AHC: The United States Fails

[Emperor Norton I]

By failure, I do not mean that it suddenly stops existing, or becomes a British colony again, or chooses a monarch, or even necessarily exists as a loose confederation of really independent States under the Articles of Confederation. The United States is a very rare example where a democracy succeeded. The United States in the 18th century did not become what so many other nations became in the 19th century and 20th century: a nominal elected government which was a completely corrupt, frequently if not outright authoritarian state, abusive, engaged in extra-legal activities, torture of dissidents as a wide scale activity, ruled by corrupt interests for monetary gain, etc. A nation where the elected government is overthrown by another corrupt government, where the military is a force in itself, and where a chance of a free government is seen as weak by military generals who launch a coup and take dictatorship for themselves should one briefly arise. It was not a Banana Republic.

The challenge is to make the United States a failed democracy.

 

[Don Corleone]

You need a big, bad, scary threat. Maybe something like drugs - think about the children! In order to stop drug dealers, you need more than just incarceration. You also need to hit them in the pocketbook so it isn't profitable. But what if you can't prove guilt? Might be ASB, but maybe the government could just seize any property suspected of being the proceeds of drug activity.

But I'm not sure that would fly. So maybe something like a mass casualty terrorist attack. Then the government could start doing things like spying on citizens without a warrant, because otherwise they can't prevent a repeat in the future. They could give it a feel good name like the Freedom Act or something.

 

[writofcertiorari]

The US had certain aspects at that time making an authoritarian state unlikely:

1. Powerful interests actually preferred smaller government (especially in the South)
2. Strong government was distrusted for historical reasons
3. Lack of infrastructure led to less wide scale commerce early on, meaning people were more tied to their local area
4. Political parties were very decentralized, and only had true strength at the state level
5. Threat of rebellion was there due to large rural/armed population
6. Small standing army
7. Supremacy of Congress over the president
8. State governments did not depend on the Federal government for funds, instead they were able to tax or borrow
9. Any surplus population could just move West and get land there
10. Sectional interests meant that there wasn't one ideology everyone could agree on, other than notions of republicanism/liberalism, which were anti-authoritarian anyway
11. Technology hadn't developed to allow for tight control of such a large country
12. Public treasury was usually small due to paying off debts/low taxes
13. Property ownership was seen as sacrosanct
14. There wasn't really anyone who could unite the country in such a way
15. Corruption in cities didn't leak into rural areas for demographic reasons (immigrants vs. natives, Catholic vs. Protestant, etc. led to political divides)

 

[Timaeus]

Here's a potential path: Andrew Jackson fucks up everything. He seems to be the best PoD to begin eroding American democracy into a failed state.

 

[Jan Olbracht]

So maybe the other way around-central government is very weak due to fear of 'tyranny', strong army is feared as possible tool to enforce military dictatorship. As result US is beaten and humiliated (perhaps by Britain), and reaction of society is-"we need a strongman"!

 

[piratedude]

So maybe the other way around-central government is very weak due to fear of 'tyranny', strong army is feared as possible tool to enforce military dictatorship. As result US is beaten and humiliated (perhaps by Britain), and as reaction of society is-"we need a strongman"!

So 1812 being a more thorough/decisive victory for Britain?

 

[Byzantine fanatic]

...a nominal elected government which was a completely corrupt, frequently if not outright authoritarian state, abusive, engaged in extra-legal activities, torture of dissidents as a wide scale activity, ruled by corrupt interests for monetary gain, etc.

The challenge is to make the United States a failed democracy.

Just wait a few years, it's happening right now as we speak.

Your description describes the US of today perfectly. I'm assuming that's not a coincidence...

 

[Tonifranz]

Just wait a few years, it's happening right now as we speak.

Your description describes the US of today perfectly. I'm assuming that's not a coincidence...

But this is before 1900 forum, so today's events in this thread is irrelevant.

 

[Byzantine fanatic]

Deleted.

 

[Tonifranz]

Just like your post, which contributed nothing to this discussion.

Perhaps, but it's helpful if suggestions for this thread refer to events that happened before 1900. It should state why before 1900, the United States could become a failed state, a corrupt authoritarian banana republic where coups are regular, etc... Referring to events today is not helpful, as the United States in 1899 is not the same as of 2018.

For example, I could suggest that Burr being elected instead of Jefferson by the Federalist House in 1800 could lead to what the poster are suggesting, as I could see the Jeffersonians actually raising arms about Jefferson being robbed in the House. Or I could suggest that there is no third term tradition, as a result, Presidents would continue running reelection until they are defeated and die, and they de facto become President for life, with the electoral college being a formality to elect Democratic-REpublican Presidents, etc...

That is more helpful.

 

[Napoleonrules]

You need a big, bad, scary threat. Maybe something like drugs - think about the children! In order to stop drug dealers, you need more than just incarceration. You also need to hit them in the pocketbook so it isn't profitable. But what if you can't prove guilt? Might be ASB, but maybe the government could just seize any property suspected of being the proceeds of drug activity.

But I'm not sure that would fly. So maybe something like a mass casualty terrorist attack. Then the government could start doing things like spying on citizens without a warrant, because otherwise they can't prevent a repeat in the future. They could give it a feel good name like the Freedom Act or something.

Everything you just described has happened and we didn't fall into anarchy- Rockefeller drug laws and to this day police departments can and DO seize property during civil forfeiture from even a routine traffic stop (and it's almost impossible to get the money back even if no charges are pressed).

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/12/1/16686014/phillip-parhamovich-civil-forfeiture
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...22a9ba-6c99-11e7-96ab-5f38140b38cc_story.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

By failure, I do not mean that it suddenly stops existing, or becomes a British colony again, or chooses a monarch, or even necessarily exists as a loose confederation of really independent States under the Articles of Confederation. The United States is a very rare example where a democracy succeeded. The United States in the 18th century did not become what so many other nations became in the 19th century and 20th century: a nominal elected government which was a completely corrupt, frequently if not outright authoritarian state, abusive, engaged in extra-legal activities, torture of dissidents as a wide scale activity, ruled by corrupt interests for monetary gain, etc. A nation where the elected government is overthrown by another corrupt government, where the military is a force in itself, and where a chance of a free government is seen as weak by military generals who launch a coup and take dictatorship for themselves should one briefly arise. It was not a Banana Republic.

The challenge is to make the United States a failed democracy.

Any scenario where the USA still gains independence while New France still exists seems like a path to a failed US. A large standing army (perhaps large enough to become its own interest group) would be needed to deal with the empire next door. Anti-Catholic sentiment would be kicked into overdrive with imagined fifth columns behind every blade of grass. People living in the impoverished Appalachians and southern swamps would make up a much more significant portion of the population...

Seems like an environment which would have frequent and exploitable crises.

 

[Emperor Norton I]

If memory serves, there were a number of officers and such that were secretly agents loyal to a foreign crown in the early United States. This was an easy source of rot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Wilkinson

https://www.npr.org/2010/04/28/126363998/the-man-who-double-crossed-the-founders

 

[Claudius]

To this very good list I would add the original, pre-20th century Constitutional provision that Senators were chosen by state legislatures not by popular elections. Thereby the interests of the several states as sovereign states were always represented in Washington. Senators were bound by their own political interests to the needs of their State. In the Founder's view, this diffused power from the central government to the broader union of states. It also limited the likelihood of individuals becoming essentially lifetime members of a ruling class, and potential Cesarists or Manderins. Lifetime residents in government are a constant danger to democracy.

 

[History Learner]

Not sure if it fits the OPs definition, but I have sketched out a scenario where the Constitution isn't adopted so the U.S. suffers a period of unrest in the 1790s. At the end, it adopts a somewhat Absolute Monarchy with a powerful aristocracy created from the slave-owning planters, which have expanded into the Midwest and portions of the North. A powerful military, geared towards expansion and suppressing internal disorder, is also created.

 

[Joshua Ben Ari]

So 1812 being a more thorough/decisive victory for Britain?

I had a list in the Presidents and Prime Ministers thread (here) where Madison is killed in the Battle of Bladensburg in 1814 and VP Elbridge Gerry proclaims himself President. The Cabinet views Gerry as Acting President (this was actually the case until 1841) and tries to undermine his authority, seeing Gerry as part of a power-sharing agreement until the 1816 election. Gerry's earlier death than OTL means Secretary of State and War James Monroe takes over more and more power.

President pro tempore of the Senate John Gaillard (DR-SC) becomes Acting President and, in his own view, the legal President. Monroe doesn't agree, seeing him as a placeholder until the next election. The Presidential Succession Act of 1792 is used by pro-Gaillard Democratic-Republicans to push a special election to be held in December 1815, which Monroe and supporters boycott as "illegitimate". As Secretary of War, Monroe starts issuing contradictory orders to American forces fighting the British, which leads to more British victories. Gaillard blames Monroe for the American defeats and that he's violating the Constitution, Monroe says that Gaillard is seizing power and a would-be tyrant eroding the Constitution, and it slowly spirals into a civil war.

EDIT: And in Hartford, representatives from New England (who are fed up with the war and the British blockade), New York (tired of British raids into northern New York and the British naval blockade), and New Jersey (tired of the Royal Navy blockading their ports) meet to discuss a possible secession from the Union...

So 1812 being a more thorough victory for the British would work very well.

 

[Deleted member 9338]

While a little later than some of the threads, have a weaker US milatary and than the US goes to war with Mexico in the 1830s or 40s and loses.

 

[WunWun]

Maybe a scenario to erode the democracy could go as follows:
After the American civil war, the Reconstruction is started far harsher than OTL. During this far harsher reconstruction, the South is occupied and the local population is terrorised by union occupation forces and others. Simple subsistence farmers get expropriated and a whole list of what would be today described as war crimes would happen.
A (dont know who would fit) union general decides that enough is enough, rallies his former soldiers and marches on DC to force the government to retract the reconstruction. It does not matter if he grabs power or not, the precedent for the army as an independant, political column exists. If it happens once, it can happen again, and the US' democracy is ready to fail.

 

[Deleted member 9338]

Said General with navy support holds Washington but other forces in the occupied south support the reconstruction. Chaos ensues