With a POD of 1600 have USA or alt USA become the bastion of social liberalism.

By social liberalism, I mean gender equality, racial equality, acceptance of homosexuality, religious tolerance,a place for refugees, more accepting of immigrants ,etc. All of this doesn't have to occur by 1776 ,but by at least the 1960s for homosexuality. I realize that homosexuality is unlikely to be accepted anywhere in the West until the twentieth century. But, for everything else have the USA/ alt USA be accepted by 1920s to the point that the USA is a place for all of the wild outcasts of world. Bonus if you have the South be the most liberal part of the country.
Requirements are:
  1. USA or alt USA has OTL territories, with the exception of Hawaii.
  2. A lot of people are mixed race with black and native ancestry being common depending on area.
  3. The country doesn't have imperialist adventures in Latin America, and is in fact anti imperialist as it tries to liberate European colonies.
  4. Still becomes largest economy, but invests in the prosperity of it's neighbors and is known for being very humanitarian.
  5. Have it be full of intellectuals and artists.
  6. Have it come from English colonies
  7. Must still have had slavery in the South.
It doesn't have to be exactly the USA, as in it can have different founders and different circumstances regarding it's independence. I am a bit tired, so I leave the rest to you. Have fun.
 
From 1776-1789 and 1815-1914, Europe was ruled by conservative and reactionary empires. So the US was perceived as the bastion of social liberalism historically during that time.

However, one way to accomplish your alternate scenario:

The War of the Regulation (1765-1771) is a larger threat to the British, so the British make concessions to slaveowners, angering the North.

The Quebec Act (1774) doesn't include the provisions for religion tolerance, only the territorial expansion and some concessions to British merchants. New England and Quebec are both angered by the Act.

In the American Revolutionary War, the South becomes Loyalist, and the North becomes even more Patriot, with Quebec also being Patriot. Also, the Iroquois unanimously join the side of the rebels. For the purpose of military strategy, slaves are liberated from their southern plantations, to decrease the economic output of the loyalist South.

After the war, almost all slaves have been liberated, and the Southern plantocrats are viewed as traitors. So slavery is partially abolished, on the road to total emancipation by the end of the 1790s.

In addition, the alliance with the Iroquois leads to Iroquois being added as the 14th or 15th state (depending on when Quebec is admitted), creating a precedent that native confederacies can be annexed with their citizens becoming US citizens, instead of being pushed off their land.

The combination of earlier slavery abolition, plus Catholic and Protestant faiths both being prominent, plus a Native American state, leads to greater rise of social liberalism.

More free citizens leads to more development of the land, meaning a greater, more equal economy, meaning faster social development and earlier civil rights.

The country doesn't have imperialist adventures in Latin America, and is in fact anti imperialist as it tries to liberate European colonies.
That is still imperialist. Philippines and Cuba were technically liberated from Spain, another colonial empire. British Egypt and Iraq were taken from the Ottomans, another colonial empire. Japanese Empire considered itself anti-imperialist despite having a higher death toll than most historical empires.

There would have to be a ideological reason to break off the colonies into truly independent countries or allies; otherwise, they'll just become effective colonies of a new colonial power.
 
Last edited:
That is still imperialist. Philippines and Cuba were technically liberated from Spain, another colonial empire. British Egypt and Iraq were taken from the Ottomans, another colonial empire. Japanese Empire considered itself anti-imperialist despite having a higher death toll than most historical empires.

There would have to be a ideological reason to break off the colonies into truly independent countries or allies; otherwise, they'll just become effective colonies of a new colonial power.
I didn't think about that. How I thought things would happen is that the USA or rather it's citizens tries to send help to a country that is undergoing revolution like some sort big foreign legion made up of *PanAmerican volunteers that are devoted to freeing oppressed people and spreading free determination. But, thanks for answering so quickly, I thought it would be a while until I get an answer so detailed.
 
I didn't think about that. How I thought things would happen is that the USA or rather it's citizens tries to send help to a country that is undergoing revolution like some sort big foreign legion made up of *PanAmerican volunteers that are devoted to freeing oppressed people and spreading free determination. But, thanks for answering so quickly, I thought it would be a while until I get an answer so detailed.
Well, countries only do things that they believe to be in their self-interest. If there was a geopolitical reason to build up sovereign nations as allies, then maybe. For example Taiwan, South Korea, West Germany, and Japan after WW2, who needed to have strong economies to guard against the Soviets and PRC.

However a foreign legion spreading free determination seems pretty unlikely. If people are comfortable and prosperous, there's no reason for them to leave their country, let alone create a band of mercenaries to intervene in revolutions, unless there's some economic benefit to it.
 
Well, countries only do things that they believe to be in their self-interest. If there was a geopolitical reason to build up sovereign nations as allies, then maybe. For example Taiwan, South Korea, West Germany, and Japan after WW2, who needed to have strong economies to guard against the Soviets and PRC.

However a foreign legion spreading free determination seems pretty unlikely. If people are comfortable and prosperous, there's no reason for them to leave their country, let alone create a band of mercenaries to intervene in revolutions, unless there's some economic benefit to it.
Well there would have to be some people who would want to that, I mean lots of people volunteer for the military, even though they could stay at home. And there is the French foreign legion, which I was using as an inspiration. And then in the Spanish civil war, Eric Blair despite being British, fought aside the Republicans in the war as a volunteer. On a controversial note, lots of comfortable people are joining the Syrian civil to join any side they want depending on their ideology.
 
Top