What are Some Points of Departure that Would have Likely led to a More Powerful United States?

[KansasKracker]

Title says it all. I think it's pretty common to see America wanks in the alternate history community or just timelines in general where America has better standing. These might be timelines where standard of living/quality of life is better, America has better relations with other nations, or the US holds more territory. I'm wondering how many PODs the community can think of, whether it be an election turning out different, a war turning different, some domestic agenda being more successful, or something else.

I've compiled a few more common ones but it'd be interesting to hear about the more obscure PODS.

• Canada is incorporated into United States during the Revolutionary War or War of 1812
• Reconstruction is more successful because Lincoln lives or some other reason
• TR wins 1912 and institutes New Deal style reforms decades earlier
• FDR lives out his 4th term, instituting his 2nd Bill of Rights and changing geopolitics post-WWII
• Democrats win in 1968 or 2000
• New Deal reforms aren't cut down in latter half of 20th century
• Space race escalates further
• Federal-Aid Highway Act is more limited, protecting American communities and public transport.
• Jones Act never passes
• Nuclear energy embraced much more
• Polk's desires post Mexican-American War are realized.
• US honors Treaty of Fort Pitt
• US participates in Congress of Panama (1826)

It'd be cool to see what else people can think of. Many of these are broader generalizations. I'm very interested to see much more specific PODs.

 

[KansasKracker]

Just realized this got posted to the wrong category. Am going to delete. Will move to new category

 

[Lalli]

Just realized this got posted to the wrong category. Am going to delete.

Not need to delete. Just report and ask mods to move this to right forum.

 

[KansasKracker]

Not need to delete. Just report and ask mods to move this to right forum.

Just did that, I'm pretty new to the site so I didn't realize that was an option.

 

[Lalli]

And my ideas:

- USA takes Canada during ARW or War of 1812.
- George Washington serves third term.
- Southern states gradually abolish slavery and no civil war.
- USA takes Baja California, Sonora and Chihuahua in 1850's.
- Lincoln is not assassinated.
- Better treatment of American natives.
- USA purchases Santo Domingo and Cuba.
- James A. Garfield is not assassinated.
- Theodore Roosevelt is elected in 1912.
- Eisenhower push civil rights issues more seriously and avoids intervention to Iran and not support military coup in Guatemala.
- JFK is not assassinated.
- Hubert Humphrey wins '69 election.
- Jimmy Carter is re-elected in 1980 or someone more moderate Republican in '80.
- No 9/11.
- John Kerry wins '04 election.
- 2008 Crash is dealt betterly.

There is some other ideas for later PODs but these would are current politics so I don't go with them.

 

[Pragmatic Progressive]

• FDR lives out his 4th term, instituting his 2nd Bill of Rights and changing geopolitics post-WWII

How would a full FDR term 1945-1949 change geopolitics?

 

[Mildtryth]

- George Washington serves third term.

Nice, speeding up the entire definition of the presidential succession by forty years or so.

 

[KansasKracker]

How would a full FDR term 1945-1949 change geopolitics?

Although I’m not too familiar with his post war plans. As I understand it FDR desired a world where China and Britain took on greater responsibility in world affairs. Thus it’s possible that a world where he lives is more multipolar. He was also more in favor of self determination and anti colonialism. This could lead to America being more at odds with Britain and France, more situations similar to the Suez Crisis. Along with his good neighbor policy the United States would have likely started off with much better relationships in LatAm, Africa, and Asia.

Of course that’s an idealism. The realities of international politics and opposition from Congress could have greatly hindered his plans. But polling from the time shows the American public was very much in favor of internationalism.

- JFK is not assassinated.

I know I’m in the minority but I’m of the opinion that although tragic, JFK’s death had the positive outcome of ushering Lyndon Baines Johnson into the presidency. I’ve always doubted that Kennedy could have passed near as strong civil rights legislation or that the New Frontier could have been near as transformative as the Great Society.

 

[raharris1973]

Nice, speeding up the entire definition of the presidential succession by forty years or so.

Forfeiting the exemplary precedent of our very powerful Presidents walking out of the Executive residence, on schedule, without a fuss, on their own two legs, or possibly assisted with a cane or a wheelchair, instead of getting carried out as corpse.

Consider that trade-off for a minute.

I am not exactly sure it is worth it.

If the first and best of us and our leaders keeps his grip on power until death, will that be tempting for all Presidents for whom it seems feasible?

Might it come to be seen as positively humiliating not to?

Strict obedience to the timing of the electoral clocks for over 200 years arguably has been a great force for channelling and regulating the ambitions of our most ambitious men, women, and Parties. It offered reliable "rematch" opportunities for losing coalitions of supporters, if not losing individuals. If not for this reliable tradition, would our representative republic, especially our *Presidential* representative republic, have been so stable, when so many others have hardly been so stable or able to stick to scripts, schedules and peaceful change and growth?

 

[raharris1973]

US honors Treaty of Fort Pitt

?

 

[Mildtryth]

Forfeiting the exemplary precedent of our our power Presidents walking out of the Executive residence, on schedule, without a fuss, on their own two legs, or possibly assisted with a cane or a wheelchair, instead of getting carried out as corpse.

Consider that trade-off for a minute.

I am not exactly sure it is worth it.

If the first and best of us and our leaders keeps his grip on power until death, will that be tempting for all Presidents for whom it seems feasible?

Might it come to be seen as positively humiliating not to?

Strict obedience to the timing of the electoral clocks for over 200 years arguably has been a great force for channelling and regulating the ambitions of our most ambitious men, women, and Parties. It offered reliable "rematch" opportunities for losing coalitions of supporters, if not losing individuals. If not for this reliable tradition, would our representative republic, especially our *Presidential* representative republic, have been so stable, when so many others have hardly been so stable or able to stick to scripts, schedules and peaceful change and growth?

I didn't really think of that aspect when i posted - i was mostly joking about the unlikelihood of Washington living until the end of his third term.

 

[raharris1973]

As I understand it FDR desired a world where China and Britain took on greater responsibility in world affairs.

He was also more in favor of self determination and anti colonialism.

This could lead to America being more at odds with Britain and France, more situations similar to the Suez Crisis

This would be a fun circle to square. Especially somehow enjoying the benefits of the first with items two and three going on.

And then having the equation resolve out to what's in the title

More Powerful United States​

will make for some interesting math.

I like enlightened self-interest as much as the next guy. People and countries can do *well* by doing *good*. People and countries certainly can impoverish and weaken themselves doing evil. But doing well and doing good? They are not exactly the same thing. Sometimes they are in opposition or tension.

 

[Belisarius II]

And my ideas:

- USA takes Canada during ARW or War of 1812.

USA is a damn big county.

- George Washington serves third term.

Very anti-democratic precedent.

- Southern states gradually abolish slavery and no civil war.

The South will abolish slavery when pigs can fly.

- USA takes Baja California, Sonora and Chihuahua in 1850's.

Weakens Mexico doesn't do much for the USA. The Gadsden Purchase was the last piece of territory really needed in the lower 48. Good for a rail line to California.

- Lincoln is not assassinated.

Tough term. The South will fight hard to reestablish White Supremacy. Lincoln's reputation in history much lower than it was in his martyrdom.

- Better treatment of American natives.

Hard to imagine. Native culture didn't fit in with "Civilization". Whites settled, divided and fenced in all the fertile land. How do the Indians keep their culture in that world.

- USA purchases Santo Domingo and Cuba.

I don't know enough about Santo Domingo to have an opinion, but Cubans wanted independence. Holding Cuba down would be morally wrong very costly, and unnecessary.

- James A. Garfield is not assassinated.
Not much difference.

- Theodore Roosevelt is elected in 1912.

U.S. probable stays out of Mexico & Hatti but enters WWI earlier and better prepared.

- Eisenhower push civil rights issues more seriously and avoids intervention to Iran and not support military coup in Guatemala.

Eisenhower along with a liberal Supreme Court pushed the country about as fast as it would go in the 1950's. They didn't want the turmoil that happened in the 60's.

- JFK is not assassinated.

JFK not a martyr. Civil Rights advances slower, Vietnam pushes forward. McNamara's Band in LBJ term are Kennedy hold overs. They enter a war they think is already lost.

- Hubert Humphrey wins '69 election.

The Great Society has run out of steam, Vietnam War rages on pointlessly, anti-war turmoil rolls on.

- Jimmy Carter is re-elected in 1980 or someone more moderate Republican in '80.

Hostage Crisis drags on. Confused leadership continues. No Tax Cuts, Fed rate hikes cause steep recession, very weak recovery. The 80's not remembered for good times.

- No 9/11.
- John Kerry wins '04 election.

Drift in war policy. Green movement accelerates. Edwards scandal breaks earlier because of greater scrutiny.

- 2008 Crash is dealt betterly.

A better recovery. Obama gets reelected with a bigger popular vote.

There is some other ideas for later PODs but these would are current politics so I don't go with them.

 

[raharris1973]

Hard to imagine. Native culture didn't fit in with "Civilization". Whites settled, divided and fenced in all the fertile land. How do the Indians keep their culture in that world.

Would Paraguay-ization count as "better"?

Paraguay "resolved" any chance Spanish - native Guarani racial strife under the post-independence early 19th century rule of Dr. Gaspar Francia, who mandated racial integration of the most intimate type, directing that all marriages be racially mixed marriages which created an ethnically homogenized Mestizo people, bilingual in Spanish and Guarani. The resulting hybrid culture was probably quite alien from pre-contact Guarani culture and its post-contact, pre-independence, pre-hybridization forms, and the Spanish Creole Paraguayan culture was never quite the same.

Maybe have this somehow happen between whites and Amerindians in the USA.

I haven't the foggiest notion *how* to get it done.

Not to mention, the Dr. Francia method seems rather "bossy", directive, unfree, even "totalitarian", despite that word not being invented yet, in its zeal for racial integration.

U.S. probable stays out of Mexico & Hatti but enters WWI earlier and better prepared.

Theodore Roosevelt did Caribbean and Central American occupations without hesitation in his OTL Presidential terms. He created Panama and the Roosevelt Corollary, first implemented in occupation of Santo Domingo to preempt any possible moves by Germany for debt collection purposes. Why would he hesitate to intervene in Haiti. Particular circumstances and relationships with different actors in Mexico might change, Henry Lane Wilson, Francisco Madero, Victoriano Huerta, but I don't see any reason why, in principle Theodore Roosevelt would be more hesitant to get involved in Mexico if he saw US security, interests, or honor endangered than Woodrow Wilson.

Why would Theodore Roosevelt elected in 1912 put the USA into WWI earlier or better prepared?
Would he be provoked to want to by German actions, or be permitted to by Congress and public opinion?

He did not initially say too much in condemnation of the Germans over their invasion of Belgium. His early correspondence on it was rather cold-blooded, making observations like, "well, when you're a small country and you choose to live between three great powers, you are going to get trampled and pieces of paper calling you neutral are not going to save you."

I guess the USA's naval budgets might be a bit higher than Wilson's in fiscal 1914 and 1915, *if* TR keeps his rhetoric in check and and focused on Americanist interests. If he relates his 1915 budget requests (which would be decided in 1914 after the outbreak of war) for Navy and Army to more than just American safety and precaution, but to anger with the Germans or thoughts of intervention in Europe, he would activate resistance in Congress and probably end up getting funds restricted instead, or getting presented with bills he would find unsatisfactory and would feel he has to veto.

Writing and speaking in the near-term aftermath of the Lusitania incident, assuming that is not butterflied away, Theodore Roosevelt did *not* advocate for declaring war on Germany over this. He advocated for getting satisfaction by seizing interned German merchant ships in American ports, to leave the Germans wondering what *they* would have to promise to America in terms of compensation and promises of good behavior to get either ships or compensation for them back. By 1916 OTL he had become a war hawk and certainly a merciless Wilson critic. But in this TL he'd be a lame duck President, ineligible for election, who would be ignore and neutralized by Congress as "that crazy old man in the White House" if he became an advocate for war on Germany in 1916, without Germany supplying additional provocations and threats to the USA than it did in real life. For its part, Germany, especially if it witnesses mercurial and sometimes hostile displays from Theodore Roosevelt, may actually be more circumspect in several of its actions and tiptoe more carefully around the USA, at least throughout his term.

 

[raharris1973]

Title says it all. I think it's pretty common to see America wanks in the alternate history community or just timelines in general where America has better standing. These might be timelines where standard of living/quality of life is better, America has better relations with other nations, or the US holds more territory. I'm wondering how many PODs the community can think of, whether it be an election turning out different, a war turning different, some domestic agenda being more successful, or something else.

I've compiled a few more common ones but it'd be interesting to hear about the more obscure PODS.

• Canada is incorporated into United States during the Revolutionary War or War of 1812
• Reconstruction is more successful because Lincoln lives or some other reason
• TR wins 1912 and institutes New Deal style reforms decades earlier
• FDR lives out his 4th term, instituting his 2nd Bill of Rights and changing geopolitics post-WWII
• Democrats win in 1968 or 2000
• New Deal reforms aren't cut down in latter half of 20th century
• Space race escalates further
• Federal-Aid Highway Act is more limited, protecting American communities and public transport.
• Jones Act never passes
• Nuclear energy embraced much more
• Polk's desires post Mexican-American War are realized.
• US honors Treaty of Fort Pitt
• US participates in Congress of Panama (1826)

It'd be cool to see what else people can think of. Many of these are broader generalizations. I'm very interested to see much more specific PODs.

To qualify as PoDs for this, do they have to be post-US independence, or post the beginning of the American Revolution? Or can they start in earlier Anglo-American colonial times?

 

[KansasKracker]

?

Would Paraguay-ization count as "better"?

Paraguay "resolved" any chance Spanish - native Guarani racial strife under the post-independence early 19th century rule of Dr. Gaspar Francia, who mandated racial integration of the most intimate type, directing that all marriages be racially mixed marriages which created an ethnically homogenized Mestizo people, bilingual in Spanish and Guarani. The resulting hybrid culture was probably quite alien from pre-contact Guarani culture and its post-contact, pre-independence, pre-hybridization forms, and the Spanish Creole Paraguayan culture was never quite the same.

Maybe have this somehow happen between whites and Amerindians in the USA.

I haven't the foggiest notion *how* to get it done.

Early in the Revolutionary War the US signed the treaty of Fort Pitt with the Lenape tribe of Ohio. This treaty basically promised that the Lenape would be admitted to the Union as a state and its people given the same rights as white Americans. However in the Revolutionary War the Lenape chief who negotiated the treaty was killed by racist Continental Army soldiers and the situation in the Midwest fell apart, creating the environment that led to Little Turtle's War and Tecumseh's War. Thus culminating in the near entire eviction and murder of all tribes in the Great Lakes region.

A world where Fort Pitt is honored would likely be one where you see more "civilized tribes," an antiquated term that describes tribes that willingly accepted Euro-American culture and integrated into the United States, examples include the Iroquois and Cherokee. Before the Indian Removal Act there were two views on how to interact with American-Indians/Native Americans. The view that people such as Andrew Jackson had, that they should be removed and/or killed. And the view more in line with people like George Washington, that they were "savage whites" who needed some education and christianization to be "civilized."

A world where this latter view wins out could see native culture less harmed, of course it would still be unjustly forced into European customs. But it would likely be more on the natives own terms rather than the forced nature of the Indian Removal Act and boarding schools. An America that is more multicultural and cosmopolitan earlier may even embrace civil rights earlier but that is no guarantee.

To qualify as PoDs for this, do they have to be post-US independence, or post the beginning of the American Revolution? Or can they start in earlier Anglo-American colonial times?

I would say any sensible PoD you can think of. So long as its not batshit insane and relevant to the United States it counts.

For example I believe the United States had too many odds against it to win Canada in the Revolutionary War. But a PoD where the British Empire is far less tolerant of French Catholics in Canada, where they treat them similar to the Acadians of the modern Maritimes, would see Canada more than willingly join the Revolutionary War and maybe even the Continental Congress.

A timeline where the United States is more tolerant of native culture would probably require the dynamics to change during the colonial period.

A timeline where the aristocratic forces can't bring poor whites and indentured servants to abandon their African allies and join the wealthy whites would be interesting. Hell, one where Bacon's Rebellion is more successful would also see the southern caste system be far weaker, or in a reactionary move reinforce itself to be far stronger, which would have untold consequences.

 

[KansasKracker]

U.S. probable stays out of Mexico & Hatti but enters WWI earlier and better prepared.

Honestly a tl where TR lives to run in 1920 and 1924 might be more interesting. It would see the exact opposite of the "return to normalcy" promised by Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover. I could even see TR picking Robert La Follette as VP. TR had been increasingly progressive and was promising stuff similar to what FDR created, if not more radical. However without the Great Depression to justify TR's reforms it would likely be far harder to change the nation, despite his immense charisma and popularity.

It could shoot the US in the foot as it might not create the conditions that allowed the New Deal to change as much as it did, with the right leadership having the right circumstances. Of course alternate history isn't a science and is up to the author's choice so anything could happen.

 

[TheLobby]

And my ideas:

- USA takes Canada during ARW or War of 1812.
- George Washington serves third term.
- Southern states gradually abolish slavery and no civil war.
- USA takes Baja California, Sonora and Chihuahua in 1850's.
- Lincoln is not assassinated.
- Better treatment of American natives.
- USA purchases Santo Domingo and Cuba.
- James A. Garfield is not assassinated.
- Theodore Roosevelt is elected in 1912.
- Eisenhower push civil rights issues more seriously and avoids intervention to Iran and not support military coup in Guatemala.
- JFK is not assassinated.
- Hubert Humphrey wins '69 election.
- Jimmy Carter is re-elected in 1980 or someone more moderate Republican in '80.
- No 9/11.
- John Kerry wins '04 election.
- 2008 Crash is dealt betterly.

There is some other ideas for later PODs but these would are current politics so I don't go with them.

On the territorial expansion you mentioned, I agree that adding Canada would help make the United States completely OP. But adding northern Mexico is a bad idea, even if it's a trope of the althist community. With the exception of Baja (which could be used as a naval base to better control the Panama Canal), the northern regions of Mexico (Sonora, Chichuahua, Coahuila, Nuevo Léon and Tamaulipas) were already at state level in 1848 and firmly under Mexico City's control, and each of these states had at least the same number of inhabitants as the entire OTL's Mexican session. There were probably already at least 1 million inhabitants in northern Mexico in 1848, and White Americans would never form a majority (10 or 20% of the population at most) against Hispanics. I'm not even talking about the annexation of Cuba and Santo Domingo, which is as stupid as making the Philippines or Liberia US states after WW2.

 

[raharris1973]

Honestly a tl where TR lives to run in 1920 and 1924 might be more interesting. It would see the exact opposite of the "return to normalcy" promised by Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover. I could even see TR picking Robert La Follette as VP. TR had been increasingly progressive and was promising stuff similar to what FDR created, if not more radical. However without the Great Depression to justify TR's reforms it would likely be far harder to change the nation, despite his immense charisma and popularity.

It could shoot the US in the foot as it might not create the conditions that allowed the New Deal to change as much as it did, with the right leadership having the right circumstances. Of course alternate history isn't a science and is up to the author's choice so anything could happen.

This is interesting, and I have brought up some of these aspects in consideration of a Theodore Roosevelt healthy enough to run in 1920.

His very lack of a promise to “return to normalcy”, his zest for progressive reform as opposed to the conservative, tax-cutting, smaller government instincts of other Republicans, and his militarism and navalism, at odds with popular “pull in our horns and forget the war and world” sentiment, could genuinely flub his chances for the GOP nomination, despite his history of personal popularity and electoral success.

His main assets as a candidate for Party nomination would simply be unbeatable name recognition and history of electoral success, (and ability to cause trouble if not nominated). His main asset as a general election candidate, who is not convincingly promising “normalcy”, is simply that he is not a Democrat, linked with the now unpopular Wilson Administration.

 

[Evil Crusader]

I think that unless we're wanking away all problems inherent in the proposals, many of the offered ones actually tend to curb, not enhance, USA fortunes.
For example I'm not sure that longer Presidential terms would really help, or that incorporating Canada automatically makes the USA stronger; it probably is more divided and prone to developing large impasses, and likely starts having bad ideas about going toe to toe with Euros when it's not ready yet because 'we won once or twice, why wouldn't be able to do it again'.
Of OP's points, the only POD that I feel fairly confident is most likely to not end up either in hubris, or a delayed but stronger pendulum swing in the other direction that actually causes problems is TR winning in 1912.