I totally echo SF in saying this is a great, great idea!
This is so tough and so cool. Mine (and I'll use SF's format):
1. Louisiana Purchase (Jefferson, 1803)
2. Manhattan Project (FDR, 1942)
3. Seward's Folly (Andrew Johnson, 1867)
4. Decision to Enter WWII (FDR, 1938-1941)
5. Emancipation (Lincoln, 1862)
1. Louisiana Purchase: This one hit me immediately when Chris' question first became clear. For the reasons stated by previous comments, this changed the world. Nothing else in history put the United States on its course of power, isolation, independence, security and dominance like this decision.
2. I'm arguing this one in favor of SF's dropping of the bomb because I see the latter as an inevitable consequence of the former, and because without the MP, we likely get a first bomb dropped by someone else, and that would be world-aletering in a way that is entirely unpredictable. Going after the bomb, and in the all-out way that the MP did, seems to me to be the event that has defined the last 60 years, and set the world on a course from which it will never return.
3. Alaska Purchase: I really hemmed an hawed on this one and I know it will be controversial, but at the same time, it's really hard to imagine how different the world would be right now if Russia had had such an enormous amount of oil-rich, and fish-rich land bordering Canada throughout the 20th century. I think it would be inevitable that Russian troops would have massed at the border in the 1980s and then it's anyone's guess what would have happened. There'd certainly be hostile nukes siloed there today.
4. Entering WWII: of course with the dates I put down I am arguing that "entering" started with the re-armament of the late 1930s. And I know that Chris likely chose WWI because of two very good reasons, A) WWs I & II are increasingly being seen as a single conflict. This is a view with which I very much agree, and B) The United States' involvement in WWI was really the demarkation point of the US abandoning its isolationist period. Both are very strong, but FDR's decision to support Western Europe in WWII I think trumps WWI because it forced Germany to go seek allies with greater resources, bringing a true globalism to WWII in way WWI never had. I can concede this point, however and I'm less solid in defense of this (in the face of the WWI argument) than any of my other points.
5. Emancipation: This is my concession that I'd have missed this one. We Americans love to hate ourselves, but the truth is that race-relations, as bad as they are here, are better here than basically anywhere else on Earth. It's hard to be a black man in the US, but it's better to be a black man here than in, for instance, Africa, Haiti, Germany, anywhere in Asia, etc. All of it is impossible without emancipation, including the legascy unto the modern day with Barack Obama. It's also the greatest moral victory in United States history, and we are now, I think, the first modern country to popularly elect a racial minority to our position of Head of State. It's possible India beat us with Giani Singh in 1967, but that was a parlimentary electoration and not a popular election.
Addressing the others so far:
Decision to escalate US involvement in Vietnam (LBJ 1965): I agree that this cast a long shadow over the second half of the 20th centurty and informed a lot of foreign policy decisions for the US (and other nations), but I just can't say it changed the course of the world like the other decisions did.
The Social Security Act (FDR 1935): very good decision to add a non-military decision to the list, and granted it's the biggest continual conversation in Americal politics, but I just don't know that it changed the world.
Monroe Doctrine (1823, Monroe): This was huge, no question. I think this was #6 for me--just out of my top 5. I can't really argue aghainst its inclusion onto the list. The US putting a strong hand up to its historical ancestors ranks up there with the signing of the Declaration of Independence as one of the boldest early moves by this nation. Monroe was a badass, no doubt, and his decision was enormous.
Decision to fight a civil war to preserve the union (1861, Lincoln): This was big, but I think I'm swayed by SF's point that the fact of it was larger than the decision of it, because it was either fight or allow the breakup and that wasn't so much of a choice given Lincoln's environment.
Decision to enter WWI (1917, Wilson): I talked about this in my WWII entry.
Decision not to launch air attacks against Cuba (1962, Kennedy): I have a knee-jerk reaction to discount JFK as a moronic, sexed-up lightweight of a president. I think this is a little unfair, but the truth is that compared to the pedestal the previous generation put him on, he really wasn't that important. The Missile Crisis was big, however, and it's undeniably a big decision by Kennedy. Taken on its merits I'm unsure though. If we'd bombed, was it inevitable nuclear war? Hard to say and perhaps I just am too ignorant of it to know. I just have this nagging feeling though, that if JFK had decided to have burgers one night instead of hot dogs, we'd have heard from the baby boomers that the fate of the free world hung on the balance of ground beef vs cased pork, and Kennedy's brilliant stroke to go with lettuce instead of mustard rivaled in importance Napolean's decision to push north into Russia.
Just off my list:
Andrew Jackson stuff. I can't put a point on it, so it can't make a "decsions" list, but he increased the power of the presidency so much that it makes me always think of him as an important president in terms of affecting the future.
Supreme Court appointments: I know that some president deciding some justice has to be on this list, even above some of what we've listed, but I am not enough of a judicial historian to pick the most affecting Supreme Court Justice of all time, but find that guy, then choose the decision that put him on the court, and that's what I'm talking about.
8 comments:
I didn't want to include this in my post because it's so off-topic, but there is an actual photograph of Andrew Jackson: a "daguerrotype" actually, but I was shocked that he lived long enough for that to be true. And I learned a bit about the history of photography I didn't know in researching it.
Alaska is a really interesting choice. I'm not sure how much difference it would make from a national security standpoint, though.
Do you really think that human history would be even recognizable if Russia had a military base in Alaska during the Cuban missile Crisis?
Well, there were already bases directly across the Bearing Straits, right? I suppose you are pointing to the psychological rather than tactical significance. Is that right?
I suppose you are pointing to the psychological rather than tactical significance. Is that right?The southern portion of Russo-Alaska is only 300 miles from the United States. That constitutes a much greater real threat. Also, with a nuke in a silo 300 miles from Liam's house before ICBMs were invented, you don't think that changes the world?
How about the simple fact that Canada has to defend a border? North America is just not secure anymore.
How about not having access to Alaska's oil and natural gas? How about Alaska's helium? It's fish. Resources are not a small issue.
Awesome list. I agree with "Seward's Folly". American history would have been completely different with having to defend a hostile border for the first time.
Here's why I have Kennedy on the list: all of his millitary advisors, and most of his cabinet, were recommending an air strike to knock out the known missle sites in Cuba. What they did not know what that these sites were operational, and local officers had the authority to launch. Additionally, ground-to-ground nuclear "buzz bombs" were stationed in the hills over Gitmo, with orders to launch if attacked. Had the Americans launched airstrikes, a nuclear exchange of some sort likely would have followed.
I agree that Kennedy is frequently overated as a president. In this case, his calculated and prudent approach to the crisis was critical.
For Jackson, I'd second the "Trail of Tears" decision from Jim, as well as his actions with regard to the National Bank, the details of which escape me.
For Supreme Court justice appointments, I'd go with the president who nominated John Marshall - Jefferson?
For the record, I don't think the Alaska decision differs substantially from other expansions. I mean, the Mexican-American war? How different would the US be if California (and its fifth-largest economy in the world) were part of Mexico? What about Texas? So yeah, it was big, but big in the same vein the other expansions were.
It's a fun exercise to game out the Cold War with a Russian Alaska. Hmmm:
1. I do not think that Soviet Troops would have massed at the border. The Yukon territory, let alone British Columbia are really really rugged and absofuckinglutely huge. Not good territory for a ground offensive, and not a credible strategic threat.
2. I do think Russian air bases there would have been very very threatening. How would that have changed the game? Russia would have had a proverbial gun to our head. LeMay's desire to first-strike would have been utterly suicidal with that sort of unimpedable threat, so SAC would have have much more of a defensive/retaliatory posture. There would have been a lot more MiG-Sabre jousting as our Air Forces directly tested one another. Western Europe and Latin America might have been de-emphasized as flash points as the US and USSR are more directly in contact. Plenty of opportunity for random shoot-downs and potential for escalation. I think in the end, the calculus of Mutually Assured Destruction makes nuclear war equally unlikely as it turned out in the real world. But the '50s would have been a much scarier time for Americans (and it was a scary, paranoid time as it was).
3. Resources. Russia is already *so* rich in nat gas & oil, you almost wonder whether they would have bothered to develop it to the degree we have. Probably, but bear in mind that Siberia is also resource-rich and is minimally developed, and it's on the same continent. Mostly the US would have been deprived of access to that oil. it would have been bad, but not terrible.Alaskan oil production peaked decades ago and has never contributed more than a margin of US oil consumption. The fisheries are mostly in international waters.
This is also an interesting mental game to play...
I never meant to imply that Russia would be helped dramatically by Alaska, I only meant to highlight the diminishment of the US' natural resources.
Oil, yes. Natural Gas? I think Alaska produces an enormous percentage of our natural gas, which is the most economical energy source Americans use, generally.
Post a Comment