Using the historical United States as a benchmark, how might alternate levels of centralization between the federal and state governments interplay with alternate levels of expansionism? I figure there's 4 ways of looking at this:
- Is a more centralized US more or less expansionist?
- Is a more decentralized US more or less expansionist?
OR
- Is a more expansionist US more or less decentralized?
- Is a less expansionist US more or less decentralized?
- Perhaps, with a weaker federal government, slavery is never abolished at the federal level, and the US conquers more land suitable for plantation agriculture.
- Perhaps the federal government is so weak that other countries see joining the US as akin to joining the EU, and it is more expansionist in a peaceful fashion.
- Perhaps the federal government is too weak to engage in wars of conquest or such diplomatic expansionism, and that prevents such efforts (say, for example, that the federal government doesn't have the authority to buy Louisiana).
- Perhaps an expansionist US ends up with so many disparate states with difference political aims and cultures that it effectively hobbles the federal government.
- Perhaps an expansionist US has to maintain such a large army that it effectively strengthens the federal government (much like the Civil War did).
- Perhaps a less expansionist US has a more homogenous collection of states, leading to a stronger federal government.
- Perhaps a less expansionist US has less need for a powerful federal government to work out disputes between the states.
etc.
It seems to me you could make any argument for any given combination. Some are stronger than others, of course, but I can't decide what sounds the most plausible (and, correspondingly, which opposite sounds the least plausible).
- Is a more centralized US more or less expansionist?
- Is a more decentralized US more or less expansionist?
OR
- Is a more expansionist US more or less decentralized?
- Is a less expansionist US more or less decentralized?
- Perhaps, with a weaker federal government, slavery is never abolished at the federal level, and the US conquers more land suitable for plantation agriculture.
- Perhaps the federal government is so weak that other countries see joining the US as akin to joining the EU, and it is more expansionist in a peaceful fashion.
- Perhaps the federal government is too weak to engage in wars of conquest or such diplomatic expansionism, and that prevents such efforts (say, for example, that the federal government doesn't have the authority to buy Louisiana).
- Perhaps an expansionist US ends up with so many disparate states with difference political aims and cultures that it effectively hobbles the federal government.
- Perhaps an expansionist US has to maintain such a large army that it effectively strengthens the federal government (much like the Civil War did).
- Perhaps a less expansionist US has a more homogenous collection of states, leading to a stronger federal government.
- Perhaps a less expansionist US has less need for a powerful federal government to work out disputes between the states.
etc.
It seems to me you could make any argument for any given combination. Some are stronger than others, of course, but I can't decide what sounds the most plausible (and, correspondingly, which opposite sounds the least plausible).
