Peaceful America

Okay so I was reading in George Friedman's the Next 100 Years that America has been at war for around 10%-20? of its existence. So I had this idea of an America that doesn't fight a major war until the 20th century. Please give me your views on how this would change America and the world.

POD 1783 Slavery outlawed west of the Appalachians.
POD 1787 Two-thirds of both houses of Congress needed for Declaration of War
POD 1819 Spain sells in addition to the Florida's California Texas to the US.
POD 1898 Maine returns from Cuba safely.
 
Okay so I was reading in George Friedman's the Next 100 Years that America has been at war for around 10%-20? of its existence. So I had this idea of an America that doesn't fight a major war until the 20th century. Please give me your views on how this would change America and the world.

POD 1783 Slavery outlawed west of the Appalachians.
POD 1787 Two-thirds of both houses of Congress needed for Declaration of War
POD 1819 Spain sells in addition to the Florida's California Texas to the US.
POD 1898 Maine returns from Cuba safely.
1) Impossible by the US Constitution, which banned any Congressional interference on the slavery issue for 20 years. That was a major compromise to the South; you aren't going to have it outlawed west of the Appalachians then.
2) You'll see what happened historically; the President would act and Congress would support even without a foreign declaration of war. In fact, you would advance that factor because a Congressional DoW would be that much harder to get, but the impetus to act wouldn't.
3) There's the minor problems of the US occupying that territory. Or Spain having any interest in selling it.
4) Then the US continues to sympathize with Cuban rebels, continues its Lat. Am. policies, and another flashpoint later likely sets things off.
 
1)The POD is actually under the AOC not the Constitution of 1787.

2)Point taken however, I think this could lead to a more limit war for example when James Madison asked for the Congress to declare war he got it through the House but it stalled in the Senate. A compromise proposal appeared that involved issuing letters of marque and sending out the navy but no invasion of Canada.

3)Yeah I'm thinking of a POD were the US supports the Texas rebellion in 1812 which is initially more successful or one where Spain is just simply strapped for cash and decides to economize its empire.

4)Probably right however I'm thinking that Spain and the US could reach a deal where either Spain gives Cuba independence, sells Cuba to the US or keeps Cuba but promises not to sell, trade Cuba to anyother nation except the US.
 
1)The POD is actually under the AOC not the Constitution of 1787.
The impetus that forced the compromise (and the massive structural deficiencies that led to the replacement of the Articles) are unchanged.
2)Point taken however, I think this could lead to a more limit war for example when James Madison asked for the Congress to declare war he got it through the House but it stalled in the Senate. A compromise proposal appeared that involved issuing letters of marque and sending out the navy but no invasion of Canada.
The overwhelming trend, as the hundreds of Indian Wars and anti-piracy campaigns and interventions made clear, is that most US military action doesn't go through a state of war.
3)Yeah I'm thinking of a POD were the US supports the Texas rebellion in 1812 which is initially more successful or one where Spain is just simply strapped for cash and decides to economize its empire.
If Spain is selling, chances are some other European power is going to get it; either Britain or France. The US bought the Louisiana Purchase for so cheap because Napoleon knew he couldn't hold it against Britain.
4)Probably right however I'm thinking that Spain and the US could reach a deal where either Spain gives Cuba independence, sells Cuba to the US or keeps Cuba but promises not to sell, trade Cuba to anyother nation except the US.
If the first two happen, the US will either move in and annex the island or, like OTL, turn it into a vassal state in line with its Latin American policy. The Spanish-American War didn't create or change Latin American policy for the US. The third option is meaningless, because if Spain was in a position to be forced to give Cuba away then it wouldn't be able to enforce the agreement.
 
1) True the Constitution of 1787 still come into effect but slavery stays outlawed at least in law in the territiories west of the Appalachians.

2) The Indian Wars, Undeclared Franco-American War, and Barbary Wars stil happenbut their effects aren't as great on our history as the War of 1812 Mexican-American War and the Civil War for example Andrew Jackson isn't a national hero, neither is Zachary Taylor or Jefferson Davis or Ulysses Grant. We also don't have the positive and negative effects of the conflicts.

3) Well I really don't think Britain and France were interested at this point. Germany was though, and that scared the US. But I do get your point that Spain is going ton have to give up Cuba sooner rather than later.
 
1) True the Constitution of 1787 still come into effect but slavery stays outlawed at least in law in the territiories west of the Appalachians.
Then the Constitution of 1787 wouldn't come into effect. The Constitution didn't make slavery, it reflected the political positions and obstinancies of the negotiators. And yes, that includes letting slavery spread.

Remember, in 1787 most of the US was slave states. Abolition didn't really take off in the North until far later. There was no real abolitionism force in the US, let alone "No west of the Appalachians" force.
2) The Indian Wars, Undeclared Franco-American War, and Barbary Wars stil happenbut their effects aren't as great on our history as the War of 1812 Mexican-American War and the Civil War for example Andrew Jackson isn't a national hero, neither is Zachary Taylor or Jefferson Davis or Ulysses Grant. We also don't have the positive and negative effects of the conflicts.
Pretty bad examples, actually, because two of the three are factually wrong, and the third was a hairsbreadth from passing with 2/3 majority OTL as well.

The leadup to 1812 already had a proxy war with Britain in the North West, along with sustained Indian campaigns. While the OTL votes weren't quite your arbitrary 2/3 majority of Congress, they were extremely close. Close enough for reasonable in-time-line deviations to see it pass.

The Mexican-American war was incited by the President by putting US troops into disputed territory, and the resulting war was fought mostly with Southern militia provided by the South. Congress also approved the Declaration of War with more than enough votes, even by your higher standards. (40-2 in Senate, 173-14 in House.) Mex-Am War is a great demonstration for how even an early President could incite a war.

The Civil War, of course, is infamous for never having a declaration of war in the first place; Lincoln ordered troops in, bought stuff, and left it to Congress to retroactively authorize his actions.


So what are your examples? One case where natural politiking to gain that necessary vote is very conceivable, a case in which Congress enthusiastically went to declare a war that the President helped incite, and one in which the President acted completely without prior Congressional approval.

What we have here, already in OTL, is a tendancy for the President to lead into war either (a) with widespread Congressional support, or (B) not giving a fig leaf about a Declaration of War. It's also rather telling if you count the number of wars and conflicts the US got into, even pre-1900, without a Congressional Declaration of War. In a TL where there is a 2/3 majority requirement for formal Declarations of War, you're going to see fewer declarations of wars, not fewer conflicts.
 
Okay so I was reading in George Friedman's the Next 100 Years that America has been at war for around 10%-20? of its existence
When you add in the Indian Wars, and other assorted undeclared stuff, The US has been at War for 80~90% of its Existence.
1) True the Constitution of 1787 still come into effect but slavery stays outlawed at least in law in the territories west of the Appalachians.
?Didn't the proposal in the NW Ordinance to ban slavery, Fail by one vote?, Minor POD to change this.
 
When you add in the Indian Wars, and other assorted undeclared stuff, The US has been at War for 80~90% of its Existence.?Didn't the proposal in the NW Ordinance to ban slavery, Fail by one vote?, Minor POD to change this.
North West ordinance would have banned slavery in the North West territories, not the southern states across the appalachians as well.
 
Top