What if no world power developed in the Americas?

IOTL, the British colonies revolted to become the USA. The USA then exploded in area and population and would become first a world power and then superpower and now hyperpower.

But suppose the Americas never developed a world power of any kind? Suppose the entire Western Hemisphere was full of middling nations (sort of like what we see in South America today)?

With a PoD of say, 1492, what if the Americas was full of small to middle sized countries and none was large enough to become a world power?

And with a 1492 PoD, was a world power (on the order of OTL USA) probable or unlikely to develop in the Americas in the first place?
 
With a PoD of say, 1492, what if the Americas was full of small to middle sized countries and none was large enough to become a world power?

I can't see an obvious path, because the USA really entered the world stage only after the 20th century.

And with a 1492 PoD, was a world power (on the order of OTL USA) probable or unlikely to develop in the Americas in the first place?

With a POD in 1492, it is easier to see a world power emerge from the Americas than any other place on Earth, with the exception of Russia. Disease and technology make it easy to any Old World to replace the native populations and the result, if the colony become independent, is more probably than not, a big, full of natural resources, and ethnically homogeneous nation. That is part of the reason why three of the five biggest nations in the world are in the Americas, other is Russia that followed a similar path.
 
I can't see an obvious path, because the USA really entered the world stage only after the 20th century.



With a POD in 1492, it is easier to see a world power emerge from the Americas than any other place on Earth, with the exception of Russia. Disease and technology make it easy to any Old World to replace the native populations and the result, if the colony become independent, is more probably than not, a big, full of natural resources, and ethnically homogeneous nation. That is part of the reason why three of the five biggest nations in the world are in the Americas, other is Russia that followed a similar path.
I think the trick is to make sure that no country manages to dominate most of North America (or south America, I guess, but lets assume that South America develops like OTL). I believe the easiest way is to simply split North America between several European countries (and maybe surviving native American countries). So lets say that the New Netherlands and New France were never conquered by the British. In that case you already have the Eastern coast divided. Also lets assume the Spanish keep Florida, the French manages to keep Louisiana. Suddenly I think you will see North America so divided no large nation can arise that takes the place of the USA OTL. You are going to need a different colonial strategy by France and the Netherlands, but I think it can work.
 
The survival of the US beyond the Continental Convention was not a predestined thing. You can have a POD as late as the revolutionary war and see a world where America is neutered.
 
Not having the USA be a world power is actually quite doable, and could be done even with a post 1900 POD. This would be difficult but possible. You have the USA develop into a bigger, anglophone Brazil, dominating the continent but not that interested in getting involved in Europe or East Asia.

While the United States turning into a big continental empire was envisaged by the Patriot leaders in the late eighteenth century, the projection of power back into Eurasia wasn't. And the federal government was not really set up to do this (too inefficient and too much confusion over what the powers of the federal government actually were) which IOTL was solved in the twentieth century by just ignoring the issue and plowing ahead anyway.

Of course, having the English language colonies in North America form several countries, with or without residual links to Britain, instead of one big country and one massive country would be a surer way to do this, but you can still have the USA as we know it up to 1898, just with a culture that is much more isolationist than OTL and a somewhat weaker federal government.

Just remove both Roosevelts and Wilson from the scene, with the key person being Wilson. You may have to not create the Morgan banking empire too, so the USA is not essentially funding Germany's opponents in the Great War. The effects would start with no American intervention in World War I, which means you butterfly away World War 2. Another consequence would be a longer lifespan for the European overseas colonial empires. The Japanese Empire would also still exist, and this would likely butterfly away the Peoples' Republic of China. Whether you still get the Green Revolution would be an interesting question.
 
Clay wins in 1844.

No Mexican War.

Texas remains independent, protected by Britain.

Mormons settle in Utah, establish independent state of Deseret.

Gold found in California, causing influx of foreigners. Miners and Californios secede from Mexico, form Republic of California (under British protection).

The US and Britain both claim the Oregon country; Southerners in Congress block all moves to organize Oregon Territory as a potential free state; some conservatives (?) oppose the entire idea of extending the United States to such a remote area. The delay causes settlers there to organize their own government. This leads to a compromise with Britain: both countries renounce their territorial claims in favor of the new Republic of Columbia.

Meanwhile, the slavery issue continues to fester. The Supreme Court rules that neither Congress nor territorial governments may prohibit slavery in territories. Slavery men try to make Kansas a slave state, resorting to force even more than OTL, with the connivance of President Pierce (1857-1862).

(Whigs won in 1848 and 1852; but in 1856 split over slavery, allowing the Democrats to elect Pierce. Northern Whigs formed the abolitionist Liberty Party, which competed with the old-Whig American Party, allowing Pierce to win enough of the North to be elected and re-elected. Pierce died of liver failure, succeeded by VP Robert Toombs.)

In 1863, Toombs engineered the admission of Kansas as a slave state. Going beyond what even Pierce could stomach, he vouches for a grossly fraudulent territorial election imposed at gunpoint by Border Ruffians.

This spawned rage throughout the North. The Liberty Party boomed. In 1864, the Democrats dropped Toombs for Indiana Doughface Jesse Bright, trying to dodge, but it didn't work this time. There was just enough anger for Liberty candidate Salmon Chase to to carry 13 free states, with 149 out of 296 electoral votes. Six of of them were only plurality wins: many Northerners were still reluctant to vote for an outright abolitionist like Chase. Some voted for Free Soil candidate Lyman Trumbull, nominated by a small faction of Liberty moderates.

After Chase won the election, several Southern states began moves to declare secession. Lame-duck President Toombs, a secessionist, began preparing to recognize secession when it was declared - appointing Southern officers to command of all Army posts in the South. When South Carolina declared secession, he "recognized" it and ordered Army troops withdrawn from Charleston; following up with similar moves as other states followed. (Georgia's declaration of secession was set to take effect on 3 March 1865, so that Toombs could serve out the remainder of his term.

One group representing several Upper South states submitted a joint petition to President-elect Chase, demanding that he pledge to uphold a list of pro-slavery policies and principles. When Chasr balked, those states joined in secession, while many Northern men denounced him for provoking.

Upon taking office, Chase was faced with secession as a fait accompli, and little support in the North for a war to defeat secession. He gave in, and followed Toombs' lead. The remaining slave states all declared secession in the next two months.

=============================

So the OTL US ends up divided among seven countries (USA, CSA, Texas, Deseret, California, Columbia, and Kingdom of Hawaii). None of them have the resources to become a "world power".
 
So the OTL US ends up divided among seven countries (USA, CSA, Texas, Deseret, California, Columbia, and Kingdom of Hawaii). None of them have the resources to become a "world power".

The US in this scenario has more than enough resources (oil, iron, coal, farmland etc.), industry, and demographics to become/remain a world power. By giving the country all these hostile neighbors you'll encourage the development of a larger and more powerful army and navy before WWI. No ACW helps the US too.

Total population of these remaining territories would be a bit smaller than the German Empire in 1900 going by the 1900 census.
 
The US in this scenario has more than enough resources (oil, iron, coal, farmland etc.), industry, and demographics to become/remain a world power. By giving the country all these hostile neighbors you'll encourage the development of a larger and more powerful army and navy before WWI. No ACW helps the US too.

Total population of these remaining territories would be a bit smaller than the German Empire in 1900 going by the 1900 census.
True. But having such a long land border to defend does mean they'll be less likely to actually get involved globally .

A big question would be relations with Britain /Canada . The USA could end up like Imperial Germany . Very strong but effectively limited to one continent .
 
True. But having such a long land border to defend does mean they'll be less likely to actually get involved globally .

A big question would be relations with Britain /Canada . The USA could end up like Imperial Germany . Very strong but effectively limited to one continent .

There's still the Caribbean and Latin America to get involved with. American economic influence would still end up on the upswing there, especially without the resources of the southwest/west coast. All the money spent on the Pacific OTL can go into the army as well as the Atlantic fleet and probably also a lot of river monitors and other river boats for the Mississippi/Ohio. The western borders are less of a problem--a lot of mountains and desert, and you could fortify the passes and call it a day.

But Germany is a solid comparison.
 
There's still the Caribbean and Latin America to get involved with. American economic influence would still end up on the upswing there, especially without the resources of the southwest/west coast. All the money spent on the Pacific OTL can go into the army as well as the Atlantic fleet and probably also a lot of river monitors and other river boats for the Mississippi/Ohio. The western borders are less of a problem--a lot of mountains and desert, and you could fortify the passes and call it a day.

But Germany is a solid comparison.
Indeed .

A Spanish - USA War can still occur but now it's explicitly to first outflank the CSA and secondly a jumping off point to project power into Latin America .
 
It´s almost impossible to No world power Develop in the Americas, the continent it´s just too rich an too vast to don´t, You could do without having a Hegemonic power from the Americas, a la OTL USA, but not without World powers.
Just think, if you put out the USA hegemonic power you still have as possible worlds powers Per the International Monetary Fund (2017):

Brasil (9° world GDP)
Canada(10° world GDP)
Mexico(15° world GDP)
Argentina (21°world GDP)

And this is in OTL with all the Shadow the USA project and his long history of interference in the Continent Development
and as @Anarch King of Dipsodes, say a fracturated USA will could also give a couple of world powers
 
It´s almost impossible to No world power Develop in the Americas, the continent it´s just too rich an too vast to don´t, You could do without having a Hegemonic power from the Americas, a la OTL USA, but not without World powers.
Just think, if you put out the USA hegemonic power you still have as possible worlds powers Per the International Monetary Fund (2017):

Brasil (9° world GDP)
Canada(10° world GDP)
Mexico(15° world GDP)
Argentina (21°world GDP)

And this is in OTL with all the Shadow the USA project and his long history of interference in the Continent Development
and as @Anarch King of Dipsodes, say a fracturated USA will could also give a couple of world powers

None of those places are world powers for most of modern history. Their influence on world affairs has been very limited.
 
Articles of confederation remain in power. Constitution is never ratified. That opens the possibility for lots of division in North America, which could be enough to prevent them from becoming a world power.
 
None of those places are world powers for most of modern history. Their influence on world affairs has been very limited.
In OTL under The Shadow of the USA, who Say that without USA None of the mentioned could take a more active or different role?
 
Articles of confederation remain in power. Constitution is never ratified. That opens the possibility for lots of division in North America, which could be enough to prevent them from becoming a world power.

Until some ambitious governor or general cobbles together an alliance and coups the government and gets rid of the Articles of Confederation. Argentina might be a good analogue here, but the US is arguably in a better position than early Argentina (with a larger, more literate population and stronger economy). Even if it results in Britain somehow grabbing the Old Northwest/Old Southwest somehow, and Louisiana getting independence, Louisiana could still be a great power (agriculture, oil, western resources, etc), as could combining Canada with the Old Northwest.

Of course, that assumes the US stays together and said general can impose his will over the whole country.
 
Top