>>607017 It really was, apart from the handful of natives that were outnumbered by an order of magnitude and what Mexican colonists were there. And ~95% of them elected to become American citizens rather than cash out and go back to Mexico.
There were a few coastal cities and missions here and there but by and large it was still wilderness - especially in the north, as that was Commanche country.
>>607206 as for the "old northwest/southwest" Britain gained them in the French-Indian wars but the Natives were pissed since the French were traders and didn't really HAVE the land so a great clusterfuck happened resulting in Britain not allowing the colonists to settle on them which in turned pissed off the colonist
needless to say it was one of the many reasons America rebelled against Britain, and when they gained independence, well you can guess the rest.
Any territorial entity that big is destined to fall at some point. The only way to stave off the inevitable would be to do what the Roman empire did and split it in two right though Texas running along the plains all the way up north. The next step would be to dissolve the current states and create new ones out of the MSAs. The ability of like minded people to govern according to their will should provide all the checks and balances needed to prevent the breakdown of the states.
>>607457 though history certainly shows that there's a lot of factors that America has that Rome did not
for one, Rome was beset by all sides by enemies even in the Pax Romana they had to deal with the Parthians and minor uprisings like the one in Judea. To the South of America is Mexico that hasn't caused any threat to it to the North is Cananda which shares the largest friendly border in history and to the west and east it's nothing but water, on the homefront, never mind threats there was no enemies
there's also the advanced tech, Rome was the most advanced in transportation and logistics at the time (see all roads go to rome), but it still took months for the army to go from one area all the way to the other side of the empire to suppress a rebellion, Today there's internet that can relay info in seconds, airplanes that can travel to other countries in a day, cars, trains, and other transport that can get to the other side of America in a week. We won't find ourselves disconnected from our own quite like the Romans did
Then there's the whole "unitary vs. Federal" thing. For rome you only had to conquer Rome and bam you're emperor, to any wannabe caesar that wants to do that to America they have to take over all 50 states (or at least all major cities) if they want to take the country down.
like you see Russia that lasted longer than us, has worse conditions, yet is still large as fuck, pretty much because of those reasons
>>607545 I figure the US over time will sort of be like China where different parts might break off over several centuries and thousands of years but there will be periods of unity and generally the people all consider themselves American.
>>607601 Why do you think Spain was the bitch of France in 1800? Because it lost the War of the Pyrenees in 1795. Just because official stuff about colonies took 5 years to happen doesnt mean it didnt result from that war
The frontier was largely bought, and we had the guns and the Will of God against the savages who weren't doing anything useful with it. Moreover, the territories were, for Europe, an series of ledger-entry-mapped abstractions, while for use they were a reality, a Meaning, a Frontier to Conquer (admittedly fairly easily).
And now it will all be lost to racial replacement and white ethnomasochism. The solace is that there is no god or anything like that, and that nothing really matters, in the long view.
>>607846 just want to know where we stand that's all
we all complain about this and that country chopping off heads, raping women, and gassing people, but when we are called out on doing that it's answered with "we had to it's for the good of our people!"
Even if that was the case if we were to take carving knives and carve up every man, woman, and child that are not us and we become a stronger country as a result does that make that action moral?
>>607457 >Any territorial entity that big is destined to fall at some point.
here is the thing:
1) America's two party system is what keeps our giant nation woven together. People from opposite ends of the continent can vote for same parties, instead of local or regional third parties, and that's one of the many things which keeps American together
2) Instead of concentrating on our east coast, and thus dooming our central, southern, and western borders, Americans spread across. This strengthens the nation. As a people group, even back to our cavemen days, you never want to concentrate in one location, but spread out and gain more territory
Los Angels, Houston, Chicago, Miami, and New York City are America's most populous cities. Notice their locations on the map: all of them are spread out from each other.
Combine 1 and 2 and you get why America is still together. If either 1 or 2 goes away....then you may be right.
it's a cute way of explaining to children that economic and social pressures prompted America to expand westward. isn't getting elementary aged children interested in history more important than telling them americans are evil expansionist murderers?
>>606988 1. Every time the US came across natives they were living in a Mad Max style post apocalyptic state of war due to our European diseases wiping them out as our traders and explorers moved ahead of the main group of settlers. This made them easy to be dismissed as savages and killed. 2. Great Britain screwed up their policies after the French and Indian / Seven Years War causing colonists to say "fuck this shit" and start the westward expansion. 3. Local long term population boom, immigrants, and dirt cheap land. 4. Napoleon, Louisiana Purchase, and more Mad Max natives. 5. Texas and the souring of relations with Mexico. By this point the idea of Manifest Destiny had really set in and the US was GOING to get that land and fuck everything in the way. The Mexican government didn't know wtf they were doing.
>>607916 >We should probably avoid such actions in the future despite it's benefits. If pussies like you took 30 % the population of a country, sooner or later it will collapse or be invaded by the neighbor country.
>>607989 >problem is when someone else does it suddenly THEY are the assholes should be brought to justice
Typically, in modern times, they are. The USA is a different case altogether. I don't consider any one an asshole who wanted to expand to the West. Why should I? It was a land that had been separated from the world, its entire population was seemingly evaporating, and it was basically up for grabs There was little help the Americans could do for the Native Americans, and they certainty tried with schooling and such. It's Game Theory: you take the American land, or some other nation eventually takes it. Better to take it than have someone else take it
>>607989 Chinese communists don't give a fuck about moral or reason, if they want to take a land, they come and take it. I bet you would try to say reasons to those guys if they decided to invade your country and make your people their slaves... which is funny and stupid.
>>607989 >just looking for consistency that's all It's not consistent enough for you that the indians practiced that level of brutality as well? There was never any question whatsoever of their victory no matter how hard they fought, but guess what - life isn't fair.
Pretty much this. Napoleon sold his empire to the US rather than fighting Americans for it. Then the US fought a war with Spain (much like Napoleon tried to do as well). By 1865 the US had the Transcontinental Railroad, and effectively had unified access to both asian and euro markets. By 1900 America had already become imperialist and was taking over the south pacific.
Thus the new world came to be dominated by the USA forever.
>westward expansion is terrible despite the fact it made us big, rich, and powerful We let our wealth and power corrupt us as a nation; I don't give a damn about the bushniggers. Our Republic, our values, and our culture would have been much better off if we hadn't expanded Westward. The bigger they are, the harder they fall
>>612227 They pretty much tried those. Taking Canada failed in 1812, and for Latin America they realised it was better to run it as a proxy empire. Don't forget Latin America was essentially ruled by American corporations enforced by American military until a series of communist revolutions put an end to it in the latter half of the 20th century.
>Why not try to attack to UK and take Canada? Because we didn't want to get involved with a third land war against Great Britain in the span of 75 years.
I mean, if the Mexican government hadn't been a revolving-door shitshow that was too incompetent to just sell us the fucking land we wanted (almost everything but Alta California was essentially worthless to them - too dry for farming, too western for trading, few natural resources of note and the natives fucking their shit up 24/7) then we might have gone to war over the Oregon Country but if that happened then we might not have gotten Alaska because the main reason that Russia sold it to us was to act as a buffer between them and the Crown. We actually did still pay them a pretty hefty chunk of cash for the clay we annexed as well as paying off their debt to anyone who chose to become a US citizen (fun fact: most of the people affected by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo were either wealthy landowners or continental yuro pioneers shoved to the frontier) and promising to stop the indian raids.
>>608255 The current state demarcations are based on antiquated land deeds, this is proving to be problematic as many municipalities feel underrepresented by the central government of their states. Metropolitan statistical areas correlate more closely to the political stances of the populace. Splitting the country in two would be to ease the burden of responsibility over a such a large landmass on one central government. Instead there could be two autonomous states that start off with the same constitution holding their own elections keeping open borders with military and economic cooperation between both sides.
>>607265 > It's a very expansionist nation in short. A bit like russia.
I don’t think that’s accurate as it applies to the U.S.
Absolutely nobody was going to leave bazillions of unexplored acres to assbackward stone age Indians, wilderness areas were considered “wastelands” until someone moved in and started farming, building towns, etc.
For the Americans of the time, they didn’t see it as “expansionist” behavior but simply putting the land to good use.
Sucked for the Indians of course, but had the historical moccasin been on the other foot, the Indians would have wiped out stone age Europeans in the same manner, as evidenced by the “expansionist” behavior of the Mayans, Aztec and Incas.
>>612855 >Sucked for the Indians of course, but had the historical moccasin been on the other foot, the Indians would have wiped out stone age Europeans in the same manner, as evidenced by the “expansionist” behavior of the Mayans, Aztec and Incas.
There's actually pretty ample evidence for genocide among native populations all the way from south America to the arctic circle. Hell, the lion's share of post-Columbian Native American history is various and sundry tribes trying to enlist the help of Europeans to displace or destroy other tribes. What happened to them was like a middle-school baseball team being randomly selected to play the Yankees; there was really no other way that was ever going to end.
>>607457 The main difference between the US and Rome being the infinitely better and faster human and information flux transportation. Charlemagne couldn't expand more because he had reached the maximum level of land his technology allowed him to effectively maintain under control. The US doesn't need to worry about roads being cut off by bandits, stopping the transfer of messengers -- they also have a highly educated population who can communicate anywhere in the world instantly, thus killing the space and time limitations of pre-contemporary world.
I still agree we should partition the US but just because I like drawing borders. t. /gsg/
>>612973 >The US doesn't need to worry about roads being cut off by bandits
Speaking strictly hypothetically and with no intent whatsoever to leave that realm in any capacity, destroying a few dozen bridges could effectively cripple the US economy. From the Ohio river to the gulf of Mexico - a stretch of about a thousand miles - there are only 20 or so highway crossings of the Mississippi. And if we're talking about military usage, that's even more tenuous as they'd have to bring heavy equipment over via train if the big bridges were out and derailing a train is a goddamn party trick as far as acts of terror are concerned. Hell, you can even buy a portable, clamp-on derailer - paint it black and they'd never even see it coming, not that they could stop anyway. For extra fun, stick it just after a bridge on a rural section with high speed and/or on a curve.
>>613097 First of all, who said anything about "simultaneousy"? And relatively speaking, it is fairly easy. Bridges, especially in more rural areas, aren't very well guarded and it's not hard to set an extended timer for a bomb. If you had three two-man teams each wiring a bridge every day (a generous assessment), they could be done with the motor traffic bridges in a week and the rail bridges in a similar timeframe.
France sucks at managing bitches then: >The Treaty of The Hague (also known as the Treaty of Den Haag) was signed on 17 February 1720. The treaty ended the War of the Quadruple Alliance, a conflict that arose between King Philip V of Spain and an alliance of Great Britain, France, Austria and the Dutch Republic.
>>607998 >It was a land that had been separated from the world, its entire population was seemingly evaporating, and it was basically up for grabs It was easy to take so annexing their land doesn't make you an asshole? That only happens if you successfully annexed difficult territory?
Second, they withstood diplomatic bullshittery against Europe.
Third, they had superior economy, population growth, infrastructure, and trade in comparison to the inhabitants of the land they recieved during the Louisiana purchase.
Fourth, they defeated Mexico and cut off their access to the west.
Fifth, They made it clear they would do so very early on. It was one of the reasons that the British wanted to get control of the colonies, because English Americans were encroaching and plannning to expand into Native lands.
Also, slave labor made it possible to achieve a lot of the economic stuff in a short amount of time or in great profitability.
tl;dr the only people defending, the natives, were objectively inadequately equipped to deal with european expansion
>>612855 >Absolutely nobody was going to leave bazillions of unexplored acres to assbackward stone age Indians, wilderness areas were considered “wastelands” until someone moved in and started farming, building towns, etc.
It's like, say... people conceive of an Empire as "everything within the borders". Truth is, Empires were mostly networks, and only nowadays we have full territorial control.
So, think of the Roman empire. It ceased being an Empire as soon as you left the main road and acres of cultivated land. Google tells me at its peak Roman Empire had roughly 60 million inhabitants. Assuming the estimate is correct, you can imagine the Roman Empire as a net stretching all over Europe and the Mediterranean and NOT as a solid country like France, Germany or Italy or Spain are nowadays.
So, basically, let's get rid of the idea of Empires as huge patches of land and think of them as huge networks.
>>612163 Wrong. City of Miami proper is smaller than those, but Miami-Dade county, which is effectively "Miami" to the world and locals, is massive in population. Miami-Dade and neighboring Broward are highly Balkanized and cut into a million municipalities but call a spade a spade: it's Miami.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.