'Murica Explained (non-troll)

[LordRahl2]

I wrote this a while ago for a different forum so the pics seem a little bonkers but whatever.  Enjoy.

 

////////////////////////////

 

So someone on the US forums asked for a tldr on the good old US of A.  eSim does not like tldr so I will split it into two or three parts.  Enjoy

The hardest part is where to start I guess.  

So before I begin I would like to attempt to explain international trade in a most simplistic way.  Intra-national trade is vital and a failure or inability to get it right can be devastating to a State's development.  If you cannot get your shit to market you are way way behind.  Examples of this abound.  International trade on the other hand is what makes superpowers rise and fall generally.  Trade is making and moving stuff to where people buy it.  Simple enough.  Well there is a basic truth that you need to understand: moving stuff on water is cheaper, much cheaper, than moving it on land.  I have read that the cost ratio is 70:1.  I have no way to confirm that - seems that may be high - but whatever.  It could be 35:1 and the advantage remains immense.

So that is why rivers, ports, and sea lanes interest me so much.  They are in essence the life blood of international and frequently intra-national trade.

So if you have a really good river to move shit to a really good port that has access to the biggest sea lanes then you are probably going to do really !@#$ well without even thinking about it.

Lets define history in a paragraph.

What is history generally?  It is a series of decisions most often made by States intended to do well for their selected people.  Almost universally regimes (people who control States) are rational and want to forward their peoples interests.  I am not going to prove that here but just assume it.  Sometimes they fail but that is not intentional.  However, often the solution to the immediate problem leads to the next problem (or you can get stuck on problem #1 until you, and your people, lose).  Losing is usually bad.  Ask the Persians, Samaritans, and Carthaginians...oh wait...you cannot.  Well actually you CAN ask some surviving Samaritans - they will corroborate my point.

Enough of all that BS.  Lets look at Murica.

Here is a good map of America:



Here it is in relation to other things around it.



Why maps?  Because they are cool but more than that it is a base line for the way things are.

So, on those two maps you can see a lot.  

The US is primarily bounded by the North Atlantic Ocean, the Pacific Ocean and the northern half of the Gulf of Mexico (or the Gulf of America if you will).  To the North is Canada - a state that although large in mass has only a thin strip of its population living just north of the border.  Canada was a dominion of GB and still retains some ties there.  To the south is Mexico, more on them later.

Looking back to the US map east to west: On the East Coast, where the historical journey began, there is a strip of coastline running north south that is blocked from the interior plains region by a mountain range (The Appalachians).  Where the mountains tapper off is a humid coastal region.  On the other side of the mountains the most prominent features are the Mississippi river basin and the great plains -a major agricultural region.  Then there are some really big mountains further west and finally another coast.  That is about the sum of it all.

Tying my intro in with that geography here is another map:


So if you live west of the Appalachians and West of the Rockies you can with very little effort put shit on a nearby river barge and it will float all by itself to the mouth of the Mississippi.  Incredible.  Now the Hudson, Tennessee, etc rivers are all very good and were important for their region's development but nowhere near as cool as the Mississippi and its basin.  There was a problem though.  The USA did not start with that.  In fact they were blocked from it by dem mountains.  So enters history.  And international history is a story of States interacting based on their geopolitical priorities.  To understand one is to start understanding the other and v/v.

USA Priority #1: Secure North America
Problem 1a - A linear coastal state is not secure.
Priority 1a - Find depth beyond the Eastern Seaboard.



As I mentioned history is basically moving from problem to problem.  So what was the USA's first problem?  Well don't cheat but it falls under 'securing North America'.  Look at the above map and try to find the strategic problem faced by the USA in 1776.  It should be fairly obvious that the states (small 's') all fall along a narrow strip of land along a coast.  Although the mountains 'behind' them secure them to the west any old naval power could swing by and bisect the State or land basically at will and threaten any area at any time.  Basically indefensible vs a naval power.  This became apparent when GB casually swung by (while fighting a world war) to burn the US capital.

So there are two things the US could do: a) Become a naval power or b )Stop being a State that only exists along a seaboard.  Option 'c' is to do nothing - which given our assumptions of ration actors acting in the best interest of their State is not really an option, nor was it selected.  Option 'a' costs a metric shit ton of money, takes a really long time (naval tradition is grown - not researched on a tech tree), and lastly someone was so far ahead it was not even a consideration to try.  Well not much of a consideration anyway.

Interestingly enough, and proving my point well enough, the first major debates within the US regime was about two things:  building a road across the mountains and building six whole warships.  Interesting that they spent the money on the warships first and the road second.  There are reasons for that but I will let it lie.  More on topic is that the US limited its ship building program and that the road connected, guess what, the heads of navigation between two waterways.  I love it when theory and reality collide.

But even more attention was sent sending settlers out to secure the excellent farmland west of the Appalachians.  This was not really, from the US perspective, imperialism or manifest destiny or any of that crap.  It was the simple need of the State to secure 'depth' to limit the vulnerability faced from the sea.  In typical Murican style this was done and there was much rejoicing.  Or not so much.  Why?  Because solving problem 1a led to 1b.  Having secured farmland and sent farmers to farm it the unexpected happened.  They farmed shit -I know this is shocking.  But they could not get their goods to market over those bloody mountains.  And so:

(to be continued)

-Hope this is long enough for four

Edited July 31, 2016 by LordRahl2

[LordRahl2]

Problem 1b - Getting stuff to market.
Priority 1b - Secure Mississippi and tributaries and the Port of New Orleans.





So if you find yourself in Ohio today and you want to be in NYC what do you do?  Obviously you get on a boat, sail to New Orleans, get on another boat, and sail to NYC.  Right?  Well in 1802 you would; especially if you and your town wanted to move your agricultural products to the place where you could sell it.  Do recall my interest with rivers and ports and such.  Problem was the US did not really control that river or that port.  Fortunately the dude who did could not hold it nor did he want to try since he was otherwise occupied at the time.  So we bought it.  Great success!!

Our brothers to the North had been occasionally troublesome and we did want those excellent lakes and rivers up there so the US could connect them to the ports in the North.  The US did do this and fought about it.  But in general the trouble of dealing with GB was not worth it.  See lingering issues of problem 1a.

(Note that these priorities are not linear.  They fade into each other but I am following history - more or less)

Problem 1c - Mexico.
Priority 1c - Secure the southern boundary.




^really crappy

Well basically after securing LA and its most excellent port the US ran into it first major challenge to Priority 1.  Immediately adjacent to New Orleans was an independent State that was, at least 'on paper', far stronger than the US.  By all metrics that normal people look at Mexico should have dominated the US.  Now I am not going to write the geopolitical analysis of Mexico here but it sucked.  Take almost all the geographical advantages of the US and reverse them and you have Mexico.  But anyway they looked stronk at the time.  They also threatened New Orleans and this would never do.  So the US fixed that problem too.  In doing so it concluded, almost by accident, priority 1 in its totality.

After the Mexican/American War the US controlled the important parts of North America.  Had secured it southern flank and reached the other end of the continent.  At this point the US took a break for about two generations to do two things: a) fill the key interior and b ) become more internally unified.  The US did 'a' well but had a small hiccup figuring out 'b'.  'a' of course required a little creative management of the people who were left living where the US wanted to occupy.

Even for this analysis that is a bit of an oversimplification because the US also worked on, finally, priority #2.

USA Priority #2: Secure the Gulf of Mexico

Woot.  I can break this into two or even three categories as well.  Lets see:

Problem 2a - New Orleans is vulnerable.
Priority 2a - Secure or neutralize everything in the Gulf.

The US solved a good chunk of this when they fixed the problem with Mexico.

Problem 2b - Sea access from New Orleans to the North Atlantic is not secure.
Priority 2b - Dominate the Gulf of Mexico.



Do you see the problem there?  The map is a bit earlier than the point in history we are at but w/e.

Right.  One big obnoxious island in particular is owned by an obnoxious European and dominates the exit to the North Atlantic.  So what to do? Well take it away of course.  Was this a fortuitous or engineered war is generally irrelevant.  It did what it was supposed to.

That is really all it took but it DOES tie into priority #4.  But I suppose we should hit on #3 first right?

Problem: The USA's North and South borders are not completely secure.
USA Priority #3: Keep outside powers from influencing North and South America.

The USA recognized this priority far far earlier than it could actually do anything about it.

But it steadily worked at this goal from almost the first six frigates until it actually could do something about it.  It is hard to point to a particular point where the US achieved this priority but I will give it a go.  The problem with controlling or trying to control two oceans separated by a big old continent is getting your ships from one to another.  The solution is easy.  Cut through the middle of whatever land in the way so those boats can basically walk on land.  There was already a model for this and the US just went ahead and did it.  Not only did this allow for warships to transit from one ocean to the the other it allowed trade to do so at the same time.  This was good of course.  But...it did lead to, or assist in bringing about, another problem.

The problem was a shift in where on earth the global 'center of gravity' was.  Prior to this period of history the North Atlantic was the overwhelmingly dominant center of global trade.  He who controls the spice controls the universe.  And that is what made a small Island off the coast of France into the 2nd global hegemon.  But alas for them the world changed.  Even more unfortunate was that this shifting global structure coincided with a regional shift of power where a group of artificial buffer States in Europe with a common, common enough anyway, heritage coalesced into a nation/state.  This shift in global power and the loss of a buffer zone led to some horrific wars.

So it was more, obviously, than the Panama Canal that led to GB's inability to maintain global stability and onset of WWII.  (Note that France brought about their own geopolitical problem -Germany- by solving one of their own priorities.  But that is another story.)  But shifting the global sea lanes was part of the instability.  And naturally helped lead to:

Problem: International trade is US trade and the US is now the global hegemon.
USA Priority #4: Dominate the World's Sea Lanes.

What a huge task.  Obviously there are important and less important sea lanes.  The bosphorus is not as important as Malacca but if you can control them all then you are pretty much good to go.  Right?  Well, thank Dio the USA was up to it and this is the near culmination of the USA's priorities.  

I reference priority #4 at the end of priority #3.  The USA did not stop with 6 ships.  In fact its internal troubles that I mentioned allowed it to surge into priority 3 and 4 but it would have done so anyway eventually.  In fact by the Spanish/American war the USA had a pretty credible navy.  By the end of WWII the effects of the shift in the global center of gravity had really become really apparent.  Not only had sea lanes shifted but the US had lots and lots of carrier battle groups.  What a difference five generations can make.

More importantly the real global center of gravity now lay on the Mississippi vice the North Atlantic more or less.  The State that controlled that basically controlled two oceans and hence, almost by default, is the global hegemon.  But controlling the worlds sea lanes brings up the 5th and hardest to define problem.  That is the struggle between the sea power and the land power.

USA Priority #5: Ensure the heartland does not come to dominate Eurasia.

Here is the tough one.  So I will drop a map:

This is from a fellow named Mackinder.  He was not an idiot but he did make an error.  He believed that advances in technology had invalidated the advantage of water transport over land transport - he was a big fan of the railroad to be precise.  Given this assumption, which has so far proved untrue, his thesis makes a lot of sense.  He believed that the heartland connected with rail would become the center of the trade.  Imagine all the countries from Portugal to South Africa to India to China moving stuff around as easily as LA does to Shanghai.  The world would change forever.  But that has not happened yet.  It still costs a lot more to move shit on rail vs sea.  The sea, for example, does not require maintenance costs per mile - rail and road do.

Anyway, there is still a case for this heartland or 'pivot region' as he also called it coming to dominate the world.  Enough so that the USA reacts when it perceives it as a threat.  This, in essence, explains the cold war.  That conflict was basically the same land vs sea power struggle that played out over and over again with the same general result.  It also explains why the USA got involved in Mesopotamia and the Hindu Kush recently.  I have skipped over analysis of successes and mistakes throughout US history and will not evaluate recent ones.  But it does explain it.

So.  I believe we are all caught up in history and have simultaneously laid out the USA's geopolitical priorities.  So lets just !@#$ list them here.

USA Priority #1: Secure North America
Priority 1a - Find depth beyond the Eastern Seaboard.
Priority 1b - Secure Mississippi and tributaries and the Port of New Orleans.
Priority 1c - Secure the southern boundary.
USA Priority #2: Secure the Gulf of Mexico
Priority 2a - Secure or neutralize everything in the Gulf.
Priority 2b - Dominate the Gulf of Mexico.
USA Priority #3: Keep outside powers from influencing North and South America.
USA Priority #4: Dominate the World's Sea Lanes.
USA Priority #5: Ensure the heartland does not come to dominate Eurasia.

 

That is that.  Cheers.

Edited July 31, 2016 by LordRahl2

[Ayayay]

[LordRahl2]

you are so sweet under

 

I simply don't care to click on the "more reply options".

[Ayayay]

you are so sweet under

 

I simply don't care to click on the "more reply options".

>!@#$es about something

>doesn't take simple step to solve the problem

 

k

[LordRahl2]

I !@#$ed about it literally years ago.

[LordRahl2]

Happy under?  And the "edit post" lacks that option.

 

As I said, years ago, I would rather the smilies be "opt in" vs "opt out".

[Hiroshima]

This was a good post.

I mean mine, not yours.

[Geronimo]

Murica!!! The land of the free and the home of the brave.

[Moreau]

-removed for rule violations - 

Edited August 25, 2016 by Four
alice/four

[Ishmael]

Interesting. Hadn't really heard of the "pivot area" theory of international relations before.

[Doktor Avalanche]

Us

Funded and armed by jews

Considering that for every one cent Israel gives to the United States for Special Interest, Saudi Arabia gives over a hundred dollars, its more like:

 

The US,

Funded and Armed by Saudi Interests.

 

Otherwise why would the US classify Iran as an enemy when Iran has done Jack/Shit to the US.(except during their "revolution" when college students sacked the US embassy and held them for hostage)

[Big Brother]

Considering that for every one cent Israel gives to the United States for Special Interest, Saudi Arabia gives over a hundred dollars, its more like:

 

The US,

Funded and Armed by Saudi Interests.

 

Otherwise why would the US classify Iran as an enemy when Iran has done Jack/Shit to the US.(except during their "revolution" when college students sacked the US embassy and held them for hostage)

 

Which might not have happened at all if the British and American governments at the time hadn't interfered in Iranian affairs. The current political system in Iran is very much the result of Western interference, among other things. Relevant: clicky

[Caecus]

Good post, good information.

 

While I do agree that these are accurate events in history, I believe the interpretation of said historical events maybe with the bias of 20/20 hindsight. To go so far as to say that within the collective consciousness of the American states that there was this vision for an eventuality called today, I would disagree. I think geographically the eastern seaboard and subsequent expansion was heavily influenced by the economics of the age (keeping in mind I only recently taken an economics class, apologizes in advance for poor vernacular) rather than an issue of purely national security. To quote a great historian, the American economy up until the 20th century continually had the crutch of westward expansion to sustain the continued growth of labor in limited markets. The impetus for westward expansion originates from the potential personal gain of the adventurer and entrepreneur. The state had no direct involvement with the move west until arguably the late 19th century (however, some settlers were encouraged with state level subsidies to populate the Louisiana purchase). 

 

Likewise with the security of the Mississippi waterway. Immediately following the revolution, it was in the interest of Ohio farmers and the state of New York to develop canals, simply because farm products spoiled before reaching markets to be sold. It was only after the revolutionary steamboat development in the early 19th century that spurred the impetus to secure the waterway specifically for the transportation of Ohio goods. 

 

Again, I simply don't entirely buy into scripted American expansionism. Take, instead of the southern border, the northern border. Canada had always been a threat to the new republic, since it epitomized the very existence of British influence in the northern hemisphere. If you look at the state-granted charters for canals in New York and the Hamiltonian actions that led to the market revolution, besides economic benefits, Hamilton and the federalists believed in internal improvements (mainly water/road infrastructure) and better communication was a matter of national security, not necessarily a launchpad for expansion (though no one would disagree it wasn't used in that way). Even following the war of 1812, Canadian relations with the US were always on the edge, both fearing an aggressive expansionist power. Yet neither did, most historians would attribute that to shared culture, and in 1867 following Canada's declaration of independence, a certain kinship. Not to mention, the Ohio valley's greatest trading partner was (and perhaps still is) Canada. 

 

A lot of people would argue that Manifest Destiny pre and post gold rush was very much a pariah movement, where groups would attempt to escape (for whatever reason) to find new land and new beginnings. If you look at the Mormons, or Oregonian movement, I think they exemplify that. It wasn't until after the civil war that there was a conscious policy to expand to the pacific and secure landholdings. 

 

I unfortunately don't know enough about the Spanish-American war to appropriately comment on the matter. However, I would agree that towards the end of the 19th century, there was a geared focus towards naval supremacy in securing sea lanes. But that wasn't unique to the US. Following Mahan's Sea Power bombshell, almost every country with a smokestack wanted to build a strong navy.

 

The concept of total naval domination of the high seas by the US is also, pre-world war II, an absurd notion. The technology then and today still require naval bases in a variety of locations around the world to maintain US naval presence worldwide. Certainly before the Great War, there was little to no interest, both in the American public and high politics, to secure said bases. While the Philippines were no doubt a dip of the toe into the water, the idea of total naval domination never occurred in the minds of Americans until post-World War II, when isolationism was no longer a viable option. 

 

I am actually not familiar with the heartland theory, so that was an interesting read on wikipedia. For now, I have no criticisms for the theory, but perhaps I will get a chance to tackle it later on. 

[LordRahl2]

Good post, good information.

 

While I do agree that these are accurate events in history, I believe the interpretation of said historical events maybe with the bias of 20/20 hindsight. To go so far as to say that within the collective consciousness of the American states that there was this vision for an eventuality called today, I would disagree. I think geographically the eastern seaboard and subsequent expansion was heavily influenced by the economics of the age (keeping in mind I only recently taken an economics class, apologizes in advance for poor vernacular) rather than an issue of purely national security. To quote a great historian, the American economy up until the 20th century continually had the crutch of westward expansion to sustain the continued growth of labor in limited markets. The impetus for westward expansion originates from the potential personal gain of the adventurer and entrepreneur. The state had no direct involvement with the move west until arguably the late 19th century (however, some settlers were encouraged with state level subsidies to populate the Louisiana purchase). 

 

Likewise with the security of the Mississippi waterway. Immediately following the revolution, it was in the interest of Ohio farmers and the state of New York to develop canals, simply because farm products spoiled before reaching markets to be sold. It was only after the revolutionary steamboat development in the early 19th century that spurred the impetus to secure the waterway specifically for the transportation of Ohio goods. 

 

Again, I simply don't entirely buy into scripted American expansionism. Take, instead of the southern border, the northern border. Canada had always been a threat to the new republic, since it epitomized the very existence of British influence in the northern hemisphere. If you look at the state-granted charters for canals in New York and the Hamiltonian actions that led to the market revolution, besides economic benefits, Hamilton and the federalists believed in internal improvements (mainly water/road infrastructure) and better communication was a matter of national security, not necessarily a launchpad for expansion (though no one would disagree it wasn't used in that way). Even following the war of 1812, Canadian relations with the US were always on the edge, both fearing an aggressive expansionist power. Yet neither did, most historians would attribute that to shared culture, and in 1867 following Canada's declaration of independence, a certain kinship. Not to mention, the Ohio valley's greatest trading partner was (and perhaps still is) Canada. 

 

A lot of people would argue that Manifest Destiny pre and post gold rush was very much a pariah movement, where groups would attempt to escape (for whatever reason) to find new land and new beginnings. If you look at the Mormons, or Oregonian movement, I think they exemplify that. It wasn't until after the civil war that there was a conscious policy to expand to the pacific and secure landholdings. 

 

I unfortunately don't know enough about the Spanish-American war to appropriately comment on the matter. However, I would agree that towards the end of the 19th century, there was a geared focus towards naval supremacy in securing sea lanes. But that wasn't unique to the US. Following Mahan's Sea Power bombshell, almost every country with a smokestack wanted to build a strong navy.

 

The concept of total naval domination of the high seas by the US is also, pre-world war II, an absurd notion. The technology then and today still require naval bases in a variety of locations around the world to maintain US naval presence worldwide. Certainly before the Great War, there was little to no interest, both in the American public and high politics, to secure said bases. While the Philippines were no doubt a dip of the toe into the water, the idea of total naval domination never occurred in the minds of Americans until post-World War II, when isolationism was no longer a viable option. 

 

I am actually not familiar with the heartland theory, so that was an interesting read on wikipedia. For now, I have no criticisms for the theory, but perhaps I will get a chance to tackle it later on. 

 

I freely admit to using and abusing 20/20 hindsight.  I also thank you for assigning me 20/20.  Many theoreticians have looked back on history and developed some pants on head retarded theories.  For example, Marx(Engles) came up with the dialectic certainty of history which ... didn't happen in history and will not happen in the future.  So hindsight is NOT always 20/20 =)

 

Now, I did not say nor would I like you to take away from what I wrote that 'Murica in 1799 perceived a unified continental power that could dominate the globe.  They did not.  They did perceive the problems in front of them and worked, in our case successfully, to solve them.  Once they had a new set of problems arose and the new leaders solved those.  Make sense?

 

This I will take slight issue with:

"he impetus for westward expansion originates from the potential personal gain of the adventurer and entrepreneur."

No.  The impetus came from the State (I use the capital S to talk about, in this case, the USA vice "Georgia") and not individuals.  The "energy", if you will, to carry out the expansion came from the individuals who carried it out.  It was Washington's imperative to settle the Ohio/Mississippi watersheds - they did require people to execute that imperative though.  The continued growth of labor was not the problem (the historian you are referencing was wrong).  If it was the US would have limited immigration.  Instead Washington encouraged immigration because it needed the excess labor to fulfill its geopolitical imperatives.

 

Yes it was in the farmer's interest to get goods to market.  It was also in the State's interest that they succeed.  If you look at the National Road and its history you can see the States involvement.  This is not to downplay individual and local contributions to the transportation network, which were legion.  Now the National Road, since I used it as an example, was all about internal economic improvement.  However, it would end up being the launching point for countless individuals moving west.

 

"Again, I simply don't entirely buy into scripted American expansionism."

It wasn't "scripted".  It was, however, sorta inevitable.  Sorta in that certain preconditions were required - but those fed on the inevitability piece.  Since certain things, like say removing Mexico, were required they became friction points that were addressed.  It is possible, however unlikely, that the US lost the Mexican war and that would have halted expansion.

-There are innumerable reasons why Canada and the US did not go to war but that conversation exceeds our survey level discussion.  It does reinforce my point though.  Canada did not block any US imperatives so conflict was not necessary.

 

I donno if Mahan caused States to want a strong Navy.  They would want them regardless of his book.  What he did was to clarify a good policy for States to pursue irt their navy.

 

"he concept of total naval domination of the high seas by the US is also, pre-world war II, an absurd notion."

You misread what I wrote I think.  I said they had a credible navy around 1900 and dominated after WWII.

 

"I am actually not familiar with the heartland theory, so that was an interesting read on wikipedia. For now, I have no criticisms for the theory, but perhaps I will get a chance to tackle it later on."

Would you like to join the MENSA book club?  We are reading a modern proponent of the theory this month.

[Caecus]

Now, I did not say nor would I like you to take away from what I wrote that 'Murica in 1799 perceived a unified continental power that could dominate the globe.  They did not.  They did perceive the problems in front of them and worked, in our case successfully, to solve them.  Once they had a new set of problems arose and the new leaders solved those.  Make sense?

 

We are in agreement. 

 

 

This I will take slight issue with:

"he impetus for westward expansion originates from the potential personal gain of the adventurer and entrepreneur."

No.  The impetus came from the State (I use the capital S to talk about, in this case, the USA vice "Georgia") and not individuals.  The "energy", if you will, to carry out the expansion came from the individuals who carried it out.  It was Washington's imperative to settle the Ohio/Mississippi watersheds - they did require people to execute that imperative though.  The continued growth of labor was not the problem (the historian you are referencing was wrong).  If it was the US would have limited immigration.  Instead Washington encouraged immigration because it needed the excess labor to fulfill its geopolitical imperatives.

 

There is no doubt that it was in the mind of the state that expansion West would secure the holdings and stability of the new republic. And I would agree, the "energy" as you may, is part of that. While there are definitely state-sanction incentives, I believe that a major part of expansion primarily came in the form of personal gain and interest, particularly following the pariah stage of westward expansion, such as the Mormons in Utah or the Oregonians following the California gold rush. 

 

The historian I was referencing was primarily referring to the rising class of poor landless farmers that were overtaken by the plantation estates in the south, before the rise of major industries in the north which consumed immigrant labor that you are talking about. He was referring to the fact that this landless farming class would expand west to seek new lands of their own, rather than continue under the servitude of the estates. Naturally, some of these farmers later became slave managers to the larger estates, but a good portion found economic opportunity in the west. I will have to find his name and article. 

 

 

Yes it was in the farmer's interest to get goods to market.  It was also in the State's interest that they succeed.  If you look at the National Road and its history you can see the States involvement.  This is not to downplay individual and local contributions to the transportation network, which were legion.  Now the National Road, since I used it as an example, was all about internal economic improvement.  However, it would end up being the launching point for countless individuals moving west.

 

Oh yes, and if you look at Hamilton's writings and arguments in Congress as Secretary of the Treasury, he would also tack on that these internal improvements also meant the faster transportation and movement of troops, as a matter of national security. There is an interesting article on the beginning of the so-called "canal fever" in the early republic, which essentially talks about state involvement and handing out of monopolies and charters as a potential means to use private individuals to develop internal infrastructure. I unfortunately still haven't figured out how to attach files here, but the name is "Building the Empire State" by B.P. Murphy, under chapter 2. 

 

 

"Again, I simply don't entirely buy into scripted American expansionism."

It wasn't "scripted".  It was, however, sorta inevitable.  Sorta in that certain preconditions were required - but those fed on the inevitability piece.  Since certain things, like say removing Mexico, were required they became friction points that were addressed.  It is possible, however unlikely, that the US lost the Mexican war and that would have halted expansion.

-There are innumerable reasons why Canada and the US did not go to war but that conversation exceeds our survey level discussion.  It does reinforce my point though.  Canada did not block any US imperatives so conflict was not necessary.

 

I think I understand what you are trying to say, and after reading a little bit on the Heartland theory as well. Geographically speaking, the US was in a position for an eventual power, primarily due to stability, lack of competing neighboring powers, and access to both major oceans for sea lanes and trade routes. Due to the technology of the age, it was also difficult to supply a European-based army that far from home, making it easier for the US to retain hemispherical domination. To what extent is it inevitable though? I'm not quite sure how to answer that, no doubt someone looking to do their PhD in geopolitical history would have already written something on it. 

 

 

"I am actually not familiar with the heartland theory, so that was an interesting read on wikipedia. For now, I have no criticisms for the theory, but perhaps I will get a chance to tackle it later on."

Would you like to join the MENSA book club?  We are reading a modern proponent of the theory this month.

 

Yes! I think I have a general idea now from Wikipedia. 

[LordRahl2]

Cool.

 

I am on a mobile device so cannot reply to all you wrote. Here is the link to the club:

http://eusaforums.com/forum/index.php/topic,40684.0.html

 

You have to join the forum and then join the "general discussion" group.

Our forum owner keeps promising to simplify that process...

If ya need forum help drop me a line.