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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by 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)?

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

[eliphas8]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

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.

[Malta Shah]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

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.

Originally Posted by MAlexMatt

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.

[MAlexMatt]

Originally Posted by King of Malta

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.