Effects of a Disunited States on Europe

[IchBinDieKaiser]

Let's say that the United States fracture sometime in the 1790's. For argument sake the PoD is an unsuccessful constitutional convention and the US remains under the Articles of Confederation until sometime between the mid to late 1790's.

What would be the short term effects of a disunited states on Europe, economically and politically. Would this effect Napoleon's rise to power in anyway? Obviously this eliminates the war of 1812, allowing the British to focus on Europe. What would the effects be on Europe?

[Elfwine]

Let's say that the United States fracture sometime in the 1790's. For argument sake the PoD is an unsuccessful constitutional convention and the US remains under the Articles of Confederation until sometime between the mid to late 1790's.

What would be the short term effects of a disunited states on Europe, economically and politically. Would this effect Napoleon's rise to power in anyway? Obviously this eliminates the war of 1812, allowing the British to focus on Europe. What would the effects be on Europe?

Butterflies aside?

Not very much, unless the USA collapsing leads to restored American colonies or something (and even that would be pretty slight as a difference). And the British did focus on Europe - the difference would be minimal.

[pompejus]

One of the first things hat come to mind is no Louisiana purchase. Which means less money for Napoleon and the British needs to send troops to occupy Louisiana. This will have very little effect for the Napoleonic Wars, but can be interesting afterwards. Will the British keep it or return it to France (or maybe Spain or even Mexico)?

[Elfwine]

One of the first things hat come to mind is no Louisiana purchase. Which means less money for Napoleon and the British needs to send troops to occupy Louisiana. This will have very little effect for the Napoleonic Wars, but can be interesting afterwards. Will the British keep it or return it to France (or maybe Spain or even Mexico)?

Why would the British waste troops occupying Louisiana while there's areas that actually need them?

[eliphas8]

Why would the British waste troops occupying Louisiana while there's areas that actually need them?

They'd likely just have colonial militias take it at some point.

[Alex Richards]

Well essentially they can just use a small number of troops to occupy New Orleans (less than the numbers sent to Canada for the War of 1812) and be done with it.


If the US is disunited, it might be added to *Canada.

[pompejus]

They'd likely just have colonial militias take it at some point.

Well essentially they can just use a small number of troops to occupy New Orleans (less than the numbers sent to Canada for the War of 1812) and be done with it.
That is basicly what I meant. The British did that often with French colonies or colonies from countries allied to France

If the US is disunited, it might be added to *Canada.
Possible, but I can see it returned to France after the war too. They did return a lot of occupied colonies after the war after all. How important would New Orleans be for the colonies that Britain already had? Would control of the Mississippi mouth important for the Canadian colonies?

[IchBinDieKaiser]

That is basicly what I meant. The British did that often with French colonies or colonies from countries allied to France


Possible, but I can see it returned to France after the war too. They did return a lot of occupied colonies after the war after all. How important would New Orleans be for the colonies that Britain already had? Would control of the Mississippi mouth important for the Canadian colonies?

I don't think the British would return Louisiana, at least not to France. They would most likely return it to Spain, considering the conditions France got it from Spain under, while French troops were in Madrid if I'm not mistaken.

However I can only see the British returning Louisiana to France if Spain's colonies revolt and gain independence like IOTL. So if Spain does lose her colonies to revolt, the British will most likely keep Louisiana.

[jkarr]

I don't think the British would return Louisiana, at least not to France. They would most likely return it to Spain, considering the conditions France got it from Spain under, while French troops were in Madrid if I'm not mistaken.

However I can only see the British returning Louisiana to France if Spain's colonies revolt and gain independence like IOTL. So if Spain does lose her colonies to revolt, the British will most likely keep Louisiana.

i personally could see brtiian breaking up lousiana, possibly keeping the more easternly/mississipi parts, whilst giving spain the rest, or something of the like...especialy as now, they could gain control of the mississipi and, if the united states ever do unify, they could block accsess to the west, as well as bolster trade between canada and the carribean bypassing the atlantic...its a good bet theyll keep new orleans at least as a free trade port for themselves or mabye something like hong kong was, and possibly strentghening their claims on the northwest and mabye snipping off the dakotas and that

[mowque]

I still think we'll see 'American' settles pouring into places like Louisianan and Florida. If anything, with 13 states to corral it'll be even harder to keep them out. I can see the UK reluctantly propping up a Native American state.

Edit: Sorry, that is a bit off topic already!

[IchBinDieKaiser]

I still think we'll see 'American' settles pouring into places like Louisianan and Florida. If anything, with 13 states to corral it'll be even harder to keep them out. I can see the UK reluctantly propping up a Native American state.

Edit: Sorry, that is a bit off topic already!

I approve the thought.

How does a disunited states effect Europe economically besides France not getting money from the sale of Louisiana? With 13 smaller entities to deal with in North America does that mean the British need more or less troops in Canada to keep them in line? What about trade? Is trading with 13 smaller countries easier/more profitable than one big one? How would relations between Europe and the Americas change? Which states would be more likely to bond with European countries?

[Xhavnak]

An interesting butterfly will be the greater strength of the Barbary pirates without the wars with the USA - this might harm the european economy. At the very least one of the european powers is going to have to do the clearing job that the US did IOTL.

[jkay]

Let's say that the United States fracture sometime in the 1790's. For argument sake the PoD is an unsuccessful constitutional convention and the US remains under the Articles of Confederation until sometime between the mid to late 1790's.Except, not being idiots, we would've tried and tried again until a Constitutional Convention worked, and would've fixed whatever failed the first time. So, a delay's all you can reasonably pull off.

And, we weren't disunited atall, of why did the British lose? We were just badly governed as a whole, with not enough power in our federal goverment.

We even brought new territories in, under the Northwest Ordinance and allowed them to become states when they grew big enough. It was just harder to get business done, not impossible.

EDIT: And, our Founding generation elites could see that if they hung in there, and kept united and patient and kept their nasty ethnic cleasing, they had the potential to create the first democratic power in millenia. Why would they give that up so easily?

[Elfwine]

An interesting butterfly will be the greater strength of the Barbary pirates without the wars with the USA - this might harm the european economy. At the very least one of the european powers is going to have to do the clearing job that the US did IOTL.

The smashing of the Barbary pirates as a power was by Britain OTL, so . . .



http://www.heritage-history.com/www/heritage.php?Dir=wars&FileName=wars_barbary.php

[Xhavnak]

The smashing of the Barbary pirates as a power was by Britain OTL, so . . .


My Bad :o

Probably take them a few more men and ships then.

[IchBinDieKaiser]

Except, not being idiots, we would've tried and tried again until a Constitutional Convention worked, and would've fixed whatever failed the first time. So, a delay's all you can reasonably pull off.

And, we weren't disunited atall, of why did the British lose? We were just badly governed as a whole, with not enough power in our federal goverment.

We even brought new territories in, under the Northwest Ordinance and allowed them to become states when they grew big enough. It was just harder to get business done, not impossible.

EDIT: And, our Founding generation elites could see that if they hung in there, and kept united and patient and kept their nasty ethnic cleasing, they had the potential to create the first democratic power in millenia. Why would they give that up so easily?

Never said they would give up, but that doesn't mean you don't fail. Most Europeans thought that the "American Experiment" would fail. Most were surprised that the rabble of states could form a central government capable of holding them together. With all the different cultures, currencies, economic interests, and territorial conflicts between them it is a miracle it happened at all.

The founders saw the potential, but not everyone else did.

[jkay]

Never said they would give up, but that doesn't mean you don't fail. Most Europeans thought that the "American Experiment" would fail. Most were surprised that the rabble of states could form a central government capable of holding them together. With all the different cultures, currencies, economic interests, and territorial conflicts between them it is a miracle it happened at all.Or not. Name ONE example of a constitutional convention process collapsing so thoroughly the people give up.

No, outside violence doesn't count, because we'd lost our British troops, and even alot of our Tory minority had run away or died, especially the radical ones.

[IchBinDieKaiser]

Or not. Name ONE example of a constitutional convention process collapsing so thoroughly the people give up.

No, outside violence doesn't count, because we'd lost our British troops, and even alot of our Tory minority had run away or died, especially the radical ones.

The Annapolis Convention. There was also alot of tension on particular issues in the constitution itself. All but 3 states were willing to have slavery abolished outright in the constitution, and those three were willing to leave the union to keep it. The many other issues could have led to a brake down in negotiations if you had some more hard headed people there. And that's the point of Alternate History, make something different happen.

[MAlexMatt]

The Union was already over a decade old by the time of the Philadelphia Convention. It's going to survive for at least a generation more, successful Convention or no successful Convention.

You need a more specific PoD. The men who had fought and won against a super power because of their ability to work together aren't quickly going to forget that lesson.

Still, one of the most immediate alterations you're going to see is a failure of debt assumption. While some states had no problems paying off their debts, others weren't really interested in doing so and you might even see a few repudiations. That's going to have a not-insignificant effect on European financial markets.

What happens to Congressional debt is going to matter, too.

[MerryPrankster]

If the Constitutional Convention fails, wouldn't the United States continue being governed by the Articles of Confederation?

The representatives went into the convention seeking to revise the Articles, not replace them wholesale. If the convention fails, that doesn't mean the Union ceases to exist.

I'm thinking there'd at least be another try.

[Elfwine]

If the Constitutional Convention fails, wouldn't the United States continue being governed by the Articles of Confederation?

The representatives went into the convention seeking to revise the Articles, not replace them wholesale. If the convention fails, that doesn't mean the Union ceases to exist.

I'm thinking there'd at least be another try.

Though a failure at coming up with something workable might lead to problems holding everything together. The ties binding the US together are pretty weak.

[MAlexMatt]

Though a failure at coming up with something workable might lead to problems holding everything together. The ties binding the US together are pretty weak.

Not so weak that a failed Philadelphia Convention means the Unions stops right there.

Like I said, it would take at least a generation to see some kind of disunion, realistically.

[Malta Shah]

Why would the British waste troops occupying Louisiana while there's areas that actually need them?

Politicians in London think it would be worth it.

Not so weak that a failed Philadelphia Convention means the Unions stops right there.

Like I said, it would take at least a generation to see some kind of disunion, realistically.

States had different opinions and desires on how they should govern and be governed. Some wanted to stay under the AOC others wanted Large States to have Power, some wanted Small States to have better power. Weak Central Government, Small Central Government. Who was going to pay the War Vetrans and how? One of the big deals of the Convention was paying off the army and settling the issues over territory in the Ohio Valley, subjects which had started shooting conflicts between the states before.

[Elfwine]

Not so weak that a failed Philadelphia Convention means the Unions stops right there.

Like I said, it would take at least a generation to see some kind of disunion, realistically.

But it doesn't stop right there, in this scenario. It takes almost a decade.

I'm not sure how long it would take, but it starting to unravel at that point wouldn't be beyond the realm of reason, depending on what has caused the convention to fail - simply not getting a majority of the states in favor is one thing, having it break down in bitter resentment is another.

King of Malta: Politicians in London are not going to put Louisiana as a higher priority than areas that are richer and/or more vitally in need of British manpower.

[Malta Shah]

King of Malta: Politicians in London are not going to put Louisiana as a higher priority than areas that are richer and/or more vitally in need of British manpower.

Why not? Contain those rebellious Americans, take territory from France, get into the Mississippi Trade, take territory from France, settle a more hospitable part of North America with Loyalists, create a buffer zone to aid the Native Americans, stick it to the Spanish and keep a over watch position over Mexico.

[Elfwine]

Why not? Contain those rebellious Americans, take territory from France, get into the Mississippi Trade, take territory from France, settle a more hospitable part of North America with Loyalists, create a buffer zone to aid the Native Americans, stick it to the Spanish and keep a over watch position over Mexico.

Rebellious Americans who aren't a problem, take territory that isn't worth the trouble of diverting troops from more important areas, southern Canada is not a whole lot more inhospitable than much of the northern part of Louisiana (territory), why do they want a buffer zone again, and . . .

Frankly, I'm not sure they'd bother with this over other projects. Not until things have hit the point when nothing else is justifying the expenditure of troops.

[MAlexMatt]

States had different opinions and desires on how they should govern and be governed. Some wanted to stay under the AOC others wanted Large States to have Power, some wanted Small States to have better power. Weak Central Government, Small Central Government. Who was going to pay the War Vetrans and how? One of the big deals of the Convention was paying off the army and settling the issues over territory in the Ohio Valley, subjects which had started shooting conflicts between the states before.

The states were by very much no means monolithic entities in this regard. Each state had its interest groups, which ran the individual states to greater or lesser degrees, which clashed as much with other interest groups intrastate as they did interstate.

The land question was the province of a minority -- a powerful minority, but a minority. The debt question was likewise the province of a powerful minority. They were able to push the Constitution through originally over the objections of non-members only by essentially claiming they were creating exactly what the majority wanted and then sneaking in the things they really wanted and trying to run the new government according to their own whims. They got kicked out pretty badly in 1800.

This minority isn't going to be able to pursue a policy of disunion in the interests of their own states without the Constitution. In fact, that was the whole reason they wanted a stronger central government in the first place: They had no hope competing with similar interest groups in the larger states who had no desire for inter-state conflict.

Smaller groups, like those behind the Pennamite Wars for instance, generally didn't have the individual power to push a serious policy of disunion, especially considering the Articles government (rather, the state governments themselves) seem to have been perfectly capable of solving these kinds of problems.

[Malta Shah]

Rebellious Americans who aren't a problem, take territory that isn't worth the trouble of diverting troops from more important areas, southern Canada is not a whole lot more inhospitable than much of the northern part of Louisiana (territory), why do they want a buffer zone again, and . . .

Frankly, I'm not sure they'd bother with this over other projects. Not until things have hit the point when nothing else is justifying the expenditure of troops.

The descision still comes from a small group of people who may have never left London who may think it a neat idea. History is full of examples of governments doing stupid things that from their point of view seemed like the right thing to do. If they could do it then its plausible that they would do it.

[Elfwine]

The descision still comes from a small group of people who may have never left London who may think it a neat idea. History is full of examples of governments doing stupid things that from their point of view seemed like the right thing to do. If they could do it then its plausible that they would do it.

It's also plausible that they would attempt to annex Antarctica (has it been discovered at this point?) by this logic taken to an extreme.

I think we need a better reason than "it could be done" for "it probably would be done".

[Alex Richards]

It wouldn't take much at all for whatever group is busy capturing the Sugar Islands in the Caribbean to just occupy New Orleans so that the French don't have any bases in the region to operate out of.

[mowque]

I wonder if you might see war, or at least very bad blood, over the Western Claims and such. I mean PA and CO fought a very limited war in OTL...

[BELFAST]

If the Constitutional Convention fails, wouldn't the United States continue being governed by the Articles of Confederation?

The representatives went into the convention seeking to revise the Articles, not replace them wholesale. If the convention fails, that doesn't mean the Union ceases to exist.

I'm thinking there'd at least be another try.

No the Union would not ceases to exist to exist as it had not been formed yet. American would continence to be a confederacy.( not to be confused with the later Confederate States of America)
Confederation
"
A confederation in modern political terms is a permanent union of political units for common action in relation to other units.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederation#cite_note-0) Usually created by treaty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty) but often later adopting a common constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution), confederations tend to be established for dealing with critical issues (such as defense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_%28military%29), foreign affairs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_affairs), or a common currency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currency)), with the central government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_government) being required to provide support for all members.
The nature of the relationship among the states constituting a confederation varies considerably. Likewise, the relationship between the member states, the central government, and the distribution of powers among them is highly variable. Some looser confederations are similar to intergovernmental organizations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_organization), while tighter confederations may resemble federations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederation

[LordIreland]

The states were by very much no means monolithic entities in this regard. Each state had its interest groups, which ran the individual states to greater or lesser degrees, which clashed as much with other interest groups intrastate as they did interstate.

The land question was the province of a minority -- a powerful minority, but a minority. The debt question was likewise the province of a powerful minority. They were able to push the Constitution through originally over the objections of non-members only by essentially claiming they were creating exactly what the majority wanted and then sneaking in the things they really wanted and trying to run the new government according to their own whims. They got kicked out pretty badly in 1800.

This minority isn't going to be able to pursue a policy of disunion in the interests of their own states without the Constitution. In fact, that was the whole reason they wanted a stronger central government in the first place: They had no hope competing with similar interest groups in the larger states who had no desire for inter-state conflict.

Smaller groups, like those behind the Pennamite Wars for instance, generally didn't have the individual power to push a serious policy of disunion, especially considering the Articles government (rather, the state governments themselves) seem to have been perfectly capable of solving these kinds of problems.

You seem to have a reasonable knowledge here, so, in your opinion what would it take, what PoDs would be needed to make what the OP is suggesting a reality?

[IchBinDieKaiser]

The plausibility of the PoD is an interesting topic. I've written timelines about it. I tend to lean more towards that it was very possible for the union to crumble under the articles given the right circumstances. If we see more events like Shay's rebellion across the New England, states renegging on foreign debt, increased tensions and hostilities between the settlers of different states in the northwest, we could see after a decade or so the states wanting less and less to do with each other.

Like I said, the plausibility of the PoD is very interesting topic of discussion, but that is not the topic. Let's focus on Europe. How might different states or the congress renegging on their debts effect the economy of Europe?