What is the most that the US could possibly be wanked?

[Zek Sora]

As it says on the tin. (Within the realm of plausibility, of course.)

 

[Jared]

That depends on how much the US wants to keep a firm grip on its territory.

 

[unprincipled peter]

do you want looks good on a map wank? or adding value to the country wank?

if you want the first, have them get involved in establishing colonies (africa, asia)

if you want the second, have them get militaristic immediately after independence. that way, they're ready to kick some ass in the war of 1812. they're not taking over populated Canada (not controlling it anyway), but they can wangle a nice settlement of British Columbia.

IMO, you're getting greedy if you want to go beyond the wank they pulled off in OTL. they suckered France into destroying itself helping them gain independence. Almost every other revolution ended in ongoing civil wars or disaster, yet somehow they managed to create a lasting nation which then went on an incredible streak of upward nation building. they wanted a river port, and got the entirety of Louisiana. they took half of Mexico just before the mineral riches were discovered. they bought Alaska for a song, and managed to get most of what they wanted in settling the Northern border dispute. they took Hawaii away from the world's predominant naval power. they gained superiority in a Caribbean dominated by other world powers. they won a splendid little war with a country arguably of comparative strength and gained a protectorate over Cuba, the Philippines, and ownership of Puerto Rico. They outlasted the other world powers and became the predominant power in the world, using a cold war to force their way to hegemony over half the world. what more does your greed want? If you wrote this wank timeline in 1776, most realists would laugh you out of the room.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

What are our PoD limitations here?

 

[Zek Sora]

What are our PoD limitations here?

None, just keep it within the realm of possibility.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

None, just keep it within the realm of possibility.

OK, well let's say the US Constitution is less pro-slavery and the first few Presidents, as a result, do a better job containing the spread of the institution. (Thoughts along these lines explored here and here.) With the big domestic issue that so bitterly divided American OTL largely taken care of, not only does this mean an earlier abolition of slavery, but one who's expansionist tendencies are more fully unleashed (e.g. less opposition to adding Nicaragua and Cuba), with free labor taking up more of the country, more immigrants, and more industrialization.

 

[Mr.brightside]

My personal America wank fantasy includes Canada, Greenland, Iceland, Northern Mexico, Panama, Nicaragua and all the islands in the Caribbean.

 

[British Republic]

Here is my proposed POD:

What about a more successful Seven Years War for the UK? Which would mean that Britain also gains Cuba? Then once the American Revolution starts, the British introduce a Quebec Act (which also is expanded to Cuba in this case) which is a extension of the Irish Penal Laws in practice.

This means that the French and Spanish Speaking Catholics formally join the ARW and means that the Founding Fathers would consist of English, French and Spanish Speakers, Protestants and Catholics and White and Mixed-Race. As well as the likelihood of the Iroquois siding with the Patriots (because the British are even more likely to face defeat than in OTL and if they do there is no safe haven for them escape to). The United States also has Nova Scotia, Jamaica, The Cayman Islands and The Bahamas from the start as well.

When the Napoleonic Wars happen, the British need wood for their navy and the Americans need to gain the Louisiana Territory off the French. Eventually they come to "devils agreement" for the British to back the Americans in a war against the Spanish and French to gain Louisiana Territory and the French (who also hold the Dutch Caribbean Colonies) and Spanish Caribbean Colonies (and French/Dutch Guinea).

Due to the fact both nations are busy fighting in Europe, they lose this battle, which also helps the British as every army sent across the Atlantic is one less to deal with in Europe. Britain also sells Ruperts Land/Oregon Territory/NWT to the United States.

To compensate the loss of BNA, the British have a more successful invasion of RDP (Now Argentina and other nearby states) and gain that and Chile as a new colony called "British South America", when you add that to the turmoil caused by Napoleons invasion of Spain in South America and the example of their fellow Spanish Speaking Catholics in Cuba (in comparison to how Madrid rules over them), the Viceroys of Spanish South America are in revolt.

America is not best pleased with the Britain's antics in RDP, thus they introduce a ITTL Monroe Doctrine and get involved in the South American Wars of independence, which were successful in New Granada and New Spain. Peru was a mixed bag, Lower Peru was freed from Spanish rule but Upper Peru fell to the British.

New Spain, New Granada and Lower Peru become the independent republics of Mexico, Gran Columbia and Peru respectably and thanks to their shared experience in the war, build close ties with the United States, which leads to Protectorate Status for all 3 (which all eventually become States of the US)

The question of slavery leads the slaver regions to break off and form the CSA, because of the numerical disadvantages they have over the remaining USA they soon faced defeat. Britain and France however had concerns about the rise of the United States, so to put down a potential rival they end up backing the CSA, this in turn encourages Russia to make the most of that potential chance to take Constantinople.

Thus there is a world war and eventually the Americans defeat the Brazilians (and take the Northern Part of the country), France, Spain and Britain (who lose their Caribbean Colonies, Newfoundland, British Guinea and Upper Peru).

Eventually there is another war against Britain and Brazil later on which eventually results in the annexation of the remainder of British South America and Brazil (considering the British tried to destory the United States, the latter is not keen on them remaining in the continent), they may or may not take Australia/New Zealand as well.

Thus it would make it possible for the USA to cover both the Americas and Australasia at least.

Someone did a timeline on this (it was unfinished though) with similar PODs:

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=164884

 

[British Republic]

OK, well let's say the US Constitution is less pro-slavery and the first few Presidents, as a result, do a better job containing the spread of the institution. (Thoughts along these lines explored here and here.) With the big domestic issue that so bitterly divided American OTL largely taken care of, not only does this mean an earlier abolition of slavery, but one who's expansionist tendencies are more fully unleashed (e.g. less opposition to adding Nicaragua and Cuba), with free labor taking up more of the country, more immigrants, and more industrialization.

How far can the USA be expanded on this POD alone compared to OTL?

How would it affect the civil rights of non-whites as well?

 

[Gurroruo]

IMO, you're getting greedy if you want to go beyond the wank they pulled off in OTL. they suckered France into destroying itself helping them gain independence. Almost every other revolution ended in ongoing civil wars or disaster, yet somehow they managed to create a lasting nation which then went on an incredible streak of upward nation building. they wanted a river port, and got the entirety of Louisiana. they took half of Mexico just before the mineral riches were discovered. they bought Alaska for a song, and managed to get most of what they wanted in settling the Northern border dispute. they took Hawaii away from the world's predominant naval power. they gained superiority in a Caribbean dominated by other world powers. they won a splendid little war with a country arguably of comparative strength and gained a protectorate over Cuba, the Philippines, and ownership of Puerto Rico. They outlasted the other world powers and became the predominant power in the world, using a cold war to force their way to hegemony over half the world. what more does your greed want? If you wrote this wank timeline in 1776, most realists would laugh you out of the room.

The reason the American Revolution worked out so well issues that it was a rebellion not a revolution. Second if you want to classify it as a revolution, in most revolutions the lower and middle classes rebelled against the upper class, however the American Revolution Was lead by the Upper Class rich people.

 

[Gurroruo]

A good POD is a militaristic US + a longer lasting Napoleonic Wars in general, or to have Napoleon by make the Spanish an Russian fumbles. This way the European powers are tied up longer allowing the Americans to do more.

 

[British Republic]

IMO, you're getting greedy if you want to go beyond the wank they pulled off in OTL. they suckered France into destroying itself helping them gain independence. Almost every other revolution ended in ongoing civil wars or disaster, yet somehow they managed to create a lasting nation which then went on an incredible streak of upward nation building. they wanted a river port, and got the entirety of Louisiana. they took half of Mexico just before the mineral riches were discovered. they bought Alaska for a song, and managed to get most of what they wanted in settling the Northern border dispute. they took Hawaii away from the world's predominant naval power. they gained superiority in a Caribbean dominated by other world powers. they won a splendid little war with a country arguably of comparative strength and gained a protectorate over Cuba, the Philippines, and ownership of Puerto Rico. They outlasted the other world powers and became the predominant power in the world, using a cold war to force their way to hegemony over half the world. what more does your greed want? If you wrote this wank timeline in 1776, most realists would laugh you out of the room.

You have got to be joking, unless America has OTL Canada, Northern Mexico and Cuba at the very least it is not a wank. Especially when the first one only happened due to a exception to the Anti-Catholic views of the UK at the time, the second on the agenda on a American diplomat and the third on one law.

Also the US might have gained a lot of power in the 1900s but that was not reflected in terms of territory.

 

[Escape Zeppelin]

My personal America wank fantasy includes Canada, Greenland, Iceland, Northern Mexico, Panama, Nicaragua and all the islands in the Caribbean.

I suspect your list, plus various Pacific islands, is probably the maximum that you could stretch direct control without approaching ASB territory or making the US a completely different nation politically.

 

[unprincipled peter]

British Republic,
any scenario that involves 13 fledgling colonies joining together successfully and increasing in size 4 or 5 or six times the original size, involving successfully whisking territory away from powerful nations, and in becoming one of the 2 most powerful countries in the world is a wank.

1900's US has to be one of the most successful increases in hegemony in history. If you want a pretty map, yeah, the US was blah. If you want extension of control, including economic domination, it was one huge success story. Most countries spend 3 and 4 years fighting two wars (the second on two fronts) and come out devastated. The US came out with a booming economy and world hegemony.

the most amazing thing about it is that it happened OTL

 

[EnglishCanuck]

I suspect your list, plus various Pacific islands, is probably the maximum that you could stretch direct control without approaching ASB territory or making the US a completely different nation politically.

Well even including OTL's Canada has a pretty big shock value on what American politics was like OTL. You suddenly have a positively huge absorption of a non-English speaking Catholic population that is uncomparable to anything the US tried to tackle OTL. That sets the political ball rolling from 18?? onwards for a far far different US than we know it.

 

[Escape Zeppelin]

You suddenly have a positively huge absorption of a non-English speaking Catholic population that is uncomparable to anything the US tried to tackle OTL. .

Looking at the figures though, the total numbers of Canadian Catholics and French speakers seems to be comparatively, low no more than 200 to 300 thousand at most. The US Catholic population in OTL jumped from 39k in 1790 to 1.6million in 1850 so an additional 200k isn't really going to make a gigantic impact on the religious scene. The bigger effect is going to be that these new US citizens aren't immigrants but are well established and have seats in Congress.

And again the total numbers of French speakers in Canada is low in comparison to the US population so I suspect that the language may decline the same way it did in Louisiana.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

Looking at the figures though, the total numbers of Canadian Catholics and French speakers seems to be comparatively, low no more than 200 to 300 thousand at most. The US Catholic population in OTL jumped from 39k in 1790 to 1.6million in 1850 so an additional 200k isn't really going to make a gigantic impact on the religious scene. The bigger effect is going to be that these new US citizens aren't immigrants but are well established and have seats in Congress.

And again the total numbers of French speakers in Canada is low in comparison to the US population so I suspect that the language may decline the same way it did in Louisiana.

Er when are you looking at those population figures from? The population of what was Canada in 1800 was roughly 300,000 persons, overwhelmingly Catholic French, that's a huge blip in the religious radar, and number increased primarily through natural increase well into the 1800s. This despite English and foreign immigration into these regions. Then with the natural increase of population from 1800-1850 you'd get roughly 2.6 million Catholics (and this is assuming no higher French immigration rates or an increase in Catholics) by absorbing Quebec.

Compare this to the roughly 60,000 persons of Louisiana at the time of the purchase (whom were not quite majority French). The French identity in Quebec is far larger and far stronger (and I fairly doubt that there would be significantly higher Anglophone immigration than there was historically). The French identity was strong and enduring, and not one which would lend itself to being easily displaced, especially since without British encouragement much of what was Canada would end up French if the English speaking peoples go elsewhere.

 

[British Republic]

British Republic,
any scenario that involves 13 fledgling colonies joining together successfully and increasing in size 4 or 5 or six times the original size, involving successfully whisking territory away from powerful nations, and in becoming one of the 2 most powerful countries in the world is a wank.

From my understanding a "wank" is the best possible outcome than OTL got them. If they got the French Canadians and Nova Scotia's to join the ARW then it would be a wank, if they had a better diplomat than the ones who negotiated the end of the Mexican War then it would be a wank, if they gained Cuba and kept it after the Spanish-American War.

1900's US has to be one of the most successful increases in hegemony in history. If you want a pretty map, yeah, the US was blah. If you want extension of control, including economic domination, it was one huge success story. Most countries spend 3 and 4 years fighting two wars (the second on two fronts) and come out devastated. The US came out with a booming economy and world hegemony.

I am not trying to debate if the OTL outcome was a good or bad one, personally for the USA it was a very good outcome for them. However is it the best possible outcome overall? Unless the Stars and Stripes is flying in Toronto, Monterrey and Havana (beyond embassies) then I would say no.

the most amazing thing about it is that it happened OTL

That I would agree with, no one in 1776 would even dream of America being this big or powerful.

 

[British Republic]

Looking at the figures though, the total numbers of Canadian Catholics and French speakers seems to be comparatively, low no more than 200 to 300 thousand at most. The US Catholic population in OTL jumped from 39k in 1790 to 1.6million in 1850 so an additional 200k isn't really going to make a gigantic impact on the religious scene. The bigger effect is going to be that these new US citizens aren't immigrants but are well established and have seats in Congress.

The population of the 13 colonies was 2.4-2.5 million , add Quebec and Nova Scotia and it would come to around 200,000-300,000. That is around 10% more population. That too me is a difference which is big enough to change things.

Not only that but since it is a dramatic increase of the Catholic population compared to OTL, it will definitely change relations there. Remember you will now be having French Catholics signing the DOI

 

[DG Valdron]

The Ultimate American Wank would probably be global ownership, plus bases on the Moon and Mars.