Alternate History Ideas and Discussion

[49ersfootball]

Pardon?

Because I recall Washington already won two terms (first in 1788 and again in 1792), so he’d have served eight years and been well on his way to leaving office already with the two-term precedent being set IATL, too.

I'll counter with this juicy twist: LBJ wins reelection in 1968. What will his 2nd term look like on Foreign Policy & Domestic Policy in a potential LBJ 2nd term ?

 

[Zyobot]

I'll counter with this juicy twist: LBJ wins reelection in 1968. What will his 2nd term look like on Foreign Policy & Domestic Policy in a potential LBJ 2nd term ?

LOL, lay off with the obnoxious non-sequiturs, dude!

 

[Skallagrim]

‘Thomas Jefferson Wins The 1796 Election’.

And thus, succeeds Washington as the 2nd President instead of the 3rd (after John Adams IOTL).

First of all, I'm going to assume that we're looking here at a "Jeffersonian revolution, but four years earlier" scenario. Which implies that Jefferson also picks up a Congressional majority. This suggests that the Federalists get embroiled in something the public finds objectionable. Since a lot of the public antipathy stemmed from opposition to the more hard-line Federalist legislation of the Adams administration, let's assume that certain correspondence of the more avid Federalists is leaked and published. This would alter the public to the fact that a disturbing number of leading Federalists was not only open to, but actively in favour of, various repressive measures.

The Democratic-Republicans profit, and Jefferson sails into office four years early.

Adams, as per his statements at the time, will decline to serve as VP, and will instead retire to his home state. Adams would be additionally motivated by the fact that he wasn't a very rabid Federalists, so he'd feel that the Hamiltonians have screwed him over during the elections.

This leaves Jefferson facing exactly those Hamiltonians, and he can easily portray them as closet monarchists and benighred Tories who would imitate every vice of Parliament that the Americans had objected to in the first place. (And in certain cases, this would be a pretty accurate charge, in fact!)

Anyway, what of his policies?

Jefferson was, if nothing else, a radical proponent of free speech. AS President, he referenced the deluge of literal death threats he got from irate Federalists as sure evidence that he lived in a free country. This was a man whose conception of free speech etruly encompassed ALL speech, no exceptions. As such: definitely no Alien and Sedition Acts. The POD I suggested may easily see Jefferson pushing for more legislation, further bolsering free speech. The result may be, if Jefferson really gets his way, that concepts such as "libel" and "slander" are wholly excised from the law, and America really becomes the land where you can see anything you want.

There would be no complete saturation of the judiciary with Federalists. Jefferson would appoint his own Democratic-Republicans all over the place. Marshall would never be Chief Justice, and there would be no Marbury v. Madison. As such, no judicial review. Congress and Congress alone would be allowed to determine whether any law was Constitutionally sound. The Supreme Court would 'merely' be the Court of final appeal, but OTL its influence on the legitimacy of certain laws would be absent. The would be no Judicial Act of 1801. Instead, Jefferson would push for legislation hemming in the power of the Judiciary, to avoid judges from becoming too powerful.

Jefferson was pro-France. By the time of his election, Robespierre and the Convention and Committee of Public Safety would have been removed. Jefferson would point to the much more moderate Directory as evidence that after a turbulent revolution, matters soon calm down again. All's well that ends well. There would be no quasi-war, and Jefferson would push for trade with France. This would benefit both parties, allowing American produce to meet French demand, while French money would stabilise the American economy.

This may have just enough effect to help the Directory assert its legitimacy, thus averting Napoleon's coup. (Or at least delay any such coup.)

On the American side, it would remove the basis of the Federalist argument that America sorely needs to borrow money from Britain. The Federalists would be further discredited. Jefferson, noted opponent of public debt, would almost certainly try to pass legislation to ban public debt. He may not succeed, but I think he can get his proposal through in which the amount of debt is strictly limited, and all debt must be paid back within 20 years.

Jefferson was acutely aware of the strategic and economic importance of New Orleans, and would try to buy it from Spain. (It had been ceded by France to Spain in the secret treaty of Fontainebleau in 1762, which was revealed to the world in 1764.) As in OTL, he'd initialy desire to by only New Orleans and environs. The Spanish, unlike Napoleon, wouldn't be automatically inclined to push for the purchase of all of the vast Louisiana Country. It might be possible for Jefferson to effect a different purchase, such as New Orleans alone, or New Orleans and Florida. I do think that with French backing, he'd be able to get a deal realised. He may even get Congress to sign off on it, avoiding his OTL contradiction of his own principles (in agreeing to the purchase without prior Congressional say-so).

Generally speaking, trade will be booming, tariffs will be low, and there will be no subsidies for domestic industry and such things. America is very small-government, and primarily agrarian.

Meanwhile, the Federalists are a fading power. The South loves the export of its produce, so the Southern Federalist faction wholly evaporates. Only in the North-East, where they rely on good trade relations with Britain, do the Federalists cling on for a while as a regional faction.

 

[ATP]

'AHC: School of Salamanca Goes Mainstream'.

"Holy laissez-faire capitalist Spanish Empire, Batman!"

They would rule forever,take both Americas and Australia,too.
Empire with strong Economy would always beat its enemies,becouse even if they have strong economy,too,it is smaller.

Better world for everybody,indians in North America would keep their lands as spanish subjects,slavery would vanish earlier,and
Africa would be better place,too.


Maybe in this tL Japan would become Catholic? Well,do not matter.

Poland would fall to Habsburgs - but we fall anyway,so notching change here.And we would have better occupants !

 

[ATP]

I don't know why it has not been brought up by our Polish posters like @ATP @Batrix2070 and @Buba but a nuclear-able or capable Poland would be interesting to read about both during Cold War and after.

During Cold War - possible if Allies liberated us,and soviets do not collapsed.
After - possible ONLY if we were ruled by normal leaders who do not think about West opinion,but Poland interests.

 

[Zyobot]

First of all, I'm going to assume that we're looking here at a "Jeffersonian revolution, but four years earlier" scenario. Which implies that Jefferson also picks up a Congressional majority. This suggests that the Federalists get embroiled in something the public finds objectionable. Since a lot of the public antipathy stemmed from opposition to the more hard-line Federalist legislation of the Adams administration, let's assume that certain correspondence of the more avid Federalists is leaked and published. This would alter the public to the fact that a disturbing number of leading Federalists was not only open to, but actively in favour of, various repressive measures.

The Democratic-Republicans profit, and Jefferson sails into office four years early.

Adams, as per his statements at the time, will decline to serve as VP, and will instead retire to his home state. Adams would be additionally motivated by the fact that he wasn't a very rabid Federalists, so he'd feel that the Hamiltonians have screwed him over during the elections.

This leaves Jefferson facing exactly those Hamiltonians, and he can easily portray them as closet monarchists and benighred Tories who would imitate every vice of Parliament that the Americans had objected to in the first place. (And in certain cases, this would be a pretty accurate charge, in fact!)

Anyway, what of his policies?

Jefferson was, if nothing else, a radical proponent of free speech. AS President, he referenced the deluge of literal death threats he got from irate Federalists as sure evidence that he lived in a free country. This was a man whose conception of free speech etruly encompassed ALL speech, no exceptions. As such: definitely no Alien and Sedition Acts. The POD I suggested may easily see Jefferson pushing for more legislation, further bolsering free speech. The result may be, if Jefferson really gets his way, that concepts such as "libel" and "slander" are wholly excised from the law, and America really becomes the land where you can see anything you want.

There would be no complete saturation of the judiciary with Federalists. Jefferson would appoint his own Democratic-Republicans all over the place. Marshall would never be Chief Justice, and there would be no Marbury v. Madison. As such, no judicial review. Congress and Congress alone would be allowed to determine whether any law was Constitutionally sound. The Supreme Court would 'merely' be the Court of final appeal, but OTL its influence on the legitimacy of certain laws would be absent. The would be no Judicial Act of 1801. Instead, Jefferson would push for legislation hemming in the power of the Judiciary, to avoid judges from becoming too powerful.

Jefferson was pro-France. By the time of his election, Robespierre and the Convention and Committee of Public Safety would have been removed. Jefferson would point to the much more moderate Directory as evidence that after a turbulent revolution, matters soon calm down again. All's well that ends well. There would be no quasi-war, and Jefferson would push for trade with France. This would benefit both parties, allowing American produce to meet French demand, while French money would stabilise the American economy.

This may have just enough effect to help the Directory assert its legitimacy, thus averting Napoleon's coup. (Or at least delay any such coup.)

On the American side, it would remove the basis of the Federalist argument that America sorely needs to borrow money from Britain. The Federalists would be further discredited. Jefferson, noted opponent of public debt, would almost certainly try to pass legislation to ban public debt. He may not succeed, but I think he can get his proposal through in which the amount of debt is strictly limited, and all debt must be paid back within 20 years.

Jefferson was acutely aware of the strategic and economic importance of New Orleans, and would try to buy it from Spain. (It had been ceded by France to Spain in the secret treaty of Fontainebleau in 1762, which was revealed to the world in 1764.) As in OTL, he'd initialy desire to by only New Orleans and environs. The Spanish, unlike Napoleon, wouldn't be automatically inclined to push for the purchase of all of the vast Louisiana Country. It might be possible for Jefferson to effect a different purchase, such as New Orleans alone, or New Orleans and Florida. I do think that with French backing, he'd be able to get a deal realised. He may even get Congress to sign off on it, avoiding his OTL contradiction of his own principles (in agreeing to the purchase without prior Congressional say-so).

Generally speaking, trade will be booming, tariffs will be low, and there will be no subsidies for domestic industry and such things. America is very small-government, and primarily agrarian.

Meanwhile, the Federalists are a fading power. The South loves the export of its produce, so the Southern Federalist faction wholly evaporates. Only in the North-East, where they rely on good trade relations with Britain, do the Federalists cling on for a while as a regional faction.

Essentially, something of an “Agrarian Carthage” that practices free trade abroad and yeoman individualism at home?

Sounds very much in line with your ideals, though I think it’s an open question as to whether the Federalists make a comeback eventually (say, under a charismatic dark horse who’s basically the Bill Clinton to Jefferson’s Reagan). If so, they’d be forced to really cut back on full-throttle Hamiltonianism, as I suspect Hamilton’s legacy will suffer much more than IOTL.

They would rule forever,take both Americas and Australia,too.
Empire with strong Economy would always beat its enemies,becouse even if they have strong economy,too,it is smaller.

Better world for everybody,indians in North America would keep their lands as spanish subjects,slavery would vanish earlier,and
Africa would be better place,too.


Maybe in this tL Japan would become Catholic? Well,do not matter.

Poland would fall to Habsburgs - but we fall anyway,so notching change here.And we would have better occupants !

A tall order on the geopolitical side of things.

But otherwise, seems largely consistent with what I’ve read about the School of Salamanca — both in terms of human dignity and enthusiastic endorsement of free commerce.

Should ATL Spanish Empire enjoy further fortune and displace the Anglos and Dutchies as the maritime trade empire that encircles the world, perhaps it’ll be the Spanish Armada crushing the International Slave Trade instead of the Royal Navy back IOTL. Might even ensue sooner, too, provided I’m not pushing my allohistorical luck too much here.

 

[Skallagrim]

Essentially, something of an “Agrarian Carthage” that practices free trade abroad and yeoman individualism at home?

Sounds very much in line with your ideals, though I think it’s an open question as to whether the Federalists make a comeback eventually (say, under a charismatic dark horse who’s basically the Bill Clinton to Jefferson’s Reagan). If so, they’d be forced to really cut back on full-throttle Hamiltonianism, as I suspect Hamilton’s legacy will suffer much more than IOTL.

I'm not sure whether it's accurate to always use "Carthage" as short-hand for "trade-oriented nation", but knowing the context in which we've discussed that, I get what you mean.

Yes, a Jeffersonian country of this nature would be much closer to my own ideals. It does have its own baked-in weaknesses, of course.

I don't think the Federalists are going to make a come-back, but New England (always oriented towards trade with Britain) would chafe at Jefferson's policies in all possible ways. Jefferson's free trade favours the agrarian South, and his friendship with France would turn relation with Britain colder. As the "Virginia dynasty" drags on, I can see the North-East actually going for secession here. This would then be backed by Britain. Of course, that would render the remainder of the USA even more Democratic-Republican.

The mainline opposition might actually form around Aaron Burr. Due to simple causality, we may assume his duel with Hamilton is avoided. With the Federalists becoming a regional faction, the rest of America may eventually split between Jeffersonian Democrats and Burrite Republicans.

 

[Skallagrim]

I was asking what would LBJ's 2nd term look like on Foreign Policy & Domestic Policy as well as Economic Policy.

No need for you to be an uppity C***nass!

You don't seem to grasp it, but your persistent habit of quoting someone else's post (about THEIR topic) with an unrelated reply (about YOUR topic) is very, very annoying.

If you want to discuss LBJ's second term, just ask that question as separate post. DON'T ask it as a reply to someone else's post on another subject. If you quote someone (reply to them), then respond to THEIR question/idea. If you want to talk about another idea of YOURS, don't hitch it to someone else's post.

You come across as someone who constantly tries to hijack the conversation. You're being very rude, presumably without even being aware of it.

 

[Zyobot]

I was asking what would LBJ's 2nd term look like on Foreign Policy & Domestic Policy as well as Economic Policy.

No need for you to be an uppity C***nass!

Oh, look, a triggered snowflake who can't handle call-outs! 😂

More seriously, you keep reply to me with your own AH scenarios, rather than answering mine. As said above, it comes across as hijacking the conversation instead of discussing things in good faith. We can do without that and your stupid little temper tantrums here, thanks.

 

[Skallagrim]

Then I will post a separate post on this sectio. No need for you being an uppity COON-ASS!

Are you even aware that you are talking to multiple people? Or do you just yell silly names at anyone who talks to you? What in my post gives you reason for the name-calling? Have I said anything untoward?

Stop behaving like a child, man.

 

[Zyobot]

Geez COONASS!

Then I will post a separate post on this sectio. No need for you being an uppity COON-ASS!

Whatever, buddy.

The fact you're swearing and throwing a temper tantrum like the snowflakes you rant about so much is free entertainment for me. At this point, I'm just laughing and munching popcorn at what a hysterical idiot you're proving yourself to be.

Are you aware that you are talking to multiple people? What in my post gves you reason for the name-calling?

Stop behaving like a child, man.

Frankly, I've seen enough of this triggered moron's posts to know your efforts will be wasted.

Probably better to laugh, munch popcorn, and call him out on his soundbite stupidity as he breaks down and cries like an angry six-year-old being called out by the adults in the room!

 

[49ersfootball]

What If Topic of discussion: LBJ wins reelection in 1968 defeating Nixon by double digits in three-way contest.

1.) Does he keep Humphrey as VP or dump him in favor of someone like LA Governor John McKeithen (D) or maybe former NC Governor Terry Sanford (D) ?

2.) What will Domestic Policy look like in LBJ's 2nd term ?

3.) Economic Policy in LBJ's 2nd term.

4.) Foreign Policy: Does Allende get butterflied away from becoming Chile's President in 1970 since Eisenhower, etc blocked him from winning the Chilean Presidency in previous elections ?

5.) Vietnam War escalates further ?

 

[49ersfootball]

Are you even aware that you are talking to multiple people? Or do you just yell silly names at anyone who talks to you? What in my post gives you reason for the name-calling? Have I said anything untoward?

Stop behaving like a child, man.

All I did was offer my What if suggestion to the discussion.

Apologies for the outburst. Having some family issues at the moment.

 

[Aldarion]

What if Hungary and Croatia elected Habsburgs for kings after Matthias Corvinus died, instead of going for Jagellons as historically?

 

[Buba]

Pardon?

Because I recall Washington already won two terms (first in 1788 and again in 1792), so he’d have served eight years and been well on his way to leaving office already with the two-term precedent being set IATL, too.

Me bad. I thought that Washington's first term was from 1792.

Jefferson would push for trade with France

Which trade, between 1797 (when he assumed Office) and 1802 - Peace of Amiens - would run the gauntlet of British blockade?

What if Hungary and Croatia elected Habsburgs for kings after Matthias Corvinus died, instead of going for Jagellons as historically?

That would be not nice to Elizabeth Jagiellon nee Habsburg.
You musty know better than me what Habsburgs were available in 1490/91. AFAIK there was only Maximilian, who already had his plate full, with other branches having died out - or limited to some sonless old dudes about to keel over?
But if yes, Max is elected, would he contemplate an Iberian marriage for Filip? Maybe he'd focus on Central Europe, the Austro-Netherlander-Spanish union never happening, even thought the Italian Wars almost certainly still happen. That would change world history a lot ...

 

[49ersfootball]

Me bad. I thought that Washington's first term was from 1792.

Which trade, between 1797 (when he assumed Office) and 1802 - Peace of Amiens - would run the gauntlet of British blockade?


That would be not nice to Elizabeth Jagiellon nee Habsburg.
You musty know better than me what Habsburgs were available in 1490/91. AFAIK there was only Maximilian, who already had his plate full, with other branches having died out - or limited to some sonless old dudes about to keel over?
But if yes, Max is elected, would he contemplate an Iberian marriage for Filip? Maybe he'd focus on Central Europe, the Austro-Netherlander-Spanish union never happening, even thought the Italian Wars almost certainly still happen. That would change world history a lot ...

Big question is whether this butterflies the French Revolution ?

 

[Zyobot]

'Saddam Hussein SI To Julius Caesar'.

Maybe Uday gets transplanted into Marcus Antonius, too, if ASB really wants to fuck around with the timeline. In which case, there's one guy who might actually make OG Antony look somewhat sane!

 

[Buba]

'Saddam Hussein SI To Julius Caesar'.

His career ends in Gaul ... if he manages to progress that far in a different political and military environment.
SH is a ruthless scheming cunt for sure, but is his ruthlessness schemingness up to JC's level, a Class A+ cunt?

 

[Aldarion]

That would be not nice to Elizabeth Jagiellon nee Habsburg.
You musty know better than me what Habsburgs were available in 1490/91. AFAIK there was only Maximilian, who already had his plate full, with other branches having died out - or limited to some sonless old dudes about to keel over?
But if yes, Max is elected, would he contemplate an Iberian marriage for Filip? Maybe he'd focus on Central Europe, the Austro-Netherlander-Spanish union never happening, even thought the Italian Wars almost certainly still happen. That would change world history a lot ...

Maximilian is who I thought about in the first place. He had assisted Croatia against Ottomans previously, so that made him a reatively strong contender.

 

[Buba]

Maximilian is who I thought about in the first place. He had assisted Croatia against Ottomans previously, so that made him a reatively strong contender.

Could a three way struggle ensue in the Władysław-Jan Olbracht-Maksymilian triangle, each supported by a different group of magnates and nobles?
Could Croatia end up breaking off under Max, while the brothers - or rather, the factions wishing to put them on the throne - fight it out in '91 and '92, i.e. up to the Polish election?
As Kazimierz died in June, before the news reach Hungary and Prague the campaign season should be in full swing before the news reach the brothers.