Best PODs for More Federal/Divided United States

Apologies if this has been asked before, but this is a topic I'm somewhat out of my depth in and don't really know where to start looking or researching so I figured I would ask so I could point myself in the right direction.

So, what are some events in US history, preferably earlier but post-Revolution, that could have resulted in a more federal or divided United States without its total breakup, or at least not breakup right away? Just greater federalization in general is fine if the question is too specific, I can go more specific if I can just get into the right direction. Thanks very much. :)
 
It seems that there is a sizeable period immediately after the initial Revolution in which the states effectively saw themselves as independent countries and certainly would not have rallied under a common 'American' identity over the identity of their own state, and trade disputes and border skirmishes took place between individual states.
The first episode of the recent BBC radio series 'The Invention of the USA' goes into some detail on this very subject.
I think more generally that, to get a more divided USA, there has to be no perceived need to unify - in other words, no external threat. Whether that prevents unification or merely delays it is another question.
 
I've had the idea for a while now of Quebec joining the ARW for some reason or another before seceding shortly after the war's conclusion, setting a precedent for peaceful secession.
 
i think the best way to get a more federal USA is to remove the civil war. The war was what took the country from "These United States" to "The United States"
 

Skallagrim

Banned
The best (i.e. most effective, with most deeply-rooted effects) POD, which also doesn't involve huge outside effects like getting Quebec into the USA from the start, is an alternate course of events at the Constitutional Convention (and, to cause that, in the run-up to the Convention). At that time, there was a broad consensus that the Articles needed to be overhauled in some way. Some wanted to just fix the articles a bit, others wanted a more drastic overhaul. We got the latter in OTL. One key reason, I have long thought and often argued, is that the more centralist-minded (proto-)Federalists had charismatic, driven leaders. Hamilton, Madison and Adams had not yet had their fallings-out and were all on the same team. Conversely, the anti-Federalists had less cohesion. The natural man to lead their cause, Thomas Jefferson, was serving as minister to France and thus out of the country.

Result: the more centralist, overhaul-minded thinkers controlled the whole debate from the start. This was hardly inevitable. They were also helped by the fact that literally everyone admired Washington and though he should head the to-be-created executive. The office was designed with him in mind, and was made (relatively!) powerful because of that.

So what you want is Washington to fall of his horse and die shortly before the Convention. There was literally no candidate who enjoyed his prestige. There was no other canidate who would get unanymous backing. All sides would be afraid of their opponents getting 'their' guy in the executive office, so there would be a universal tendency to make the federal executive less powerful. What you also want is for Jefferson to be in the USA, and for Madison to be the minister to France instead. That gets rid of one of the most well-liked, uncontroversial Federalists of the lot. Adams wasn't considered very inspiring, and Hamilton was so obsessed with his own radically centralist (for the time) ideas that he was often seen as unacceptably 'out there'.

Finally, there was the fact that Shays' Rebellion occurred very recently, and was in fact the impetus for calling the Convention. The disorder of this uprising had 'proven' that stronger leadership was 'needed' (this in spite of the fact that the fiscal mismanagement by those calling for that strong leadership had caused the crisis in the first place, incidentally). ending Shays' Rebellion in a more peaceful manner would be a good way to prove that the rather soft power that existed under the Articles could be effective.

My suggestion would be:

-- POD: Jefferson stays in the USA, Madison becomes Minister to France instead

-- Shays' Rebellion occurs. Jefferson writes a series of pamphlets on the topic, which argue that some of the rebels' grievances are valid, and that fiscal irresponsibility by Federalist-minded elites have caused the problem. These writings are well-received, and lead to much popular sympathy for the rebels. As a result, there is a negotiated end to the uprising, and the federalist elites in the North-East are somewhat discredited (and are widely seen as the culprits here).

-- All this cements Jefferson as the leader of the coalescing Anti-Federalist movement.

-- Hamilton, in pure Hamilton fashion, rages and seethes at Jefferson. His venomous tone doesn't endear him to many moderates.

-- There will still be a Constitutional Convention, but without Madison around, Hamilton becomes almost the sole author of the alt-Federalist Papers. He is embittered by Jefferson's popularity, and his alt-Papers reflect this attitude. They are seen as overly negative and hostile, and far less respected than their OTL counterparts.

-- Due to random butterflies, Washington dies in the run-up to the Convention. This leaves the USA without its evident candidate for the supreme executive position.

-- The Convention starts, far less as a pre-determined attempt to create a new Constitution, but more as a convention to revise the existing Articles.

-- Without Madison around to introduce the Virginia Plan (which in OTL set the tone for everything the followed), Jefferson instead sets the tone by proposing a relatively modest revision of the Articles. This will certainly be tweaked and altered, but in the end, the USA adopts a revised version of the Articles instead of the OTL Constitution. That is: the USA remains literally and in practice a Confederation of otherwise fully sovereign states. More like a like 18th century version of the EU, one might say.

-- These is a (weak) central executive. Riding the coat-tails of his success, Jefferson gets the job. Again setting the tone, he introduces a very hands-off tradition of central leadership.

And there you go.
 
Last edited:
Wow, this is an incredible answer! I think I will definitely have to research this more and see what I can do with it, and the sheer depth of the answer makes me feel like if I do anything with this POD I'll have to give some sort of credit. :) Thank you very much!
 
Are you looking for a weaker central government, or circumstances for both a stronger and weaker central government?
 
Are you looking for a weaker central government, or circumstances for both a stronger and weaker central government?
Mostly for a weaker central government, but if you know for both I wouldn't be opposed to researching both and seeing what fits better for anything I do in the future. :)
 
Mostly for a weaker central government, but if you know for both I wouldn't be opposed to researching both and seeing what fits better for anything I do in the future. :)
How about the pre-Constitution effort to ban slavery in the old Southwest, or the effort in 1803 to ban slavery in the Louisiana Purchase? Short circuiting 'slave power' early butterflies the civil war and thus twentieth century centralization.
 
How about the pre-Constitution effort to ban slavery in the old Southwest, or the effort in 1803 to ban slavery in the Louisiana Purchase? Short circuiting 'slave power' early butterflies the civil war and thus twentieth century centralization.
I did not know about either of those, particularly the effort to ban slavery in the Louisiana Purchase, I'll have to look those up more, thank you. :)
 
(Big Block taken out to increase visibility of relevant points.)

-- Without Madison around to introduce the Virginia Plan (which in OTL set the tone for everything the followed), Jefferson instead sets the tone by proposing a relatively modest revision of the Articles. This will certainly be tweaked and altered, but in the end, the USA adopts a revised version of the Articles instead of the OTL Constitution. That is: the USA remains literally and in practice a Confederation of otherwise fully sovereign states. More like a like 18th century version of the EU, one might say.

-- These is a (weak) central executive. Riding the coat-tails of his success, Jefferson gets the job. Again setting the tone, he introduces a very hands-off tradition of central leadership.

And there you go.

I think we could do something here too, potentially, perhaps have this more radical and angry Hamilton or some other angry and more radical Federalist manage to become President and overstep the decided upon boundaries and further cementing a practical basis for a confederate US and giving a good popular and historiographical reason for this not to get questioned and to get some of that ephemeral "tradition" behind this more divided/federal/confederate US and its system.

After this radical Federalist, we then get Jefferson to do as you mentioned, but with a perfect example of "what could go wrong" to endorse his methods and make them a lasting precedent.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
Wow, this is an incredible answer! I think I will definitely have to research this more and see what I can do with it, and the sheer depth of the answer makes me feel like if I do anything with this POD I'll have to give some sort of credit. :) Thank you very much!

No problem, glad to help. No credit is needed at all, although if you get to work with this, do give me a heads-up. I love your work, and wouldn't want to miss it.


I think we could do something here too, potentially, perhaps have this more radical and angry Hamilton or some other angry and more radical Federalist manage to become President and overstep the decided upon boundaries and further cementing a practical basis for a confederate US and giving a good popular and historiographical reason for this not to get questioned and to get some of that ephemeral "tradition" behind this more divided/federal/confederate US and its system.

After this radical Federalist, we then get Jefferson to do as you mentioned, but with a perfect example of "what could go wrong" to endorse his methods and make them a lasting precedent.

An example of "Federalist tyranny" would be a very powerful argument against any future efforts to centralise things. The easiest way to fit that in (and to make it obviously perceived as a bad thing) would be to have Hamilton attempt a coup after he fails to get his way at the Convention. The coup fails, the conspirators get tried for treason, and Hamilton's viewpoints are deeply discredited.

Of course, I'm not sure at all whether he'd be reckless/stupid/angry enough to attempt such a thing. I'm fornd of vibrant decentralism (lots of diversity and localism, yay!), so it's easy for me to portray Hamilton as the bad guy. In reality, even if I don't agree with a lot of his ideas, he was an honourable man dedicated to his country.

An alternative to a coup would be to have the most Federalist states in the North-East (considering the period, I'm looking at New York and Massachusetts here) refuse to ratify the revised Articles, instead seceding and setting up their own Union. Around the time of the Convention, this would likely involve annexing independent-minded Rhode Island and the Vermont Republic by force. I'm not all sure a Jeffersonian USA could or would fight to get the North-East back (Jefferson was a proponent of secession in OTL, and going to war to liberate Rhode Island and Vermont seems unlikely). This situation would create a very decentralist rump-USA with a more centralist, historically hostile neighbour right next door. This makes for an interesting contrast-and-compare, allowing one to explore the notion of a very decentralist and a very centralist alt-USA at the same time. I'm not at all sure it would fit with what @ToixStory has in mind, though.

(One thing that can be said, though, is that in such a scenario it would be interesting to avoid doing a retread of Decades of Darkness. With a lot more of OTL's Union states within the rump USA, we should be able to avoid turning it into just a very powerful CSA expy. No doubt slavery in the slave states would go largely unchallenged in this rump USA, but at the same time, that could also avoid OTL's overly defensive tying-together of slavery with Southern identity. Perspectives abound for a contrast study between the two American union, both with their own unique good and bad qualities.)
 
No problem, glad to help. No credit is needed at all, although if you get to work with this, do give me a heads-up. I love your work, and wouldn't want to miss it.




An example of "Federalist tyranny" would be a very powerful argument against any future efforts to centralise things. The easiest way to fit that in (and to make it obviously perceived as a bad thing) would be to have Hamilton attempt a coup after he fails to get his way at the Convention. The coup fails, the conspirators get tried for treason, and Hamilton's viewpoints are deeply discredited.

Of course, I'm not sure at all whether he'd be reckless/stupid/angry enough to attempt such a thing. I'm fornd of vibrant decentralism (lots of diversity and localism, yay!), so it's easy for me to portray Hamilton as the bad guy. In reality, even if I don't agree with a lot of his ideas, he was an honourable man dedicated to his country.

An alternative to a coup would be to have the most Federalist states in the North-East (considering the period, I'm looking at New York and Massachusetts here) refuse to ratify the revised Articles, instead seceding and setting up their own Union. Around the time of the Convention, this would likely involve annexing independent-minded Rhode Island and the Vermont Republic by force. I'm not all sure a Jeffersonian USA could or would fight to get the North-East back (Jefferson was a proponent of secession in OTL, and going to war to liberate Rhode Island and Vermont seems unlikely). This situation would create a very decentralist rump-USA with a more centralist, historically hostile neighbour right next door. This makes for an interesting contrast-and-compare, allowing one to explore the notion of a very decentralist and a very centralist alt-USA at the same time. I'm not at all sure it would fit with what @ToixStory has in mind, though.

(One thing that can be said, though, is that in such a scenario it would be interesting to avoid doing a retread of Decades of Darkness. With a lot more of OTL's Union states within the rump USA, we should be able to avoid turning it into just a very powerful CSA expy. No doubt slavery in the slave states would go largely unchallenged in this rump USA, but at the same time, that could also avoid OTL's overly defensive tying-together of slavery with Southern identity. Perspectives abound for a contrast study between the two American union, both with their own unique good and bad qualities.)

I agree with the potential coup idea for the easiest thing, but maybe we go for some extra crazy and have the "original" rules for President/Vice President but with a twist even after this very Jeffersonian have him try to set an extra precedent for federalism and decentralism by stepping away, confident and feeling secure in his total victory. We might see some other "DR" President with Hamilton as Veep for fig leaf diplomacy. We then get either a deliberate coup, a deliberate soft coup or an accidental soft coup where Hamilton either violently seizes power or takes advantage of our Mysterious President X falling ill or some such to have a soft coup to try to bring about a Federalist system.

This then leads either to a counter-coup where Jefferson is popularly acclaimed, or my previous idea of Hamilton stepping too far too often and being either forced to resign or heavily defeated come the first election.

I'm not very knowledgeable on Foundation American Politics so maybe that's all too crazy.
 
An alternative to a coup would be to have the most Federalist states in the North-East (considering the period, I'm looking at New York and Massachusetts here) refuse to ratify the revised Articles, instead seceding and setting up their own Union. Around the time of the Convention, this would likely involve annexing independent-minded Rhode Island and the Vermont Republic by force. I'm not all sure a Jeffersonian USA could or would fight to get the North-East back (Jefferson was a proponent of secession in OTL, and going to war to liberate Rhode Island and Vermont seems unlikely). This situation would create a very decentralist rump-USA with a more centralist, historically hostile neighbour right next door. This makes for an interesting contrast-and-compare, allowing one to explore the notion of a very decentralist and a very centralist alt-USA at the same time. I'm not at all sure it would fit with what @ToixStory has in mind, though.

(One thing that can be said, though, is that in such a scenario it would be interesting to avoid doing a retread of Decades of Darkness. With a lot more of OTL's Union states within the rump USA, we should be able to avoid turning it into just a very powerful CSA expy. No doubt slavery in the slave states would go largely unchallenged in this rump USA, but at the same time, that could also avoid OTL's overly defensive tying-together of slavery with Southern identity. Perspectives abound for a contrast study between the two American union, both with their own unique good and bad qualities.)
The federalist-USA versus decentralized-USA is an interesting idea to be sure, and I could see myself doing some neat stuff with that (also, would Connecticut be annexed as well? So far from God, so close to New York and Massachusetts, etc.) One idea that comes to mind, if for no other reason to at least somewhat avoid Decades of Darkness references, though I think I could do it anyway even with a Jeffersonian USA since, as you say, without the slavery=South ties of OTL that creates a rather different dynamic as it evolves down the line. But what would be the possibility, perhaps, of some sort of modified Articles that would create the same de facto situation in the same country kind of? That is, since in the Articles the states were much more independent, would there be a possibility to set up a system where the more Federalist states just act federalist with each other and ignore the rest while the Jeffersonian states act anti-federalist? It's not a system that has to last (hint hint) just one that has to, well, be possible to exist. If not, going with your idea is certainly intriguing, if I may say.
 
During the convention Georgia delegates were ordered by the governor and legislature to support a federal model which gave Georgia as much power as possible. Georgia wanted a federalist system as they were being harassed by the Creek Indians and thought a federal government would protect them.

As ordered the Georgia delegation supported the New Jersey plan but when the convention was about to collapse at a deadlock for like the fourth time one Georgia delegate switched to the Virginia plan allowing the convention to continue on.

So just allow that one Georgia delegate not to switch his vote have the convention collapse and boom continuing Articles of Confederation.
 
Top