No US Civil War:US moves on Mexico,Canada & Jamaica

[Armilus]

WI there is no US CIvil War 1861-65 & the USA stays united? With 600,000 men not being killed, the Indian Wars would be completely over by 1870. Would a bored US consider grabbing more of Mexico & Canada, & even take on the British for the Caribbean? Who would likely succeed Lincoln as president? Any other major changes from OTL, assuming the slavery issue is put on the back burner by giving the blacks better wages & the promise of civil rights "in the future"?

 

[fhaessig]

without ACW, the US army and navy are much less powerfull than OTL. They may actually loose against Mexico and definitely against Uk.

And slavery and wages are mutually exclusive proposals.

 

[Norman]

without ACW, the US army and navy are much less powerfull than OTL. They may actually loose against Mexico and definitely against Uk.

And slavery and wages are mutually exclusive proposals.

I don't think they would go to war at pre civil war troop and naval levels, look to the Mexican War as to how they'd approach a war.

So essentially we'd have the continental US with the same boundries as it is today, particulalrly if they purchase Alaska (Would they?) Moving against Either Canada or Jamaica would be a move against the British Empire. I don't see that happening without some significant causi belli.

Mexico, hmmm, we still have the Moroe Doctrine and Maximillian in Mexico. They will move against Maximillian and then offer to purchase the Northern States of Mexico, somethime around 1865.

War against Britain? I think that it would eventually happen. Why, you ask? I think for a couple of reasons, the USA is becoming a large industrial country, looking to find and preserve markets. Great Britain is the Big Kid on the Block and will resist the efforts of the US, probably eventually resorting to tactics which include stopping and inspecting ship cargos.

Net result, alliance with Prussia and war with England by 1890. Net effect, Western Provinces of Canada ceded to the US, Eastern Canada split into English, French areas.

Why would the US win? I think that the trained officers of the US would surprise the British.

 

[fhaessig]

So essentially we'd have the continental US with the same boundries as it is today, particulalrly if they purchase Alaska (Would they?)

Would the US federal government have the funds to do so, without ACW to limit 'state tights'? I think the purchase of Alaske was significantly more expensive than that of Louisiana, no? Or would the federal government have to go into deep debts to pay for Alaska?

 

[David S Poepoe]

WI there is no US CIvil War 1861-65 & the USA stays united? With 600,000 men not being killed, the Indian Wars would be completely over by 1870. Would a bored US consider grabbing more of Mexico & Canada, & even take on the British for the Caribbean? Who would likely succeed Lincoln as president? Any other major changes from OTL, assuming the slavery issue is put on the back burner by giving the blacks better wages & the promise of civil rights "in the future"?

I think the WI is a no starter since it states the contradictory ideas of Lincoln being president and no Civil War. The two are fairly directly linked by the abolitionalist stance of the Republican Party.

Dropping Lincoln from the equation. I think the westward expansion of the US would be slightly slower, there wouldn't be all those men at arms. On the whole I doubt the US would take to warring against Britain, it would probably be mostly still isolationalists. I think Spain would top the list of most likely targets. It would be an easy kill to start learning from.

The French Adventure into Mexico, of course, wouldn't happen since Washington would raise a warning immediately. This is one possible flashpoint for a war, which would permit the US to industrialize in one giant leap. I think it not unlikely that the Europeans would work with the US to put pressure on Juarez to pay back all foreign debts. One could see the rise of an early form of the Roosevelt Collorary to the Monroe Doctrine develop.

 

[Norman]

Dropping Lincoln from the equation. I think the westward expansion of the US would be slightly slower, there wouldn't be all those men at arms. On the whole I doubt the US would take to warring against Britain, it would probably be mostly still isolationalists. I think Spain would top the list of most likely targets. It would be an easy kill to start learning from.

I don't agree with the idea that the western expansion would be slower, it had already started, (Oregon 1854, California 1849, etc) and once the transcontinental railway was in, it is a fiat accompli, and nothing was going to stop the westward expansion of the railroad.

I also believe that if the US purchases Russian Alaska, the war with Great Britain is almost inevitable, It would be important to "connect this great republic, undivided and free."

I think the reasons are twofold. First, with no Civil War you have greater population pressure. Western and Central Europe continue to supply Eastern Factories, Mines and Mills, and you have a great agricultural migration pouring from Europe into the free lands of America.

Second, Europe in general, and Great Britain in particular, do not understand the substantive difference in the quality of the officer corps caused by the acadamies of West Point and Anapolis. They will not understand that the USA as a world power (Hell it took the USA 50 years after 1860 to realize exactly how strong they were.)

Third, the centralization of power into Washington would have occurred anyway, it is only founded in part on the ACW. In fact the roots of this inevitable centralization of power are found in Marbury v. Madison, long before the ACW. The ACW accelerated the centralization, but didn't cause it. Nothing like a war with Good ol' England to get us all pulling together.