Theodore Roosevelt, one cool dude

[Ramo]

Jackson probably has the strongest claim to be on Rushmore, but it might be somewhat impolitic; Mount Rushmore was taken after we broke a treaty with the Lakotas. Madison's chief contribution to the country didn't involve his Presidency. Monroe, as lotr mentioned, is mostly remembered for something his Sec of State (JQ Adams) did. Polk is pretty irrelevant besides provoking Mexico into a war; historically important, but probably not the sort of thing that we should memorialize. Of course the question remains, why Teddy instead of Franklin (if we were to update it)?

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Lonestar
An even more blatant invasion of another country than the Iraq War.

At least it was a strategically vital invasion, one that ended up greatly advancing the power and prosperity of the U.S. It made sense to do it then, and I don't think that we can sit here in 2006 and say it was immoral. That relatively limited war in the late 1840s may have ended up preventing a huge war between the U.S. and Mexico in the 20th century, after all.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo
Jackson probably has the strongest claim to be on Rushmore, but it might be somewhat impolitic; Mount Rushmore was taken after we broke a treaty with the Lakotas. Madison's chief contribution to the country didn't involve his Presidency. Monroe, as lotr mentioned, is mostly remembered for something his Sec of State (JQ Adams) did. Polk is pretty irrelevant besides provoking Mexico into a war; historically important, but probably not the sort of thing that we should memorialize. Of course the question remains, why Teddy instead of Franklin (if we were to update it)?

If you put FDR up, some folks would insist on RWR. Thats enough reason to leave it as it is, no?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Wycoff


At least it was a strategically vital invasion, one that ended up greatly advancing the power and prosperity of the U.S. It made sense to do it then, and I don't think that we can sit here in 2006 and say it was immoral. That relatively limited war in the late 1840s may have ended up preventing a huge war between the U.S. and Mexico in the 20th century, after all.

[Eagerly awaits the what-if scenario, as detailed as possible - with as little plagiarism from "for want of a nail" as possible, to]

[Lord Avalon]

Originally posted by Ramo
Of course the question remains, why Teddy instead of Franklin (if we were to update it)?

Because Teddy is the only one with a moustache?

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by lord of the mark [Eagerly awaits the what-if scenario, as detailed as possible - with as little plagiarism from "for want of a nail" as possible, to]

I've read that book, but that wasn't what I had in mind... the "divergence point" is too early.

First, I'm assuming that Texas would still have been annexed eventually by the U.S., and that that annexation would somehow come without war. (This is no means a given. Maybe any annexation of Texas would have resulted in war. Maybe the Texans would have joined the British Empire, as was a concern at the time.)

My premise for thinking that the Mexican-American war may have stemmed future troubles is largely based on the fact that, without the territories added as a result of the war, the U.S. would have been a less formidable entity. It would lack the tremendous mineral resources of the southwest, as well as the general abundance provided by California (which I'll address further).Meanwhile, the U.S.' loss would be Mexico's gain.

At the outbreak of the war, Mexico was a serious continental rival, with a professional military far larger than that of the U.S. Few predicted that the U.S. would dispatch Mexico so easily. Their stunning defeat at the hands of the U.S. showed them how much of a paper tiger they were. Had the U.S. not humbled Mexico, the U.S. would have faced an unbroken rival with much more confidence in its armed forces. More confidence probably would mean a higher chance that they'd attempt to use that force at sometime in the future.

California revolted from Mexico just as the Mexican-American war began. Though this revolt would have occurred regardless of the U.S.-Mexican war, the revolt would have had a much tougher time of succeeding had the U.S. been forced not to intervene. Regardless, we're faced with three choices here: either the revolt fails, and California remains under Mexican rule, or the revolt succeeds, and we have another annexation crisis on our hands (and maybe another war... when considering that the actual war started from the Texas crisis, considering that a CA crisis could have sparked a different M-A war, and considering that majorities of both areas wanted to join the U.S., the M-A war seems much less predatory and much more inevitable. I digress), or we'd have an independent California, which, after being rebuffed by the U.S., would provide the British with another potential protectorate to add to the Imperial collection.

Assuming that Mexico retains CA and the rest of the southwest, the timeline would have diverged too far to pinpoint any definite time for a later M-A War. Maybe Mexico would have intervened during the Civil War and made an attempt at retaking part or all of Texas. (I assume that the Civil War still would have happened even without the added controversy of the new Southwest territories... there still would have been bloody Kansas and the Northwest territories to serve as a flashpoint between the North and South). Such a scenario would drastically change the nature of the Civil War and its aftermath.

Assuming that the Civil War finishes basically like ours did, the U.S. would have to rebuild without the riches of the Southwest and CA. Meanwhile, Mexico would be consolidating its position in the territories and extracting the wealth. I assume that there would be border hostility between the U.S. and Mexico. Any number of border incidents between the two could possibly flare up into all out war.

Assuming that the U.S. and Mexico make it to the 1910s without fighting, the opportunity to do so would be presented by WW1. In our world, the Kaiser tried to lure the Mexicans into attacking the U.S., with the promises of regaining new lands. Mexico refused this opportunity as it was in the grips of a revolution and civil war, and the U.S. was much stronger than it. In this world, a slightly different Zimmerman telegram, promising Texas to Mexico in exchange for attacking the U.S., might lure a more powerful Mexico into attacking a weaker U.S. Maybe there would still be a Mexican revolution that would cause Mexico to avoid war at this time, but maybe not.

Anything after this gets far too speculative to make any even half-baked guesses, but a WW1 confrontation between the U.S. and Mexico could lead to a WW2 confrontation between the powers (if there would even be a WW2.)

Regardless, a stronger Mexico with a midcontinental presence would have posed a potentially significant threat to a less powerful U.S.

If we assume that CA and TX win independence, but that the U.S. refuses to annex them out of a desire not to anger Mexico, the potential for British protectorates over CA and TX would also pose a severe threat to the U.S. as we know it. Britain considered intervening in the Civil War as is; I imagine that they would have been more tempted to do so if they had a presence in TX and CA. A continental U.S. split between the U.S., Britain, and the Confederacy would have created the potential for even more chaos and bloodshed (maybe the 1890s dispute between the U.S. and Venezuela would have led to war had this been the geopolitical situation)

These possibilities make the Mexican-American war seem justified to me. It was a war of conquest, but it also seems to have been a war of necessity.

[lord of the mark]

IIUC Texas was already annexed when the MA war began - wasnt the incident that started the war a border incident near the Rio Grande?


I assume Calif independence fails. For now.

But in three years youve got the gold rush. Which will mean large numbers of europeans and USAians moving to Mexican California? Can Mexico manage that? If they can, theyve got a great source of revenue, and may be able to head off the whole Maximillian thing. So Mexican politics looks very different through the 1860s - enough to head off Diaz? I dont know.

US politics in the 1850s is going to look VERY different. No crisis over slavery in the new territories, no compromise of 1850. Slavery is on the back burner at least till 1854 and Kansas-Neb. But wasnt K-N act a response to development envision in the context of a transcon RR to Calif? The US will be building its transconRR to Oregon, via the Northern route, in this TL, NOT via Kansas. Maybe no Kansas crisis, at least not this early? An 1850s with slavery taking a secondary role? Immigration a bigger issue relatively? Know nothings triumph? Also a society constantly worried about the threat of Mexico.

Im not sure you even get an ACW, at least not in 1860.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by lord of the mark IIUC Texas was already annexed when the MA war began - wasnt the incident that started the war a border incident near the Rio Grande?

Yes, but annexing Texas in 1845 is practically what started the war. Mexican Centralists said that they would treat it like a declaration of war. I'm assuming that the U.S. puts off annexing Texas until a time in which Mexico was less adamant about them not joining the union. This might not be a realistic assumption, which furthers my opinion that the war was basically inevitable.

I assume Calif independence fails. For now.

But in three years youve got the gold rush. Which will mean large numbers of europeans and USAians moving to Mexican California? Can Mexico manage that?

If they can't, then you have Annexation crisis part 2. Maybe avoiding war over TX would merely have led to war over CA.

US politics in the 1850s is going to look VERY different. No crisis over slavery in the new territories, no compromise of 1850. Slavery is on the back burner at least till 1854 and Kansas-Neb. But wasnt K-N act a response to development envision in the context of a transcon RR to Calif? The US will be building its transconRR to Oregon, via the Northern route, in this TL, NOT via Kansas. Maybe no Kansas crisis, at least not this early? An 1850s with slavery taking a secondary role? Immigration a bigger issue relatively? Know nothings triumph? Also a society constantly worried about the threat of Mexico.

Im not sure you even get an ACW, at least not in 1860.

I don't know what would happen. Maybe the 36' 30 line would still cause friction, only this time because Southerners would be denied an opportunity for expansion because all U.S. territory would be north of that line. Southerners would be deprived of an opportunity to expand into new territories, deprived of the Transcontinental railroad, and still faced with the growing abolitionist sentiment of the north. Would this be enough to spark a secessionist movement?

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


I disagree. There was a legitimate border dispute. Soldiers from both sides came across each other in the disputed territories, and the Mexicans killed a bunch of our guys. True, we were looking for an excuse to go to war, but they gave it to us.

Horsepoop. Even Lincoln thought it was a staged Border incident, much like the one Germany had with Poland in 1939. Certainly he didn't think it took place on the American side of the border.


[/quote]

Jackson probably has the strongest claim to be on Rushmore, but it might be somewhat impolitic; Mount Rushmore was taken after we broke a treaty with the Lakotas. Madison's chief contribution to the country didn't involve his Presidency.

Oh, Hells no. Jackson goes down with Wilson and James Buchanan for the worst US Presidents, then Johnston and George Dubya.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Wycoff


Yes, but annexing Texas in 1845 is practically what started the war. Mexican Centralists said that they would treat it like a declaration of war. I'm assuming that the U.S. puts off annexing Texas until a time in which Mexico was less adamant about them not joining the union. This might not be a realistic assumption, which furthers my opinion that the war was basically inevitable.




If they can't, then you have Annexation crisis part 2. Maybe avoiding war over TX would merely have led to war over CA.



I don't know what would happen. Maybe the 36' 30 line would still cause friction, only this time because Southerners would be denied an opportunity for expansion because all U.S. territory would be north of that line. Southerners would be deprived of an opportunity to expand into new territories, deprived of the Transcontinental railroad, and still faced with the growing abolitionist sentiment of the north. Would this be enough to spark a secessionist movement?

Maybe, but I think at least you dont get Douglas pushing to overturn the Missouri Compromise in 1854. Which means no free soil movement in the North, and more isolated abolitionist movement. Southerners may still resent the old line, but it IS an old line, one there fathers agreed to that has stood for 34 years, not a new insult to Southern Honor like the Wilmot Proviso. No John Brown, no Harpers Ferry. And if Southrons ARE thinking of expanding due west, it means war with Mexico. and maybe filibustering in Central America and Cuba looks less enticing, American arms not having demonstrated their strength. Meanwhile industrialization and mass migration are happening - if the moment for secession passes in 1860, will a new moment for crisis happen before things have changed beyond recognition?

[Zkribbler]

Call for Turtledove!
Call for Mr. Harry Turtledove!

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Call for Turtledove!
Call for Mr. Harry Turtledove!

Mr Harry "the Franco-Prussian war has happened, which means Nappy III must be gone, yet the Franco-British alliance has lasted firmly into the period of the scramble for Africa" Turtledove? Mr. Harry "lets use trench warfare even though we have the whole damned continent for strategic maneuver" Turtledove?

Actually theres plenty of good stuff in HT (and Im thinking only of How Few, and the first Great War book, ive not read anything else by him) - the general change of direction to USA politics makes sense, though some of the details at the end of How Few are a bit of a stretch, and Im not sure I find the CSA politics believable (its nice and ironic to have Longstreet as Pres, and giving orders to Stonewall, but I dont think its terribly realistic - it implies that Longstreet was disliked ONLY for his role at Gburg, while IIUC he would have been an odd man out in any case)

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


yah, well, Im not sure what Teddy would have taken if he were alive today. He certainly gave a good impression of being crazy.

...but crazy in a good way.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by lord of the mark Mr Harry "the Franco-Prussian war has happened, which means Nappy III must be gone, yet the Franco-British alliance has lasted firmly into the period of the scramble for Africa" Turtledove? Mr. Harry "lets use trench warfare even though we have the whole damned continent for strategic maneuver" Turtledove?

Or just as bad, Harry "I cut and paste large sections of each chapter over and over again" Turtledove.

Turtledove is like a drug. He's a distractingly terrible writer, some of his plot points don't seem to me to be logical, yet I can't stop reading his Great War series.

[Imran Siddiqui]

To go back to the question of why Teddy on the face of Rushmore. I'm not sure that without TR's aggressive foreign policy and building up of the navy ("The Great White Fleet") that the 20th Century would have been necessarily the "American Century". One wonders what the US would have done in the 1st World War with a far smaller navy, not to mention WW2.