Never mind the Pacific Northwest if it's a bunch of smaller states then I highly doubt that the Canadian-Americas border will be the 49th parallel north. I could easily see Upper Michigan being Canadian, their attempting to establish a Native American protected state as they would have liked to after our timeline's War of 1812 in say Wisconsin and possibly Upper Michigan to act as a buffer state, and drawing the border to run straight west from Duluth at Lake Superior to the Pacific coast.Made a Map for you.
[SNIP]
What if the 13 colonies never unified?
- Thread starter aspie3000
- Start date
- Status
Napoleonrules
Banned
I wrote this https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=357620 on this very topic. While the POD can be argued that it wouldn't cause the US to dissolve; the rest of what would have happened is much more realistic of how the 13 (14 if you count already independent Vermont) would fare. I find alot of WI's regarding this topic to be highly unlikely in attempting to butterfly away Manifest Destiny when Manifest Destiny was already (except without a name) established in the minds of all American colonies for over 150 years by the time of the US Revolution. MA, CT, PA, VA, NC, SC, and Ga (7 of the 13) had original charters stretching sea-to-sea and an 8th, NY, had vast claims west to the Illinois River and south to the Tennessee River. Westward settlement, taking Louisiana, Texas, Oregon, etc is going to happen, you can't butterfly it away based on the US collapsing. Americans will go west with or without current government following them; Daniel Boone went to Missouri under Spanish authority, hundreds went to Texas under Spanish and Mexican authority, Mormons went to Utah while it was still Mexican.
Another possibility is that the Confederation of states is formed OTL and when in the 1780`s the constitution is proposed it fails as it nearly did OTL and the colonies all go their seperate ways .
The bigger states ,Virginia ,the Carolina`s ,New York and Massachusetts being the most powerful with the smaller and poorer states forming alliances to fend off their neighbors that had helped in the fight for independence .
The bigger states ,Virginia ,the Carolina`s ,New York and Massachusetts being the most powerful with the smaller and poorer states forming alliances to fend off their neighbors that had helped in the fight for independence .
And quite a few went to Upper Canada and became British subjects again - sometimes resuming American nationality later when they moved even further west still into places like MI and WI.
I get the impression that lots of pioneers just wanted land, and weren't too fussed over whether the title deeds were issued by a Congress or a king.
If the 13 colonies did remain a confederacy or independent from each other, they would probably compete, and even fight wars over territory. Also, unless they were unified enough to fend it off, another power might try to recolonize them.
A lot depends on if the from a self defence pact like Nato.
It could do some thing like the Hanseatic League
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanseatic_League
I could not see the states become involved in the wars in Europe like the US did OTL in WWI and WWII.
I wonder what be done about the debts of the American government?
Would the Native American do better or worse than OTL?
It could do some thing like the Hanseatic League
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanseatic_League
I could not see the states become involved in the wars in Europe like the US did OTL in WWI and WWII.
I wonder what be done about the debts of the American government?
Would the Native American do better or worse than OTL?
Last edited:
aspie3000
Banned
The debt is a good point. Who'd pay it? As for the natives, I'd think they'd end up in the same predicament.
Maybe perhaps the splitting up of the states could have happened on the issue of slavery. If there was a far more hard lined abolitionist sentiment on the part of the northern states to the point where it becomes irreconcilable then perhaps the northern states become their own nation and the southern states become their own nation.
I wonder if the south and the north in this situation would develop similarly to the antebellum north and south of our timeline. I could see a far more traditionally conservative (by that I mean aristocratic and reactionary) government on behalf of the south developing. I wonder if there could have even been a southern empire, like the South grabbing hold of the Congo or something.
unprincipled peter
Donor
the native americans benefit because they have multiple countries to play off each other. In the long run, they're still going to be trampled, but short term if they can play one European faction off the other (as they did prior to North America being mostly under English/US control - Mexico was spanish, but far from the eastern population until second half of 19th century), they can wrangle better deals for themselves.
Southern native americans will not be subjected to the indian removal act under a balkanized US. One, a smaller nation would have the force to do it. Two, they won't have territory to trade for the land the NA's are on.
Southern native americans will not be subjected to the indian removal act under a balkanized US. One, a smaller nation would have the force to do it. Two, they won't have territory to trade for the land the NA's are on.
Napoleonrules
Banned
The Native Americans in the south might not be able to be moved to Oklahoma but they certainly would be exterminated instead. Jackson, or someone like him, will still push them out of the way, one way or another. White man needs the land, either gold rush in Georgia or more land for King Cotton. Slavery will have numbed the South to caring about ethnicities and races that are in the way of economics of cotton.
Napoleonrules
Banned
Oh wow, I would love to see a timeline that runs with that idea, a South taking the Congo would treat the Congo very similar to Belguim's King Leopold, so the result would be the same for the natives, but the Scramble for Africa could go differently. WWI could be very different. Even if the South, with the Congo, was agrarian and resource rich, they'd be selling it to the industrial north; would the north ever get the hutzpah to tell the south to eliminate slavery (or Jim Crow after the eventual decline of slavery) and to have better conditions in the Congo with the natives there? Liberia would be butterflied away, but perhaps the north does the basic idea anyways to get runaway slaves somewhere "safe" or the south sets up something similar to get ride of Blacks as slavery eventually declines (as 30% of the population or more, and in many places over 50%, if you dont have them as slaves you have to do something with them or they are out free and pissed off with Jim Crow laws).Could have two "Liberia"s one northern created, one southern created, along with Sierra Leone which was the British version; one could see proxy wars there in Africa?
Turtaldove’s book is not accurate at all. He has stated that we’re added later, and doesn’t explore the differences in the time line in a well thought out way.
- Status