AHC: make American population no bigger than 50 million by 1914

Thomas1195

Banned
Well, after the US civil war, USA had become the land of milk and honey for European migrants who wanted to change their lives, causing a population boom for decades after that. This greatly contributed to their ascendency yo superpower position. Now, the challenge is to make American population stop at 50 million or less.

The POD would be 1861.
 
I took a quick Wikipedia check, and the 1860 census records the population of the United States to be 31.4 million.

Now even if we were to completely exclude immigration, by, I don't know, the US going dictatorial and shutting down it's borders, that's still way too close of a starting population for the challenge to be fulfilled without either large territorial loss or large scale depopulation of any sort (be it a large war, Stalin-level purges or emigration or something). Any one of which seem highly unlikely with an 1861 POD.

I mean, you could maybe combine a Confederate victory and a closed-borders policy, but keeping both up until 1914? Implausible.
 
Even without any immigration at all, natural population growth will will still cause the U.S to grow over 50 million by 1914. A Know Nothing U.S could be kept below 70 or 80 million, especially without the South. But 50 million is just too small a number. The only way to accomplish this is with some calamity.

People forget just how high American birthrates were before the Civil War, or that they, not immigration, made up the vast majority of U.S population growth. They slowed down after the Civil War, but would still have been enough to push us over 50 million, especially once you factor in that less immigration probably coincides with higher birth rates already.
 

jahenders

Banned
Well, after the US civil war, USA had become the land of milk and honey for European migrants who wanted to change their lives, causing a population boom for decades after that. This greatly contributed to their ascendency yo superpower position. Now, the challenge is to make American population stop at 50 million or less.

The POD would be 1861.
  • Somewhat longer and bloodier ACW
  • Something like the Spanish flu epidemic during ACW or thereafter
  • Stronger Native American active in 'Indian Wars' delays settling of much of NW & SW, delaying entry of most states after WV
  • British maneuvering helps them retain (at least part of) WA
  • British maneuvering and/or native opposition prevents US getting HI
  • Isolationist views after ACW lead to limits on immigration
  • More diseases and droughts in general
 
US has a nastier civil war and loses. Then picks a fight with the UK out of pigheadedness and loses that. Canada gets a nice tasty chunk out of the US. Anarchists fed up with losing wars star a wave of terror, many move away from the unstable US. California secedes.
 
I'd say - Civil War that somehow (perhaps French or Spanish intervention) leads to a Confederate victory, or the Civil War is going against the Union, significantly. I would have to say that a couple of countries would have to be backing the Confederacy. France might be able to do it, if they were less cautious about British involvement - and that could be spun well in the Confederacy. "France has always been the friend of an Independent America".

Britain is approached by a rogue politician who asks for British protection, in exchange the "Union" becomes part of the British Empire. This then leads to a serious debate leading to the Union of British American States (or some other entity). Instantly the British intervene with their own blockade and preventing French assistance (in Europe the war is mostly cold, France being unwilling to suffer large losses for the Confederacy). With the Union as a British Imperial Dominion, the Confederacy is pushed to a stalemate, making a peace treaty to be independent OR to control the lands West of the Appalachians. Anyone pro-slavery or Anti-British migrates over the mountains, and leaves the larger part of the population in the UBAS in the British Empire.

The only State that is independent in America is much smaller - and centred (most likely) in Texas/Louisiana, but still grows because it has vast plains to exploit and farm - but not very densely populated. Britain dominates the Lakes and the Union, and continues to undermine the Confederacy by opposing slavery and isolating them economically. Limited economic and demographic increases leave them a large state that tries to encourage other communities to declare independence from Britain and France, promising a deeply decentralised government. It doesn't succeed massively in the first 70 years, but does so later - after giving up slavery due to the British embargo.
 
In my opinion the only real way to do this would be to have the United States balkanize and only some rump state retain the name sometime during the 1800's. Good PoDs might relate to economic depression, increased revolutionary tendencies, and the like.
 
I'd say - Civil War that somehow (perhaps French or Spanish intervention) leads to a Confederate victory, or the Civil War is going against the Union, significantly. I would have to say that a couple of countries would have to be backing the Confederacy. France might be able to do it, if they were less cautious about British involvement - and that could be spun well in the Confederacy. "France has always been the friend of an Independent America".

Britain is approached by a rogue politician who asks for British protection, in exchange the "Union" becomes part of the British Empire. This then leads to a serious debate leading to the Union of British American States (or some other entity). Instantly the British intervene with their own blockade and preventing French assistance (in Europe the war is mostly cold, France being unwilling to suffer large losses for the Confederacy). With the Union as a British Imperial Dominion, the Confederacy is pushed to a stalemate, making a peace treaty to be independent OR to control the lands West of the Appalachians. Anyone pro-slavery or Anti-British migrates over the mountains, and leaves the larger part of the population in the UBAS in the British Empire.

The only State that is independent in America is much smaller - and centred (most likely) in Texas/Louisiana, but still grows because it has vast plains to exploit and farm - but not very densely populated. Britain dominates the Lakes and the Union, and continues to undermine the Confederacy by opposing slavery and isolating them economically. Limited economic and demographic increases leave them a large state that tries to encourage other communities to declare independence from Britain and France, promising a deeply decentralised government. It doesn't succeed massively in the first 70 years, but does so later - after giving up slavery due to the British embargo.
No one would accept British control of the Union, and there's no way they'd be able to effectively occupy any more than a few extra pieces of land for Canada for any extended period of time. They may be able to beat the Union (though not easily, they wouldn't be mobilized to the same extent), but there's no way they're able to take any significant part of it over after a war.
 
No one would accept British control of the Union, and there's no way they'd be able to effectively occupy any more than a few extra pieces of land for Canada for any extended period of time. They may be able to beat the Union (though not easily, they wouldn't be mobilized to the same extent), but there's no way they're able to take any significant part of it over after a war.

I'm not saying Britain invades, I'm saying the Union agrees to become a self-governing British Dominion in exchange for support.
 
PoD 1861?
the CSA wins the Civil War (not sure how), and the so in 1864 (say) there's two nations where formerly there was one, the USA and the CSA.
Acrimony over the loss of the war and other tensions cause several other states to break away from the Union, as well. First the western states (today's 'midwest'), then New England (err, handwaving here). Leaving the USA consisting essentially of NY and PA (probably NJ, maybe WV and bits of MD and DE). This USA would be <50M today, let alone in 1914.
 
They would never do that, so the British would have to invade.

Well, no. The British can just not intervene. The premise was to have a small US - not British control. I just put forward that idea. I'm fine with the premise being rejected, but I don't appreciate words being put in my mouth.

But I stand by the point that people will make drastic decisions when pushed. If the Union is threatened with complete defeat, and the sentiment to end slavery (and defeat the Confederacy) is stronger than the sentiment that they must be completely independent, then I still think it COULD happen. Would the Union respect that treaty forever? I don't think so.
 
Well, no. The British can just not intervene. The premise was to have a small US - not British control. I just put forward that idea. I'm fine with the premise being rejected, but I don't appreciate words being put in my mouth.

But I stand by the point that people will make drastic decisions when pushed. If the Union is threatened with complete defeat, and the sentiment to end slavery (and defeat the Confederacy) is stronger than the sentiment that they must be completely independent, then I still think it COULD happen. Would the Union respect that treaty forever? I don't think so.
The U.S is a democracy. If Union leaders even considered this move, they'd be tarred and feathered by the people- figuratively and possibly even literally. There is absolutely no way the public would ever consider handing over control of the government to the British, especially with the Revolutionary War and War of 1812 in living memory. The British would know this, and not attempt to go along with such an offer.

The Confederacy going independent isn't good for the Union, but it's nowhere near as bad as being subordinate to a foreign power.
 
The U.S is a democracy. If Union leaders even considered this move, they'd be tarred and feathered by the people- figuratively and possibly even literally. There is absolutely no way the public would ever consider handing over control of the government to the British, especially with the Revolutionary War and War of 1812 in living memory. The British would know this, and not attempt to go along with such an offer.

The Confederacy going independent isn't good for the Union, but it's nowhere near as bad as being subordinate to a foreign power.

Well, it depends, I did posit that the war would have to be in the Confederacies favour, which I would see as "Confederacy taking states from the Union". If it looks like the states of the Union would risk being subordinate to the Confederacy - what is the difference between being subordinate to the UK, vs Subordinate to the Confederacy? If the Confederacy is winning with French support - then they may not see simple independence as good enough for peace, they may instead want total victory and the Union replaced with the Confederacy. This is when a British Union Treaty becomes plausible - on the terms that the Union gets to maintain its political system, and the terms aren't onerous.
 
Lyme disease ? Some nasty pox carried by eg black-foot ferrets ? Plagues of passenger pigeons ? Worse plagues of locusts ??

No kidding on the locusts; wasn't until settlers serendipitously destroyed their breeding grounds in a *few* mountain valleys that they stopped swarming every decade or so...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_Mountain_locust
 
Top