Adlaf Featherstan
Where can I find population statistics for the thirteen colonies in 1776?
http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/histcensus/
Adlaf Featherstan
Where can I find population statistics for the thirteen colonies in 1776?
However, if the POD is during the American Civil War, then (plausibly) getting a balkanized America will be a bit tricky...
Not neccessarily. Confederacy's attempted secession was based on the idea that any state could secede at any time for any reason. And the South was not uniform on a variety of issues (expansion, internal improvements, the international slave trade, etc.) South Carolina almost didn't join the CSA because it maintained the same ban on the international slave trade that the USA did.
So if the Confederacy secedes, it will be naturally prone to fragmentation. Meanwhile, the US will have the CSA's example, which could lead to other sections breaking off.
Perhaps this could lead to Britain deciding that there's a limit to how big a successful country can be and having OTL's Canada becoming several separate countries. (Newfoundland was self-geverning and independant from Canada from 1907 to 1934 in OTL.)
Meanwhile, Mexico is divided into a CSA-backed French Mexico and a USA-backed Juarez government. States around the edges may try to go their own way, much like Yucatan and the Republic of the Rio Grande attempted in 1840, or seek foreign annexation like Yucatan did in 1847.
Of course (referencing the thread title) none of this is likely.
With the western states still likely a part of Mexico, could Mexico have benefited from the gold and silver strikes discovered in those areas after they were taken by the US? Could this influx of wealth have made Mexico a more viable nation?
Further, with a unification of the American states in the late 19th/turn of the 20th century, could we see a belated rise in manifest destiny accompanying this new sense of nationalism? If this is the case, might the new USA enter into a belated Mexican-American War around the same time as WWI?
These are just some conjectures I've had. I'm throwing them out here to see if they spark anything.
How long after CS fragmentation before some enterprising Shi Huang wannabe comes along and attempts to impose a military unification? It's the same principle with a balkanized CSA as with a balkanized USA.
I think Mexico could be more than two nations, theoretically. It's very mountainous, at least, and given that both California and Texas became independent Republics, I'd say there's probably more room for outer states breaking off. Of course... California and Texas broke off because of all the Anglos moving in. The majority-Latino states really had no reason to break off. I'm just saying they might have been able to, had they wanted to.
Not neccessarily. Confederacy's attempted secession was based on the idea that any state could secede at any time for any reason. And the South was not uniform on a variety of issues (expansion, internal improvements, the international slave trade, etc.) South Carolina almost didn't join the CSA because it maintained the same ban on the international slave trade that the USA did.
So if the Confederacy secedes, it will be naturally prone to fragmentation. Meanwhile, the US will have the CSA's example, which could lead to other sections breaking off.
Perhaps this could lead to Britain deciding that there's a limit to how big a successful country can be and having OTL's Canada becoming several separate countries. (Newfoundland was self-geverning and independant from Canada from 1907 to 1934 in OTL.)
Meanwhile, Mexico is divided into a CSA-backed French Mexico and a USA-backed Juarez government. States around the edges may try to go their own way, much like Yucatan and the Republic of the Rio Grande attempted in 1840, or seek foreign annexation like Yucatan did in 1847.
Of course (referencing the thread title) none of this is likely.
For a balkanized America, the most obvious POD would probably be the failure of the Constitutional Convention. Maybe in this TL, Thomas Jefferson could be at the convention (he was in France during the event), and could push for a weaker federal government, leading to gridlock at the convention and a failure to amend the Articles of Confederation. Over the next ten years, disputes between the states slowly pull the young USA apart, until by 1800, the only thing left of the federal government is a rump state occupying a small area.
I think the French might hold it.Federated or independent, I don't think the political structure of the ex-colonies will effect the expansion of the 'rugged individualists' that crossed the Appalachians into the Mississippi plain. The big question would be what happens to Louisiana (I don't think the French would have been able to hold it in the long run, so it may just fade away under the settlers feet),
Let early spanish exporers find what would be the OTL California gold,and the northern territories of Mexico (more problematic, but the individual states' armies might be more boisterous and unruly than a combined military force, leading to skirmish wars over the long term. Eventually an alliance to 'contain the Mexican problem').
This is how I think a failed Continental Congress would have turned out. (Yes, that is a Native American country in Northern Alabama, and Mississippi.)
Ooops....I'm glad I didn't turn it into the map thread then!The Mosquito Coast is runing in the wrong direction...
It should be north-south, not east-west...
That sounds like quite a good idea for a TL. Too often the failed-constitutional-convention idea seems to assume that America will stay forever separated, ignoring the fact that the shared language, heritage and interests might well re-spark unionism when 19th century nationalism comes along.
This is how I think a failed Continental Congress would have turned out. (Yes, that is a Native American country in Northern Alabama, and Mississippi.)