Are the Thirteen States viable alone?

As others have said, I don't see them remaining separate for too long, or at least not completely. How I see it going down:

New England (Connecticut, Massachusetts+OTL Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont if you count it)

New York probably goes alone

Pennsylvania (+ New Jersey and Delaware)

Virginia (+ Maryland)

South Carolina + Georgia

North Carolina, I could see going either with Virginia or with South Carolina/Georgia.

Maybe split the Ohio Territory along the Mason-Dixon Line? South goes to Virginia, North to Pennsylvania, and maybe the territories north of the 42nd Parallel to New York?
 
In OTL Aaron Burr and General Wilkinson had a plan to detach the "western lands" and join them to an independent Louisiana with Spanish protection. Their plans might actually come to fruition in an ATL where the states are nations. The Whiskey Rebellion might actually cause Pittsburgh to be the center of a new 14th state/nation so as to not be run by Philadelphia elites (though the capital was at Lancaster IIRC). Disputes between MA and NY over western Upstate could get vicious, and the Yankee-Pennamite War might be an actual war this time.
 
I'm with Thekingsguard and Superman.

New England, possibly with New York above the Hudson Highlands, which was already Yankeefied by the 1770s. If they move west, expect north Pennsylvania-to-Illinois and all land above it. Major cities that will be settled in their western claims include Buffalo, Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, and St. Paul.

A Quaker/Midlander/Mid-Atlantic state consisting of New York City, Delaware, New Jersey, and the southern two-thirds of Pennsylvania - and with what would become the Ohio River Valley areas (the land below the Great Lakes but above the Ohio River's north shore) if they move west. I can see Greater Virginia giving them that area for convenience's sake and the vast amount of Midlander settlers soon to be pushing in (Cincinnati WAS founded by a New Jerseyan, for example!). Major cities to be will be Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Columbus, and Indianapolis.

A Greater Virginia consisting of that state, Maryland, North Carolina, Kentucky, and Tennessee. Knoxville, Lexington, Louisville, Nashville, and Memphis are future metropolises out west.

A Deep Southern/Dixie/Southron state of South Carolina, Georgia, and what'll become Alabama and Mississippi. Atlanta, Birmingham, and Mobile once West Florida is captured will be its main frontier burgs.

These areas correspond to all the colonial coastal cultures, incidentally:

New England - Yankees
Mid-Atlantica/Midland - Quakers
Chesapeake - Cavaliers
Deep South/Dixieland - Barbadian slavers/Southrons Classic

The Scotch-Irish and north English/Appalachian men who settled on the fringes of west Maryland to north Georgia will be primarily within the Chesapeake state with small minorities within Mid-Atlantica/Midland and Deep South/Dixieland.
 
Well, there won't be a Louisiana Purchase, and its unclear whether the British will withdraw from areas in the "Old Northwest" they were supposed to leave after the revolution but took a good time doing so, as well as supporting the Indians in that area against the USA. Whatever happens I expect the maximum expansion of the successor states is the Mississippi, except the parts of French Louisiana east of the river. It will be interesting to see what happens with immigration, and also slavery in the sense that the small states will be less likely to be able to import slaves in the face of the RN stopping it in the early 19th century. Also, now exporting slaves from one state to another more difficult - so when the "upper south" has more than they can use, can they sell them south as easily??
 
I also disagree with your last paragraph. Why would France, Spain or Britain be mad enough to try to reconquer Pennsylvania or New York? The colonies could always agree a Monroe Doctrine for North America among themselves. They would be no more Balkanised than Western Europe.

For the first 100 years or so the Monroe Doctrine was a convenient fiction for British interests in South America and America had minimal power to enforce it. In this scenario, a committed enough European power could easily have its way with a newly independent colony. It would just have to make sure none of the others got involved. The only thing protecting the erstwhile colonies would be something akin to a post-Napoleonic British hegemony and British desire to be hands off.
 
Last edited:
Well, there won't be a Louisiana Purchase, and its unclear whether the British will withdraw from areas in the "Old Northwest" they were supposed to leave after the revolution but took a good time doing so, as well as supporting the Indians in that area against the USA. Whatever happens I expect the maximum expansion of the successor states is the Mississippi, except the parts of French Louisiana east of the river. It will be interesting to see what happens with immigration, and also slavery in the sense that the small states will be less likely to be able to import slaves in the face of the RN stopping it in the early 19th century. Also, now exporting slaves from one state to another more difficult - so when the "upper south" has more than they can use, can they sell them south as easily??

This ignores the fact that Americans were in Louisiana west of the Mississippi (when it was owned by the Spanish) in large numbers prior to the Louisiana Purchase. Americans were also in Texas shortly thereafter. American history is- Americans go west. They don't care who owns the land or if they are leaving "American" territory (in fact some times that's better, such as the Mormons going to Utah when it was still Mexico). Then the American ex-pats get in trouble. American military follows saving their butts. American flag follows military. Annexation and incorporation. You see this with Louisiana Purchase, Florida, Texas, Utah and California, Oregon, and Hawai'i. To think this mentality won't exist or can be easily butterflied away, especially given Aaron Burr's OTL real life shenanigans, is ASB. Americans will go west, whether they extend original 13 states as continental nations or continue to fragment, either way, Manifest Destiny becomes a reality.
 
Those of you speculating about the fate of Ohio Country in a Balkanized North America scenario need to take into account the actual state of affairs. Many people are suggesting that Pennsylvania might take a big chunk of the Midwest, but Pennsylvania didn't have any western claims, and didn't appear to want anything aside from the Erie Triangle. Virginia, New York, Massachusetts, and Connecticut were the big contenders there, and considering the latter two had no actual access or passage to the Midwest, I think it's safe to assume Virginia and New York will take it all.

New York and Pennsylvania might form an alliance against the New England states to get them out of the west, with New York offering Pennsylvania access to the Great Lakes through Erie in return. Virginia's western regions would probably remain part of a united Virginia, while New York's western regions might break off as an independent country of its own in the future.

Considering the independent-mindedness of the settlers of Appalachia, Virginia might come up with a system of autonomous provinces and states to give their western parts more of a voice and quell down potential secession. You'd probably have state-like divisions centered around Virginia proper, West Virginia, Kentucky, and whatever else they get - Ohio and Illinois/Indiana as well. Virginia proper might be further split into smaller states within the unified mega-Virginia, as well.

United_States_land_claims_and_cessions_1782-1802.png
 
Those of you speculating about the fate of Ohio Country in a Balkanized North America scenario need to take into account the actual state of affairs. Many people are suggesting that Pennsylvania might take a big chunk of the Midwest, but Pennsylvania didn't have any western claims, and didn't appear to want anything aside from the Erie Triangle. Virginia, New York, Massachusetts, and Connecticut were the big contenders there, and considering the latter two had no actual access or passage to the Midwest, I think it's safe to assume Virginia and New York will take it all.

New York and Pennsylvania might form an alliance against the New England states to get them out of the west, with New York offering Pennsylvania access to the Great Lakes through Erie in return. Virginia's western regions would probably remain part of a united Virginia, while New York's western regions might break off as an independent country of its own in the future.

Considering the independent-mindedness of the settlers of Appalachia, Virginia might come up with a system of autonomous provinces and states to give their western parts more of a voice and quell down potential secession. You'd probably have state-like divisions centered around Virginia proper, West Virginia, Kentucky, and whatever else they get - Ohio and Illinois/Indiana as well. Virginia proper might be further split into smaller states within the unified mega-Virginia, as well.

United_States_land_claims_and_cessions_1782-1802.png

I agree, but given that PA, CT, and MA have something that VA and NY lack will make those states more likely to give fight to NY and VA- people. VA and NY at that time did not have the population density, immigration, or natural birthrates that PA and especially the New England states had. NY became as populated as it did because of New England migrations. PA may repudiate their agreements of no further western expansion that they made with Virginia, as the ORIGINAL Pennsylvania charter was indeed coast-to-coast and included western claims. Given that VA would have as their senior military person General Wilkinson and PA would have Mad Anthony Wayne, it is easy to see PA winning the war over Ohio.

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=357620 this timeline I started shows how it MIGHT have played out.
 
napoleon rules:

US americans were not west of the Mississippi in any large numbers prior to the Louisiana purchase. You're jumping the gun by a couple of decades. there was some movement into Missouri, but for the most part Louisiana territory was a barren wasteland (white man wise. Indian wise, it was well settled)
 
napoleon rules:

US americans were not west of the Mississippi in any large numbers prior to the Louisiana purchase. You're jumping the gun by a couple of decades. there was some movement into Missouri, but for the most part Louisiana territory was a barren wasteland (white man wise. Indian wise, it was well settled)

Wrong. Daniel Boone and his family lived in the St Louis area during Spanish rule before there was any idea of a Louisiana Purchase and in fact they came to Spanish Louisiana specifically to get away from the US and the fact that they lost land patents promised to them. You may want to research your Missouri history some more, even William Clark of Lewis and Clark fame traveled the Mississippi and went to New Orleans numerous times in the 1790s, and he wasnt the only one.
 
riggerob:

Half of NY was still unsettled and considered indian territory as of the French Indian war, which is when GW was pushing westward. Georgia was the same. Most of the states had plenty of growth room. And if they were hemmed in, they'd do what Europeans did: they'd move into the cities eventually, there'd be a push to expand, but in the 18th century, expansion was a desire, NOT a need.

and if the thirteen colonies were hemmed in and overcrowded, they'd do what Europeans did: emigrate. this notion of manifest destiny/expansion is a result of a perfect storm of events. it is not a given state of affairs.
 
nap rules:
we agree that there was movement into the area. we disagree as to how much movement there was. It was large compared to spanish migration. but it was still pretty miniscule. and it didn't really constitute a threat to spanish Louisiana except for the growing notion of manifest destiny, which I firmly believe is a result of a perfect storm of events. take away that perfect storm (which is the OP scenario), and you have emigration from the thirteen colonies into another country and remaining so. Kentucky/Tennessee at one point considered leaving the US and begging Spanish Louisiana to take them on. Nothing is written in stone. change up a little bit, that perfect storm goes away.
 
Here's one thing to consider: How will things start out, initially? I can't find any estimates for 1783, but here's the 1790 census at the bottom of the post. I cut out all the breakdown of population.

Even at this point, Georgia would be wholly dependent upon South Carolina. They don't have the population early on that would be suitable. I doubt North Carolina would be able to hold onto Tennessee, but it'd be about as hard for Virginia to do the same with Kentucky et al. A lot of turbulence would be seeing if those states could keep their outlet to the west.

A note: I doubt that North Carolina would like to be put back under South Carolina once again (that was the whole reason the colony was split in the first place) especially as they are almost at the point where they are twice as large and half of their population are not slaves. Power would shift north to Charlotte, at least until/if Atlanta and Georgia proper starts to become larger and more populous. Talk about the tail wagging the dog in such a situation for South Carolina.

If we assume, then, that Virgina and South Carolina-Georgia manage to hold onto their western possessions, I imagine North Carolina/Tennessee/Franklin/etc would become the neutral state separating the two. That would be uncomfortable of the state, as it wouldn't want to go either way and be subsumed into the larger entity.

Of the northern states, I would have to agree, with one caveat: If Virginia is strong enough to maintain the west, wouldn't they also be able to contest Delaware as well? Pennsylvania might look towards New Jersey and pry it from New York if a strong Virginia looks to be able to contest the east.

Although, if Virginia and Pennsylvania are bartering in the East, would Virginia try to bully Delaware to give up a bit of the north to Pennsylvania in return for some of Maryland, who in turn would get the southern tip of the Delmarva, and Virginia gets a slightly more favorable claim in the west. Pennsylvania gets their access to the sea, everyone keeps the sameish amount of territory, and Delaware loses Bessarabia to get Dobrugea to make Virginia's tsar happy. ...First analogy I could think of.

1790 Census

Virginia 747,610
Pennsylvania 434,373
North Carolina 393,751
Massachusetts 378,787
New York 340,120
Maryland 319,728
South Carolina 249,073
Connecticut 237,946
New Jersey 184,139
New Hampshire 141,885
Maine 96,540
Vermont 85,539
Georgia 82,548
Kentucky 73,677
Rhode Island 68,825
Delaware 59,094[c]
Total
3,893,635
 
Those population figures are one of the main factors to consider here. I wouldn't be placing many bets on an independent Georgia or Delaware for long, certainly not a successful one.

The other is leadership - to give an example, that may be the reason, even more than population size, why Virginia ends up the major regional power. You have George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Patrick Henry, George Mason, John Marshall, many of the great minds and leaders that made America what it is today. With a cadre like that, Virginia is going places.

South Carolina on the other hand, has what, Charles Cotesworth Pickney?
 
perfect storm:

a well populated coastal group of colonies.
French and Indian War (AKA 7 yrs war) gives Britain/colonies everything east of the Mississippi. IMO, this starts the whole notion of westward expansion. prior to this, Britain claimed it, but had no real 'documentation' of it. Spain claimed some of it. France claimed some of it. French had the most physical presence in the Ohio river valley. Spain had most exploration of the lower region. Britain had trading interests with the indian population, but nothing more. Post war, Britain/colonies had undisputed possession of east of Mississippi. France no longer in the picture. Spain is expanding, although they lost Florida.

American Revolution. Britain said no to westward expansion. Colonies said yes, and won. Incredibly, colonies get help from Spain, who absolutely do not want an expansionist colonies. And they get France to kick in. Both countries (France/Spain) got what they wanted and were immensely damaged by it.

Spain almost completely mismanages possession of Louisiana. To be fair, they're stretched so thin trying to control the largest empire on the face of the earth, they can't really match possession to a pretty map. and they're an empire in severe decline.

Napoleon/France: France kicks ass on Spain, who's being ruled by a horrible king and a horrible Godoy (I forget his exact title). Spain gives up Louisiana to Nap, who promptly begs the US to take it off his hands.

Britain: somehow the colonies break free, fight another war with them a couple decades later, and still maintain them as a prime trading partner who says go ahead take everything you want south of the great lakes.

You simply cannot write up a better wank than early US history. In these couple of century timeframe, you can't write up a better wank anywhere in the world, physical expansion wise (british control over India rivals it, but is more business than expansion of population/country boundary). at every step of the way, the US was given reason to expect continuous expansion.
 
forgot to mention the most unlikely scenario of all: 13 separate colonies uniting into one country, when there were so many rivalries, so many different goals. One general took control, unified a country, then voluntarily stepped down, while others wrote up and adjusted a lasting constitution that became a model for the world. There were so many individual points where something could have gone differently, there's no possibly way anyone could have predicted the course of actions.
 
Here's one thing to consider: How will things start out, initially? I can't find any estimates for 1783, but here's the 1790 census at the bottom of the post. I cut out all the breakdown of population.

Even at this point, Georgia would be wholly dependent upon South Carolina. They don't have the population early on that would be suitable. I doubt North Carolina would be able to hold onto Tennessee, but it'd be about as hard for Virginia to do the same with Kentucky et al. A lot of turbulence would be seeing if those states could keep their outlet to the west.

A note: I doubt that North Carolina would like to be put back under South Carolina once again (that was the whole reason the colony was split in the first place) especially as they are almost at the point where they are twice as large and half of their population are not slaves. Power would shift north to Charlotte, at least until/if Atlanta and Georgia proper starts to become larger and more populous. Talk about the tail wagging the dog in such a situation for South Carolina.

If we assume, then, that Virgina and South Carolina-Georgia manage to hold onto their western possessions, I imagine North Carolina/Tennessee/Franklin/etc would become the neutral state separating the two. That would be uncomfortable of the state, as it wouldn't want to go either way and be subsumed into the larger entity.

Of the northern states, I would have to agree, with one caveat: If Virginia is strong enough to maintain the west, wouldn't they also be able to contest Delaware as well? Pennsylvania might look towards New Jersey and pry it from New York if a strong Virginia looks to be able to contest the east.

Although, if Virginia and Pennsylvania are bartering in the East, would Virginia try to bully Delaware to give up a bit of the north to Pennsylvania in return for some of Maryland, who in turn would get the southern tip of the Delmarva, and Virginia gets a slightly more favorable claim in the west. Pennsylvania gets their access to the sea, everyone keeps the sameish amount of territory, and Delaware loses Bessarabia to get Dobrugea to make Virginia's tsar happy. ...First analogy I could think of.

1790 Census

Virginia 747,610
Pennsylvania 434,373
North Carolina 393,751
Massachusetts 378,787
New York 340,120
Maryland 319,728
South Carolina 249,073
Connecticut 237,946
New Jersey 184,139
New Hampshire 141,885
Maine 96,540
Vermont 85,539
Georgia 82,548
Kentucky 73,677
Rhode Island 68,825
Delaware 59,094[c]
Total
3,893,635

Maine is a part of MA is OTL at the point of this census, not even disputed like VT being a republic or part of either NH or (more correctly and legally) a part of NY. Add Maine's population to MA in this table and it is now second to VA. VT probably does not stay independent given the Haldimand Affair, NH's need for more land, and NY's claims and the fact that the governor of NY is very strongly pro-kicking VT's butt at this time.

The only thing I can see that may slow down initially disputes and wars and allow some of these things to get settled amicably would be that a lot of the leaders of these new nations will know each other, fought shoulder to shoulder, and for the most part respect each other. A lot of the biggest animosities were from one founding father against a founding father from their own state, a la- Burr and Hamilton one time friends who both studied law in Albany ny at Philip Schuyler's house. It may be in a ATL where the states go their separate ways how Burr and Wilkinson's scheme to separate Kentucky and the lands of the Ohio Valley from the east coast and to be under Spanish protection would work out. With potentially a longer life Hamilton may surprise us with an earlier Industrial Revolution in the Hudson Valley beating out Lowell MA.
 
Top