony independent of the US government that lasted about 9 months. It's a very tordied history, involving a rather delusional US consul, etc. It had no government support or recognition at all, mind, so this is hardly official. It was about a dozen Americans, a lot of hired Chinese laborers, and a desperate search for gold. It's a more natural point of entry, I feel.
Liberia was not an American colony - it was a colonization attempt independent of government sponsorship but run by Americans (hence the difference).
Also, OTL, as the Republic of Maryland (Maryland-in-Africa) claimed what is now the Southwestern Corner of the Ivory Coast. So, if we assume that Liberia is a US territory in this map, then Maryland-in-Africa could be a good chunk of western Cote de Ivorie.
Probably very ASB - which is fine if you're going with it. It depends on which countries join the US, and if they join as states or in a confederation. It would really alter US history if Mexico joined this confederation, as that alters some western expansion (though, we might see a Texas and such that could transfer. Or, again, perhaps it doesn't. could go either way.
For a US style though, then yes, Texas to the US in some way.
-
Not trying to be too critical, but you just need to decide how ASB you want it too. If ASB, that's perfectly fine. Just need to recognize that from the start.
One idea I had was to have it be a loose confederation, with multiple members having expansionary biases. Thank a United Republic of Brazil, Portugal, and the Algarves having their own expansion going on, driving US expansion... but maybe that's not what you are interested in, which is fine. Just trying to throw out ideas.
-
I'm reminded of the WorldRaj here. Is this what you're trying to emulate? If so, don't worry about reality too much then, and have fun.
Also, American states would have plenty of straight lines, but not overly arbitrary there need to be good reasons and divisions and lots of politicking on who gets what where.
Augustine Sedira
Banned
Very interesting points. In terms of how ASB it is, it's pretty ASB but I'd like to keep it somewhat based in reality.
Augustine Sedira
Banned
Would a victory at Quebec in 1775 allow Canada to gain independence as part of the US including Quebec? When would the Revolutionary War end in such a timeline and where will the settlers be settled? South Africa?
I think what would be most important is for the US to maintain complete control of the great Lakes post revolutionary war. Even if it doesn't mean that Quebec is taken, it means that the US controls the main vector for settlement of the majority of the Canadian interior. At that point, they only have to continue to maintain that as well in order to continue settlement of the interior and maintain de facto control over the continent.
Say, West Nova Scotia (vs New Brunswick) is also taken by the Americans, leaving the British with Nova Scotia proper, Newfoundland, PEI, and Quebec. The US doesn't get Florida, but in addition to what they received OTL, they receive the watershed boundaries for the Great Lakes.
Nothing really changes until the late 1790s, with revolutionary France being extremely hamfisted in treatment of the US. Spain closes off New Orleans as per OTL, and France acquires Louisiana. It comes out that France has taken back the territory. No Convention is ever signed with France, and US troops are mobilized - they instead take the key territories of Louisiana themselves, mostly New Orleans and St. Louis. The Money spent on that is, instead, used to help build up the Navy, which then goes on to make several daring escapades, up to and including the seizure of the remaining French territory in the New World (Federalists basically remain in power somehow).
From here, the US maintains a border with South America and several richer islands in the Caribbean. The ownership of these islands, their tariffs, and the need to police their larger realm leads to the US maintaining a larger armed forces in general (more than OTL). This can lead to more success in future Barbary Wars, such as they may be... and likely assist in an alt-War of 1812 (Butterfly nets, ho!)
Said alt-1812, with a more prepared US and much less exposure of the interior to the British, is able to move and take East Nova Scotia and PEI, while Quebec is partially overrun, it is returned to Britain in exchange for some of the islands the British had taken from the US. (Though gallant I'm sure, I don't want to say the US wins every naval battle and stops the Royal Navy every time)
Still, This continues onward. The US negotiates better treaties, not promising the states and the natives the same tracts of land. These treaties with the civilized tribes, very very hopefully, encourage faster western immigration, as more eastern land is "locked up" in tribal areas for loyal natives.
The US's performance, and its faster western encroachment, leads to them pressing hard with the Spanish, and they get the most extreme claim possible - a Rio Grande to 37th Parallel border, putting San Francisco bay and all of Texas into American territory from the onset, and creating a pacific port with which they do not dispute with Britain.
From that point on, you can set up your proposed United Americas after the Spanish colonies begin to rebel, with it being an organization of Federal Republics in the Western Hemisphere, with Constitutions based similar to the US, to be set up. This way, the various republics can, in the long run, be directly integrated into each other and following similar circumstances, while not tying down all the states into a singular foreign policy scheme.
Say, West Nova Scotia (vs New Brunswick) is also taken by the Americans, leaving the British with Nova Scotia proper, Newfoundland, PEI, and Quebec. The US doesn't get Florida, but in addition to what they received OTL, they receive the watershed boundaries for the Great Lakes.
Nothing really changes until the late 1790s, with revolutionary France being extremely hamfisted in treatment of the US. Spain closes off New Orleans as per OTL, and France acquires Louisiana. It comes out that France has taken back the territory. No Convention is ever signed with France, and US troops are mobilized - they instead take the key territories of Louisiana themselves, mostly New Orleans and St. Louis. The Money spent on that is, instead, used to help build up the Navy, which then goes on to make several daring escapades, up to and including the seizure of the remaining French territory in the New World (Federalists basically remain in power somehow).
From here, the US maintains a border with South America and several richer islands in the Caribbean. The ownership of these islands, their tariffs, and the need to police their larger realm leads to the US maintaining a larger armed forces in general (more than OTL). This can lead to more success in future Barbary Wars, such as they may be... and likely assist in an alt-War of 1812 (Butterfly nets, ho!)
Said alt-1812, with a more prepared US and much less exposure of the interior to the British, is able to move and take East Nova Scotia and PEI, while Quebec is partially overrun, it is returned to Britain in exchange for some of the islands the British had taken from the US. (Though gallant I'm sure, I don't want to say the US wins every naval battle and stops the Royal Navy every time)
Still, This continues onward. The US negotiates better treaties, not promising the states and the natives the same tracts of land. These treaties with the civilized tribes, very very hopefully, encourage faster western immigration, as more eastern land is "locked up" in tribal areas for loyal natives.
The US's performance, and its faster western encroachment, leads to them pressing hard with the Spanish, and they get the most extreme claim possible - a Rio Grande to 37th Parallel border, putting San Francisco bay and all of Texas into American territory from the onset, and creating a pacific port with which they do not dispute with Britain.
From that point on, you can set up your proposed United Americas after the Spanish colonies begin to rebel, with it being an organization of Federal Republics in the Western Hemisphere, with Constitutions based similar to the US, to be set up. This way, the various republics can, in the long run, be directly integrated into each other and following similar circumstances, while not tying down all the states into a singular foreign policy scheme.
Augustine Sedira
Banned
Very interesting timeline you propose. However, I didn't exactly get your point on the Revolutionary War POD. Mind producing a quick map so I can better visualize it?
I don't have a particular PoD, mind, but it's more "the US does better and gets more at the end". The point on West Nova Scotia is more that the US manages to sieze New Brunswick, but New Brunswick didn't exist at the time, so I used a placeholder name.
As for the watershed boundary, I'll put this here (my good maps are on my desktop and this hopefully will do).
In OTL, the US would manage to get the border essentially bisecting Lake Ontario, Huron, and Superior, some exceptions made, and Freedom of Navigation on the lakes was important as American and British ships could sail up them, eventually resulting in more internal migration for the British into the West.
However, say the US owns all of the Great Lakes Watershed (follow the northern New York Border to the start of the St. Lawrence, then follow the yellow border to purple to orange and then to Minnesota's border; ignore the green). Once the US possesses that, the lakes would become internal waterways, with the US essentially plying them at will, and with reduced British presence.
This also means that 1. the migrants from the US to Ontario (not Loyalists, those later on) would be oing into a territory that would become a state, rather than leaving for Canada. 2. The British will have less power projection ability in the lakes, and will be much less effective in actually sponsoring Native tribes to act against the US. This should butterfly Tecumseh, in a sense. 3. Fewer migrants into the Plains Provinces, so the British cannot develop that, or their Oregon Country claims, as much as OTL.
Note that watershed borders are normal - the border between the Old Northwest and Rupert's Land was delineated by the Red River Watershed. However, watersheds are incredibly hard to mark in real life, which lead to later conventions to mark a straight line border. Here, the same thing would likely happen later on, but the US would maintain control of the Lakes
As for the watershed boundary, I'll put this here (my good maps are on my desktop and this hopefully will do).
In OTL, the US would manage to get the border essentially bisecting Lake Ontario, Huron, and Superior, some exceptions made, and Freedom of Navigation on the lakes was important as American and British ships could sail up them, eventually resulting in more internal migration for the British into the West.
However, say the US owns all of the Great Lakes Watershed (follow the northern New York Border to the start of the St. Lawrence, then follow the yellow border to purple to orange and then to Minnesota's border; ignore the green). Once the US possesses that, the lakes would become internal waterways, with the US essentially plying them at will, and with reduced British presence.
This also means that 1. the migrants from the US to Ontario (not Loyalists, those later on) would be oing into a territory that would become a state, rather than leaving for Canada. 2. The British will have less power projection ability in the lakes, and will be much less effective in actually sponsoring Native tribes to act against the US. This should butterfly Tecumseh, in a sense. 3. Fewer migrants into the Plains Provinces, so the British cannot develop that, or their Oregon Country claims, as much as OTL.
Note that watershed borders are normal - the border between the Old Northwest and Rupert's Land was delineated by the Red River Watershed. However, watersheds are incredibly hard to mark in real life, which lead to later conventions to mark a straight line border. Here, the same thing would likely happen later on, but the US would maintain control of the Lakes
Augustine Sedira
Banned
Okay, thanks. I understand what you mean now. I suppose that this would have been achieved had Montgomery focused on southern Canada rather than attempting to seize Quebec?
I'd have to look up particular the exact battles and outcomes to give you a good answer. But, at the very least, Southern Ontario (south of the Ottowa River, basically) was at least discussed at Versailles, so you just need better performance overall. Even a successful capture of Quebec might force the British to send forces to reconquer it, perhaps dislodging the Americans but finding themselves unable to have more success than that.