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.

[pompejus]

Originally Posted by eliphas8

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

Originally Posted by 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.

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

Originally Posted by Alex Richards

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]

Originally Posted by pompejus

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]

Originally Posted by IchBinDieKaiser

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]

Originally Posted by 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!

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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



http://www.heritage-history.com/www/...rs_barbary.php

[Xhavnak]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

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

My Bad

Probably take them a few more men and ships then.

[IchBinDieKaiser]

Originally Posted by jkay

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]

Originally Posted by jkay

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.