AHC: The U.S. as a pariah regime

The Anglo settlement of Texas- there's no reason to butterfly that out- it still happens at some point, maybe a few years later , but it will happen.

A rump US without New England will be looking south more- especially if it's more of a slave country.

I would say there could be a reason, but I agree it was innevitable. Still, circumstances are key. It took off mainly when Moses Austin brought the Old Three Hundred. And that happened when the Panic of 1819 forced him out of his bank business in Missouri, if I remember correctly. Is all that still on schedule? And also, interest is bound to be divided now. Southerners were mainly the ones who moved in OTL. Would the lack of a Missouri Compromise Line now entice them to move instead north-northwest? The scenario calls for the US to still have the Lousiana Purchase region, more or less. So they still have a north to look to. Can interest now be in moving into the plains rather than Texas? It's bound the interest to be divided, in any case.

And that's not assuming the country doesn't fragment further when the south tries to impose slavery country-wide, weakening it further. Which I guess in the proposed scenario it didn't, but I would think it might not have gone without a fight or so. Would the remaining North really fold to the South without a fight?
 
Well, assuming the Northeast splits off by 1820 at the latest, the North won't be powerful enough politically or militarily to secede- they might get some special rights, but that's about it. If the Northeast meddles in the US- different story, but I doubt they will, there's little need, and they might even join Canada since they would be reliant on the UK for protection.

The advantages the North had over the South would not exist in this scenario. Then again, if the US was truly a pariah state, you could see New England in coalition with several Euro powers against the US, and that is a recipe for a great war (or a curbstomp- I do think the rump US would be on technological par with AH or Russia, not the UK or Germany)
 

Deleted member 67076

US should still be able to defeat Mexico without the Northeast, and would still get immigrants since New England would be pretty small. That said, it's not practical due to population concerns. You can only hold so much land with so many whites.

Ironically, this rump US wouldn't be as much of a basketcase as the South was traditionally I believe- largely due to the slavery question being settled early on.
Its not New England that was mentioned leaving, but the entire Northeast.

Thats well over 30% of the population in 1810 and over 60% of the manufacturing capacity.

Manning those logistics on a much smaller budget is a massive stretch.
 
It will be, but the logistics would still be doable. This is the 1840's, this is not the industrial Civil War, and the enthusiasm and military quality would be there.
A rump US would put actual effort into its land military, as it would have a neighbor that is somewhat of a threat.

Also, there would be concern about slave rebellions. I do think a rump US might still be overdependent on state militia for longer though- but such militia would probably be primarily for rebellions.
 
The thing is, the US's concern for expanding west will diminish slightly, I'd think. Focus will be on regaining the northeast and north. And this could also affect the Oregon situation, which might prolong friction with the British. All in all, any A-M War in this scenario might not even happened once the 1840's roll in. Probably later on. And if relations with the British are still on the bad side, you might see them threatening to meddle in such case. British interests could now shift to Mexico, to use them to keep the US in check.
 
Its not New England that was mentioned leaving, but the entire Northeast.

Thats well over 30% of the population in 1810 and over 60% of the manufacturing capacity.

Manning those logistics on a much smaller budget is a massive stretch.

Why does the whole NE leave the USA? A huge portion of may not even want to leave, vast swathes of it were very pro-Union. Getting anything south or west of New York to just up and leave would be pretty dicey.
 

Deleted member 67076

Why does the whole NE leave the USA? A huge portion of may not even want to leave, vast swathes of it were very pro-Union. Getting anything south or west of New York to just up and leave would be pretty dicey.
Because that was the scenario brought forth a few posts back.
 
Top