US history with 1788 POD

How far can I play with a POD in 1788, if the US was still to be a rising superpower by 1900 (similar to OTL)?
The American Revolutionary War was still ongoing, perhaps I can prolong the actual war? How about the Constitutional Convention?
I want to make it so that 1. the USA has similar economic size/political prowess as OTL of that era by 1900, 2. it is filled with anti-British sentiment.
Possible? I don't know, that's why I'm asking.:D
 

Asami

Banned
How far can I play with a POD in 1788, if the US was still to be a rising superpower by 1900 (similar to OTL)?
The American Revolutionary War was still ongoing, perhaps I can prolong the actual war? How about the Constitutional Convention?
I want to make it so that 1. the USA has similar economic size/political prowess as OTL of that era by 1900, 2. it is filled with anti-British sentiment.
Possible? I don't know, that's why I'm asking.:D

Kind of sounds like my America TL. (Sun Never Sets) [/shameless advertising]
 
Uh, the war ended in 1783. Do you maybe mean 1778? Anyways, so long as the government stabilizes into something reasonably effective, I don't see any reason the US can't still be a major power come 1900. So long as immigration and territorial expansion are steady, it's going to dwarf most European nations by that time, for sure. As for anti-British sentiment, that all depends on circumstances and whatever else you have planned. War over the Oregon territory or something might be a good start.
 
How far can I play with a POD in 1788, if the US was still to be a rising superpower by 1900 (similar to OTL)?
The American Revolutionary War was still ongoing, perhaps I can prolong the actual war? How about the Constitutional Convention?
I want to make it so that 1. the USA has similar economic size/political prowess as OTL of that era by 1900, 2. it is filled with anti-British sentiment.
Possible? I don't know, that's why I'm asking.:D

A more brutal War of 1812? That might increase Anglo-American tension. Then when the Civil War breaks out the more anti-American Brits get involved. Though the North still wins. US seeks out European allies? Thus the US ends up being strong and rabidly anti-British and may take over Canada in conjunction with European ally(allies).
 
You could have Fredreck the Great brother (Fredrick Henry) as King with a 1778 POD, and add in a massive colonization effort by France before they end up selling Louisianna to the US and you could end up with a country full of people coming from anti-British nations (Prussia isn't one of them I just think a Prussian US would be cool.)
 
If the British kill President Madison while burning D.C. - and even Dolly, who was very much beloved - that woudl definitely increase hatred for Britain.

I think Elbridge Gerry was still living, but upon his death, a new election is held in 1814 later, DeWitt Clinton probably wins this time, and is inaugurated just in time for the peace. A Federalist Presidency with a John Quincy Adams from 1823-1831 making things better with a slow transition to represenatitive democracy woud work.

Maybe Davey Crockett wins the election of 1830 and becomes a kinder, gentler Jackson with no Trail of Tears. That could lead to settlers wanting to go elsewhere instead - more people going to Oregon could make it war with Britain in the 1840s. And yet, we still get representative democracy for all the peoople, just just landowners, etc..

And yet, 16 years of Clinton and Adams can make the U.S. industrialize a lot more.

As noted before, a U.S. Civil War won by the North still, and just an overall desire to industralize with a memory of a war with Britain 30-35 years later than the last one OTL plus the killing of a President.

Oh, you wanted a POD. You could have James Monroe die - I think he was a soldier by this time. William Crawford becomes the main D-R leader after Madison, and somehow this butterflies things in the War of 1812 so that Madison dies.

edit: gerry died Nov. 23. If you dojn't want the U.S. to wait a whole year before a new election you can very easily have the strain take him a couple months earlier. Which would actually increase anti-British feeling even more.
 
If the British kill President Madison while burning D.C. - and even Dolly, who was very much beloved - that woudl definitely increase hatred for Britain.

I think Elbridge Gerry was still living, but upon his death, a new election is held in 1814 later, DeWitt Clinton probably wins this time, and is inaugurated just in time for the peace. A Federalist Presidency with a John Quincy Adams from 1823-1831 making things better with a slow transition to represenatitive democracy woud work.

Maybe Davey Crockett wins the election of 1830 and becomes a kinder, gentler Jackson with no Trail of Tears. That could lead to settlers wanting to go elsewhere instead - more people going to Oregon could make it war with Britain in the 1840s. And yet, we still get representative democracy for all the peoople, just just landowners, etc..

And yet, 16 years of Clinton and Adams can make the U.S. industrialize a lot more.

As noted before, a U.S. Civil War won by the North still, and just an overall desire to industralize with a memory of a war with Britain 30-35 years later than the last one OTL plus the killing of a President.

Oh, you wanted a POD. You could have James Monroe die - I think he was a soldier by this time. William Crawford becomes the main D-R leader after Madison, and somehow this butterflies things in the War of 1812 so that Madison dies.

edit: gerry died Nov. 23. If you dojn't want the U.S. to wait a whole year before a new election you can very easily have the strain take him a couple months earlier. Which would actually increase anti-British feeling even more.
sounds like a good method of increasing anti-British sentiment...although why would the president remain in the city when he is fully aware how belligerent the British can be?
 
An alternative (and ironic one) will be to let Britain keep the boundary of the original province of Quebec. As well it will develop an anti-British sentient (they try to keep american land !), it will drain most of their colonization effort. Beginning the western colonization in the late for the British, it will provide most the today's canadian west (as well the full oregon country) to american settler.
 
sounds like a good method of increasing anti-British sentiment...although why would the president remain in the city when he is fully aware how belligerent the British can be?

The British wouldn't kill the president except by accident, and you don't need something so random. Have British-American tensions lead to war in the 1840s (Very tense OTL). Maybe have the British do better in the War of 1812, and take the Great Lakes and Michigan (entirely plausible) leading to a sense of revanchism among Americans and further tension leading to another war a couple decades later.
 
Last edited:

Dirk_Pitt

Banned
Even if you limit the US to East of the Mississippi you'll still have the US be a Great Power, it just won't have the vast mineral and agricultural wealth of the West.

Expansion could be more Carribbean focused. Maybe the US tries to gain the Yucatan.
 
Even if you limit the US to East of the Mississippi you'll still have the US be a Great Power, it just won't have the vast mineral and agricultural wealth of the West.

Expansion could be more Carribbean focused. Maybe the US tries to gain the Yucatan.
can it? Wouldn't there be at least some sort of Mexican resistance?
 
How far can I play with a POD in 1788, if the US was still to be a rising superpower by 1900 (similar to OTL)?:D

Pretty much as far as you want. In 1788, the major factors leading toward the future superpower status of the U.S. were already established: large land area with ample resources, population with a strong culture of law and civil order, absence of nearby external foes. When starting with such advantages, success is probable even with variant scenarios.


I want to make it so that 1. the USA has similar economic size/political prowess as OTL of that era by 1900, 2. it is filled with anti-British sentiment.
Possible?
Sure. One could use a favorie hobbyhorse of mine: succession to the British throne of Ernest Augustus, Duke of Cumberland, and degeneration of Britain into an oppressive reactionary oligarchy. The PoD could be the death of George III's fourth son, Edward Duke of Kent in 1788, so that he is not around to beget Victoria in 1820.

Better yet, eliminate all four of George's older sons: Edward, William, Duke of Clarence (the third son, OTL's William IV), Frederick, Duke of York (the second son, died 1827, and the eldest son, George (OTL's George IV) in a smallpox outbreak or fire in 1788.

That would make Ernest Prince of Wales and Regent until the death of George in 1820. IMHO, he would be as despised as George IV was. He was much more reactionary and much nastier than William. He would have been Regent and then King for about 40 years.

Then Britain becomes the great leader of reaction in the 1800s, while the U.S. becomes the champion of liberty.

While this might seem like an unequal contest, it seems probably that Britain would have severe internal difficulties that would weaken her considerably. Many if not most of the British people would be hostile to the reactionary government, which would have to devote much effort just to holding power.

Britain might thus lose Canada (which OTL had a serious rebellion in 1837) to the U.S. Britain would probably support Spain's suppression of independence movements in its American colonies; the U.S. would aid these movements, and at their eventual success they could unite with the U.S. Thus the U.S. would be even larger than OTL; almost certainly a superpower.
 
Top