Would a world without the USA a worse world?

Would a world without the USA a worse world?

  • Yes

    Votes: 126 53.6%
  • No

    Votes: 109 46.4%

  • Total voters
    235

Thomas1195

Banned
Impossible to say would world be better or worse if ARW would fail. History can go to several different directions. For me role of USA on developing more democratic world is pretty exaggerated. UK was already going towards parliamentary monarchy and there was already several thinkers around and surely democratic ideas would eventually develope. And modern USA even is not most democratic nation in the world.
Well, the US was not perfect, but it became the first time in history when people actually stood up against the oppressors and fought for the Rights of Man and hence it did inspire people around the world. Besides, the ARW in one way or another led to French Revolution, which spread radical ideas of equality and liberty, as well as nationalism. Also because of that, the US also became the land of opportunity for lower-class Europeans who were oppressed by European monarchies àn nobilities.

After all, the US and later France were the world's only democracies during the 19th century (Britain should not be considered as a democracy until 1928).

Constitutional republicanism, but not constitutional democracy. The early US was not a democracy and did not claim to be. It did democratise among white males faster, although it was substantially slower to democratise among people of color. And that denial of rights wasn't just limited to voting rights, but also basic civil protections until the 1960s, which the British poor had centuries earlier. I would argue the extremism seen in US conservative politics to this day is due to the reverberations of becoming a true democracy.
Well, the bottom line is that until 1914 only a third of British male adult population were eligible to vote. Meanwhile, all US white males could vote since 1860.

Racism was common during the 19th century. For Britain, we cannot conclude like that because there weren't a lot of people of other colors in the UK.
 
Somebody (or more somebodies) is/are always going to run around the world and spread something. The US isn`t promoting freedom and democracy very well (even assuming it´s their real foreign policy aim), but I can imagine worse imperialisms, too.
 
Let's say the ARW failed and Britain held on to the Thirteen Colonies.

How would the world look like? Would it become worse than OTL, especially ITTL, the French Revolution could be butterflied away?

Hard to say. I'm an American myself, but to be truthful, there are certainly at least a few worlds out there without a U.S.A. that might have actually turned out better than they did IOTL.....and some that turned out for the worse. All depends on the POD and what happens afterwards.

Constitutional republicanism, but not constitutional democracy. The early US was not a democracy.....

Actually, this is not quite accurate. The United States was, in fact, founded as a constitutional democratic republic. Democracy in those early days may well have been limited, especially by our modern standards, but the democracy was most certainly there.

It did democratise among white males faster, although it was substantially slower to democratise among people of color.

In certain areas, yes.

And that denial of rights wasn't just limited to voting rights, but also basic civil protections until the 1960s, which the British poor had centuries earlier.

To be honest, it's not that basic civil protections didn't exist-in fact, they had since at least the 1860s-it was that Southern governments did their damnedest to disobey these laws.

I would argue the extremism seen in US conservative politics to this day is due to the reverberations of becoming a true democracy.

Hmm, I'm afraid this is not so. If anything, this development occurred despite the U.S. becoming a full-fledged democracy.....certainly not because of it. And if even a *United States is susceptible to such, then so too, could a *British America.

(Edit: I'd note, btw, that modern Britain, IOTL, is itself a liberal democracy-albeit a constitutional monarchy-and itself has very largely avoided the most serious problems with extremism seen in the U.S.)

The American revolution has inspired many fights for liberty all over the world. A defeat in the ARW would set back the cause of democracy for decades.

Well, it depends on the situation post-POD. It certainly could.....but also, maybe not; for example, perhaps a French Revolution similar to ours still occurs.
 

kernals12

Banned
Well, it depends on the situation post-POD. It certainly could.....but also, maybe not; for example, perhaps a French Revolution similar to ours still occurs.

The French revolutionaries were heavily inspired by the Americans, if Washington fails, the French will certainly be discouraged
 

Thomas1195

Banned
*laughs from the Philippines* Not all Asians~ :p
Malaysians, Indians, Burmese...would prefer independence and freedom rather than being colonized, oppressed and exploited to the bones by the Brits.

And Africans. The fact that Britain and other European powers divided Africa based on their own economic interests but never cared about ethno-linguistic factor had greatly contributed to its instability
later.

Britain was also the first European power that attempt to meddle the Middle East.
 
But the OP states that the French Revolution may be butterflied away. If that is the case, then I would assume the Louisiana Purchase is also butterflied. Which leaves the Thirteen Colonies hemmed in by Nouvelle France.
nouvelle France is the correct term, or would have been 20 years earlier. Louisiana was part of NF. However, in 1763 it was ceded to Spain. Spain returned it to Napoleonic France in 1800 or 01. No French Revolution means it remains in Spanish hands.

Spain, OTL, was welcoming settlers from the USA (for example, Daniel Boone acted as a land agent for the Spanish in Missouri in the '90s) and would likely do so with British subjects. Without the allure of a constitutional republic and the takeover mentality, these settlers are likely to become long time Spanish citizens. All points west of the Appalachians will be settled by European/descendants eventually (population growth of whites, and population decline of Native Americans ensures that), but the nature of it will be different. Good for the Indians is not likely to be the correct term. IMO, the treatment of the Indians is almost inevitably going to be bad, or less bad.
 
Spain, OTL, was welcoming settlers from the USA (for example, Daniel Boone acted as a land agent for the Spanish in Missouri in the '90s) and would likely do so with British subjects. Without the allure of a constitutional republic and the takeover mentality, these settlers are likely to become long time Spanish citizens. All points west of the Appalachians will be settled by European/descendants eventually (population growth of whites, and population decline of Native Americans ensures that), but the nature of it will be different. Good for the Indians is not likely to be the correct term. IMO, the treatment of the Indians is almost inevitably going to be bad, or less bad.

The biggest problem for Spanish rule over the trans-Appalachian colonies is that Spain are Catholics and these people are Protestants. For the time being it can be ignored, but in the long term, might you have a Second Great Awakening-type event which entrenches Protestant belief in the region and encourages the founding of an independent colony? If you have an independent state with its borders at the Appalachians and Mississippi, I think it would be a matter of time before it gains the entire Mississippi watershed plus an outlet on the Pacific and thus you have a nation which is capable of being a great power and playing a highly important role in global affairs (although it would be more content being isolationist more than anything).
 
Malaysians, Indians, Burmese...would prefer independence and freedom rather than being colonized, oppressed and exploited to the bones by the Brits.

And Africans. The fact that Britain and other European powers divided Africa based on their own economic interests but never cared about ethno-linguistic factor had greatly contributed to its instability
later.

Britain was also the first European power that attempt to meddle the Middle East.
Though Indians and the non-Burmese in Myanmar would have also prevented their own governments, neighbors, and competing regimes from not exploiting them. I suppose the British did have a good effect in India of unifying so much of the place, and then understanding it was in their best interests to leave nice and quite, though millions still died from the partitions. And Myanmar is still in civil war...

As for Africa... yes, quite a bit of selfishness there. Pretty difficult to split things by languages back then though. And I don't think the splitting of ethnic linguistic groups is as major a problem for stability as some groups getting more advantage than others within a state. It really depends on a country-by-country basis.

The Middle East is... tricky. If we go far back enough, people could claim the Middle East invading Sicily, North Africa, the Levant, Spain, and the Balkans would count as them invading Europe. And then we get to the Crusades, where various Saracens (that is the historical term, I think?) giving the European Crusaders the blanket term of Franks. Some to think of it, wasn't Lebanon and the Syrian coast once referred to as France Outre Mer? A term later used for French Algeria, Tunisia, and Morocco. I look at it like I look at Northern Ireland. The Scots were an Irish group that moved into Scotland, and many many centuries later the Scots started settling austerity. So people invade each other back and forth.
 
The biggest problem for Spanish rule over the trans-Appalachian colonies is that Spain are Catholics and these people are Protestants. For the time being it can be ignored, but in the long term, might you have a Second Great Awakening-type event which entrenches Protestant belief in the region and encourages the founding of an independent colony? If you have an independent state with its borders at the Appalachians and Mississippi, I think it would be a matter of time before it gains the entire Mississippi watershed plus an outlet on the Pacific and thus you have a nation which is capable of being a great power and playing a highly important role in global affairs (although it would be more content being isolationist more than anything).
Ooooh. Let's see if we can get some alt-Mormons set up in Missouri.
 
The biggest problem for Spanish rule over the trans-Appalachian colonies is that Spain are Catholics and these people are Protestants. For the time being it can be ignored, but in the long term, might you have a Second Great Awakening-type event which entrenches Protestant belief in the region and encourages the founding of an independent colony? If you have an independent state with its borders at the Appalachians and Mississippi, I think it would be a matter of time before it gains the entire Mississippi watershed plus an outlet on the Pacific and thus you have a nation which is capable of being a great power and playing a highly important role in global affairs (although it would be more content being isolationist more than anything).
That is certainly an issue. However, it should also be remembered that much of the frontier, and even a lot of urban, folk weren't so hung up on religious denominations. they mostly believed in God and perhaps the bible. There were a lot of different denominations, including Jewish, in the colonies. They did have a fear of the central Papism of Catholicism, and the Spanish ideal of having the (non Spanish) settlers moving in and discovering the wonders of the Catholic faith is an unlikely to be realized dream, but in Louisiana, the Spanish were not pushing the faith to the same extent that they were in New Spain/Mexico (or other colonies). IF the Catholics can grow at a reasonable rate, combined with a controlled influx of non Catholics and a governing policy not abusive to them, it is a possibility that an acceptable level of harmony can be achieved. Just as likely, IMO, as a religious awakening/war/independence situation. If the newcomers rebel, it's because of economic (ie-taxation)/ governing reasons rather than religious. Texas didn't go its own way for religious reasons (at least not primarily). They did so because they thought they could do better on their own or with the US.
 
That is certainly an issue. However, it should also be remembered that much of the frontier, and even a lot of urban, folk weren't so hung up on religious denominations. they mostly believed in God and perhaps the bible. There were a lot of different denominations, including Jewish, in the colonies. They did have a fear of the central Papism of Catholicism, and the Spanish ideal of having the (non Spanish) settlers moving in and discovering the wonders of the Catholic faith is an unlikely to be realized dream, but in Louisiana, the Spanish were not pushing the faith to the same extent that they were in New Spain/Mexico (or other colonies). IF the Catholics can grow at a reasonable rate, combined with a controlled influx of non Catholics and a governing policy not abusive to them, it is a possibility that an acceptable level of harmony can be achieved. Just as likely, IMO, as a religious awakening/war/independence situation. If the newcomers rebel, it's because of economic (ie-taxation)/ governing reasons rather than religious. Texas didn't go its own way for religious reasons (at least not primarily). They did so because they thought they could do better on their own or with the US.

What I'm thinking is that you have a Second Great Awakening-type event happening in these colonies on top of some pre-existing issues and discontentment with the Spanish government. Anti-Catholicism becomes a rallying cry, but the root cause would run far deeper than Catholic vs Protestant.
 
What I'm thinking is that you have a Second Great Awakening-type event happening in these colonies on top of some pre-existing issues and discontentment with the Spanish government. Anti-Catholicism becomes a rallying cry, but the root cause would run far deeper than Catholic vs Protestant.
I feel it would also depend on churches. If there are parish priests, including perhaps English Catholics (if they get fed up with the Anglicans running what had been supposed to be a Catholic safe haven, we might get some Low church versus high church stuff going on. If we can find some French Hugenouts to toss in there, perhaps being forcibly sent over there by France, then perhaps bishops, by they Papist of Episcopalian, may be seen as a unifying problem. Think I worded that pretty badly. The next time there is an invasion of arome, or should the Spanish colonies try for independence should the Bourbons get too French for everyone's liking, perhaps some mutual cause can be met. Either including or against the Native Tribes, really, the first thing to be done is to find some places for all these aeuroepans to settle peacefully, without Natives raiding them either in self defense or to profit from high case the settlements either get destroyed or ally with another tribe, leading to a tangled web.

I suppose we could consider slavery as a unifying factor. An awful, awful thing, as the corner stone of Southern society early on. Allowed Tribes (well, those not having their members enslaved by rivals and being shipped off to the West Indies), planters, Englishmen, Spaniards, Acadians... An awful thing to do, but nothing unifies people like being against someone. Though slavery would be more for cash crops, so that would require the land to already be cleared, peace in the area, and a market existing. If we get some unofficial settler colonies and states set up early on they might view slavery as the Europeans simply running out of poor people to send over and work to death, and that using slavery for cash crops tie them to the coastal elites.
 
Perhaps we can get a massive Irish Catholic immigration going, and then we can get a bizarro Boston world going west of the Mississippi: the British can be the cops, and the businesses can have signs saying "Non Irish need not apply" :p
 
Perhaps we can get a massive Irish Catholic immigration going, and then we can get a bizarro Boston world going west of the Mississippi: the British can be the cops, and the businesses can have signs saying "Non Irish need not apply" :p
Apparently a lot do things about "No Irish Need Apply" were references to how they were treated in England, with those mentioning no Irish in American newspapers often being English immigrants.
 
Top