3 ms·

I don't think it's a good idea to allow one's conception of the US as a major power in the 20th century to impact the knowledge that the US was most certainly N

I don't think it's a good idea to allow one's conception of the US as a major power in the 20th century to impact the knowledge that the US was most certainly NOT a major power for most of the 19th. The US was a backwards, dangerous and poor country compared to the major powers, very much still in development.

hollerith 5y ago
The average American was taller and healthier than the average Englishman, Frenchman, etc, not only in the 19th Century but also in colonial times, so it is unclear what you mean by "poor country".
taurath 5y ago
Not really. Backwards poor countries don’t get into wars in the Mediterranean Sea. You underestimate how much relative wealth and power the US had when it seceded. Frontier sure. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_Wars https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_Wars
- true_religion 5y ago
  Comparative backwards poor countries get involved in strange things all the time. Kwame Nkrumah, 1st dictator of Ghana was overthrown when he was out of the country attempting to negotiate a ceasefire between the USSR and the USA during the Vietnam war. But back to the Barbary Wars. That was conducted against 'pirates' and was done in concert with several European powers. The closest comparison would be modern UN/NATO/ECOWAS led 'police action' style wars against warlords in disputed territories which are disrupting trade. It's notable that you can't avoid a war with pirates or warlords. They're actively killing your citizens and stealing your import/export material. Even the tiniest of nations has to respond eventually or give up on being a trading partner to anyone. For example: > From 1796–1797 French raiders seized some 316 American merchant ships flying American colors. This overall would force the the U.S.'s hand, regardless of if it was backwards or poor. To do nothing, would be to condemn U.S. foreign trade to being controlled by another power---something that the U.S. was too proud to allow.

hollerith 5y ago

The average American was taller and healthier than the average Englishman, Frenchman, etc, not only in the 19th Century but also in colonial times, so it is unclear what you mean by "poor country".

taurath 5y ago

Not really. Backwards poor countries don’t get into wars in the Mediterranean Sea. You underestimate how much relative wealth and power the US had when it seceded. Frontier sure. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_Wars https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_Wars

true_religion 5y ago
Comparative backwards poor countries get involved in strange things all the time. Kwame Nkrumah, 1st dictator of Ghana was overthrown when he was out of the country attempting to negotiate a ceasefire between the USSR and the USA during the Vietnam war. But back to the Barbary Wars. That was conducted against 'pirates' and was done in concert with several European powers. The closest comparison would be modern UN/NATO/ECOWAS led 'police action' style wars against warlords in disputed territories which are disrupting trade. It's notable that you can't avoid a war with pirates or warlords. They're actively killing your citizens and stealing your import/export material. Even the tiniest of nations has to respond eventually or give up on being a trading partner to anyone. For example: > From 1796–1797 French raiders seized some 316 American merchant ships flying American colors. This overall would force the the U.S.'s hand, regardless of if it was backwards or poor. To do nothing, would be to condemn U.S. foreign trade to being controlled by another power---something that the U.S. was too proud to allow.