Effects of a Disunited States on Europe

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

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]

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.

[Elfwine]

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

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]

Originally Posted by King of Malta

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]

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.

[Malta Shah]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

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]

Originally Posted by King of Malta

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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] Usually created by treaty but often later adopting a common constitution, confederations tend to be established for dealing with critical issues (such as defense, foreign affairs, or a common currency), with the 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, while tighter confederations may resemble federations."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederation

[LordIreland]

Originally Posted by MAlexMatt

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?