AHC:Dissolve the U.S.A. during the XIX century.

Your mission, should you chose to accept it is to make the
US disappear during the XIX century. You can use only the XIX century and any PoD must be after the declaration of independence in 1776. You can balkanize the country, split it between colonial powers, make it return to english hands, anything, but there mustn't be any part on the north american continent that claims to be part of the US, a succesor state, nor an american government in exile. You also should avoid using natural disasters such as an eruption of the Yellowstone supervolcano to the task. The dissolution of the country cannot be reverted during the XIX (or at least not fully).

Please also assess which will be the consequences of your scenario.

I hope this thread isn't the type to pop up once every few months and that it isn't a cliché, nevertheless I've never seen one so I'm posting it.

Constitutional Convention fails. Inter-state wars devolve the fragile confederation into Greater New York, Virginia Commonwealth, the New England Compact, with further nations developing as Europeans spread west.

But that's XVIII, surely.

Only post-1776 PoD, but not breaking down until the 19th century? That's easy, then. No Constitutional consensus, leading to a slowly weakening Articles of Confederation system that holds together perhaps in theory but not in practice into the early or possibly even the mid-19th century, with the United States being a diplomatic formality in negotiating with European powers and no more; something along the lines of the contemporary Holy Roman Empire. Eventually, the U.S. breaks down entirely; other federations may succeed it ultimately, but the name "United States" won't be used for them.

States will probably align with each other against other states in military actions, but the Royal Navy's supremacy probably guarantees that they are all, to some extent, under British influence; an "American cultural sphere" probably continues to exist, from the Atlantic to the Mississippi and in Anglo-Canada, with some "Americans" being British subjects, others being citizens of various independent republics or federations in what is the United States today; they might spread into Louisiana and take a lot of it, ultimately, from the Spanish cultural sphere, but it won't be a consistent or driven expansion by a large republic which dominates their sphere of influence.

In the long term, if no large "American Federation" establishes itself, *Mexico likely becomes the dominant non-European nation in North America, and various American states will align either with *Mexico or the United Kingdom in disputes; the United Kingdom is unlikely to attempt to actively assert its direct control over the states in its sphere, but they may over time become seen as part of the indirect British Empire.

Why does everyone think no Constitution means Americans end up killing each other? Most people thought the US needed some sort of reform.

Faeelin said:

Why does everyone think no Constitution means Americans end up killing each other? Most people thought the US needed some sort of reform.

Click to expand...

Because its more dramatic that way, I do actually find it more plausible that the united states would at least form regional groups after if the constitution failed and would probably end up creating a true federation at a later date.

Faeelin said:

Why does everyone think no Constitution means Americans end up killing each other? Most people thought the US needed some sort of reform.

Click to expand...

Because an unstable foundation can easily lead to war as parties bicker over how to change things. Its similar to how many South American or African federations broke apart a few years after their foundation.

Fox-Fire said:

Your mission, should you chose to accept it is to make the
US disappear during the XIX century. You can use only the XIX century and any PoD must be after the declaration of independence in 1776. You can balkanize the country, split it between colonial powers, make it return to english hands, anything, but there mustn't be any part on the north american continent that claims to be part of the US, a succesor state, nor an american government in exile.

Click to expand...

A 19th Century POD without successor states or even a government in exile? Not possible. Fragmentation will guarantee at least one government that considers itself a successor state. Total conquest is wildly unlikely, and there would be a government in exile.

If 1861-65, and all the events that led up to it,

If 1861-65, and all the events that led up to it, were insufficient, isn't the answer pretty obvious that nothing else would?

Absent the aforementioned extinction of life on the planet, for example.

Best,

It's pretty easy to do, especially in the early years.

1778: Britain wins the American Revolution.

1789: Constitutional Convention fails.

1812: Britain crushes the US in the War of 1812.

1861: The South survives the Civil War.

There's also the "Gilded Age goes worse and leads to communist revolution" trope.

Yeah, but

CthulhuFhtagn said:

It's pretty easy to do, especially in the early years.

1778: Britain wins the American Revolution.

1789: Constitutional Convention fails.

1812: Britain crushes the US in the War of 1812.

1861: The South survives the Civil War.

Click to expand...

None of that happened, which suggests the resiliency of the United States as an independent and unified power.

Best,

TFSmith121 said:

None of that happened, which suggests the very good luck of the United States as a country with two oceans protecting it and a benevolent hegemon.
Best,

Click to expand...

FTFY. None of that happened because of good luck and outside forces saving the US.

The American Revolution probably would have failed without French and Spanish intervention.

The Constitutional Convention only succeeded thanks to good decision making and good luck. Can you imagine if guys like Patrick Henry, who skipped the convention, had been there to argue against a strong central government?

The US survived the War of 1812 because Napoleon came back to distract the British, and because Britain was too tired from fighting France to throw everything it had at America.

The south surviving the Civil War is unlikely, but the fact that nearly half the country was willing to secede ruins the "resilient and unified power" argument.

CthulhuFhtagn said:

FTFY. None of that happened because of good luck and outside forces saving the US.

The American Revolution probably would have failed without French and Spanish intervention.

The Constitutional Convention only succeeded thanks to good decision making and good luck. Can you imagine if guys like Patrick Henry, who skipped the convention, had been there to argue against a strong central government?

The US survived the War of 1812 because Napoleon came back to distract the British, and because Britain was too tired from fighting France to throw everything it had at America.

The south surviving the Civil War is unlikely, but the fact that nearly half the country was willing to secede ruins the "resilient and unified power" argument.

Click to expand...

Come on, not get all annales school here, but please...there's no such thing as luck.


The Americans drove off one British army (Boston) and defeated another (Saratoga) all by their lonesomes, before the French, Dutch, and Spanish weighed in...again, time and distance from Europe means once the "little europes" can manage something approaching autarky for a few years, the Europeans are in charge only for as long as they can keep the Americans (north AND south) happy...


Without the consent of the governed, there weren't enough armies in Europe.


Especially because, as you point out, there was ALWAYS something closer to home for those European armies to be concerned about.


The Constitutional Convention or something like it is just about a guarantee; limited government had been proven not to work, especially in a era when the European powers still had significant prescences in the Americas. "Hang together or hang separately" was not a slogan, and self-interest is a pretty strong motivator.


Actually, it was much less than half, population wise or by the number of states, and the fact that a significant percentage of those living in the rebel states didn't get to voice their opinion might have had something to so with it...


And, finally, I'd say surviving a civil war as brutal and costly as 1861-65 and coming back stronger basically the day the thing ends is sort of the definition of resiliency, actually; I'm not aware anyone could make the same judgement about any of the other major Western nations that went through anything similar....certainly not in the same time frame.


Best,

It's eminently possible for the US to dissolve, despite all the macrohistorical/political incentives there were to stay together, as TFSmith121 has outlined.

Self-interest might well incentivize the states to hang together, but that does not equate to the states having to hang together.

It's eminently possible that the states would see their self-interest as independent entities more compromised by the proposed creation of a chief executive, and thus find reason to reject the Constitution - especially if we accept your assertion that there were limits to European force projection in the Americas.

Re: the Civil War - a weaker President might well have compromised his federal powers to keep border states in the Union; that could have set off a chain of events that leads to increasing decentralization and perhaps dissolution. That latter's not very likely given the economic links between the states, however.

Having to hang together, however, has the desirable end that

profxyz said:

It's eminently possible for the US to dissolve, despite all the macrohistorical/political incentives there were to stay together, as TFSmith121 has outlined.

Self-interest might well incentivize the states to hang together, but that does not equate to the states having to hang together.

It's eminently possible that the states would see their self-interest as independent entities more compromised by the proposed creation of a chief executive, and thus find reason to reject the Constitution - especially if we accept your assertion that there were limits to European force projection in the Americas.

Re: the Civil War - a weaker President might well have compromised his federal powers to keep border states in the Union; that could have set off a chain of events that leads to increasing decentralization and perhaps dissolution. That latter's not very likely given the economic links between the states, however.

Click to expand...

Having to hang together, however, has the desirable end that - if things go well - no one gets hung.

Not hanging together pretty much guarantees someone ends up at the end of a rope, so to speak...

It is worth considering how influenced by European history the American founding generation(s) were; the Anglophones could, for example, consider the English Civil War and the wars of the three kingdoms as examples to learn from; the Iberophones certainly could consider the conquest, reconquista, and the Napoleonic era...

"Hanging together" was pretty much the only path forward for independent survival; anything less was an open door to European intervention, either overtly or by playing one "local" faction off against another (there are those who would say Latin America suffered more heavily from this post-independence than the US ever did; I would be one of them.)...

It is worth considering, in terms of the power of nationalism in the Western Hemisphere, that the surest path to political (and often physical) death is/was to advocate against independence.

Pedro Santana died in his bed, but that was a rarity (and his cause, ultimately, was defeated); most ended up like Miguel Miramon.

Best,

TFSmith121 said:

None of that happened, which suggests the resiliency of the United States as an independent and unified power.

Best,

Click to expand...

There's plenty of chances the US could have fallen apart. It wasn't destiny in regards to analyzing this through AH. This is going beyond historical determinism and into the lands of divine mandate. Seriously, if you think everything that has happened will always happen, why bother with alternate history?

It's a tendency in AH to have usually a battle go different, a great leader or inventor die, but you can have the course of conversation - say during an important and decisive event like the Constitution Convention or perhaps Benedict Arnold making a better impression to other figures in the ARW - that can change history.

Except that a given nation state surviving one

othyrsyde said:

There's plenty of chances the US could have fallen apart. It wasn't destiny in regards to analyzing this through AH. This is going beyond historical determinism and into the lands of divine mandate. Seriously, if you think everything that has happened will always happen, why bother with alternate history?

Click to expand...

Except that a given nation state surviving one existential crisis may be chance, or even something one could lay to particular events or even individuals.

Surviving four such existential crises (Revolution, change from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution, 1812-15 war, and 1861-65 war), as the poster outlined, suggests something else, does it not?

In fact, one might event make the judgment it reveals a truism, as in the Americas (including the United States, of course) occupy a fairly unique geographic niche - continent-wide (mostly) temperate bands, close enough to Europe and Africa to benefit immensely from the eastern hemisphere's population "sending" ability, and yet far enough away to be safe from the political and military power of Europe.

Which is why, for example, European efforts to control the Western Hemisphere, once the "locals" were more or less autarkies, all failed - continually and repeatedly.

It also suggests why, despite the above, the Western Hemisphere republics generally remained concerned enough regarding the European threat to manage to hang together, at least in a local sense, without being pulled into the realms of European power politics.

There is such a thing as the longue durée, true?

Best,

TFSmith121 said:

Except that a given nation state surviving one existential crisis may be chance, or even something one could lay to particular events or even individuals.

Surviving four such existential crises (Revolution, change from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution, 1812-15 war, and 1861-65 war), as the poster outlined, suggests something else, does it not?

Click to expand...

Yes, It suggests good luck. It's very possible that the US could have gone the way of Colombia, Mexico, or Argentina after independence, with states breaking way and declaring independence.

And of course, the US survived the revolution because France and Spain helped it. Yes, the revolutionaries won at Saratoga by themselves, but I doubt that they could have won the entire war without significant Franco-Spanish assistance. Even the final victory over the British at Yorktown would have been impossible without the French Navy.

What's interesting, though, is that both

CthulhuFhtagn said:

Yes, It suggests good luck. It's very possible that the US could have gone the way of Colombia, Mexico, or Argentina after independence, with states breaking way and declaring independence.

And of course, the US survived the revolution because France and Spain helped it. Yes, the revolutionaries won at Saratoga by themselves, but I doubt that they could have won the entire war without significant Franco-Spanish assistance. Even the final victory over the British at Yorktown would have been impossible without the French Navy.

Click to expand...

What's interesting, though, is that both Mexico and Argentina survived as federal states, including bringing the various separatist movements (Yucatan and the split between Buenos Aires and the interior) back into their respective federations. There is something to be said for hanging together in the face of threats, true?

Gran Colombia/New Granada/Granadine Confederation/Colombia is something of a unique case, given the topographical and geographical challenges inherent in the northwestern corner of South America.

And again, you keep using the word "luck" which really is not a useful term when it comes to the social sciences. There is no such thing.

Which is illustrated by your chosen example - it was not chance that De Grasse' fleet showed up when and where it did; it was the result of policy, determined by the reality of France's national interests coinciding with those of the American revolutionaries.

Which in turn, had bene determined by a variety of actions, not the least being the American victories at Boston and Saratoga.

Which, again, suggest that it was not luck that resulted in US independence, but rational policymaking, strategy, and a deep understanding of the macro-scale factors that influenced the inability of a European nation state to project and sustain military power in North America sufficient to force a political settlement to its satisfaction.

Which never happened in a lasting manner, in fact, across the entire period of human history, from the late Eighteenth Century onward, despite repeated attempts by various European powers to do just that...

Including Britain - at least three times (1775-83, 1806-07, and 1812-15).

Cripes, Revolutionary and Napoleonic France could not "dissolve" Haiti; why anyone thinks Britain could have "dissolved" the United States at any point in the late Eighteenth Century (much less at any point in the Nineteenth) is presumably a question best answered by those who keep advancing it.

One would think, at any rate.

Best,