DBAHC: Avoid the splintering of the USA

Really not too hard at all. People tend to forget that the Articles were abolished more than a few times even before Burr. Not to mention the Constitutional convention. Also unification could have easily gone further in 1929 as opposed to 1971. As it is the NAC is basically a de-facto United States of the Americas, even if for obvious reasons they're never going to call it that.
 
The only thing I have is that a nation formed from colonies will never and have never had the power and influence on the world stage that a coloniser does, apart from Louisiana but even they had Napoleon (a man from France) to lead them forward. So how will they survive long when the Louisianian influence is literally right on their doorstep, I mean even today from Florida to Virginia, a large amount of the population speaks French, Creole, or Acadian just from Louisiana's influence. Pretty much what im saying is that if the United States somehow come together, it is ASB to keep them together for too long due to outside influences and inside pressures.
 
Haven't we talked about this enough on this site. The American countries coming together and staying together is completely ASB the democratic system they tried to establish was completely unstable and would have collapsed when Washington marched on Philadelphia even without outside pressure. Maybe with a less crazy Washington or maybe even Benedict Arnold a stable monarchy could have been established similar to Napoleon but even that is probably ASB.
 
The difference between Louisiana and the USA was that Louisiana like France was unified from the start while the 13 colonies of the United States were not. If Louisiana was divided it would not have become a great power either. On the other hand if the United States would not have infighting or if the Rebels had won the la guerre civile (1789-1792), then we would have seen a different world. If many do not recall, Louisiana had a population of only 50,000 in 1789 and after losing the war, the rebels made the trip to Louisiana.
 
You know, I was reading up on the subject, and apparently Napoleon expressed a willingness to get rid of Louisiana just three years after acquiring it in order to focus on Europe, and this didn't exactly change until his escapades in Europe took a turn for the worst. Is it possible that Napoleon would've... given Louisiana to a strong US? I don't think French-US relations ever dipped down to anything but great for the entirety of the union.
 
Napoleon wasn't an idiot, it's totally implausible that he would just give away a huge chunk of strategic territory, regardless of his relations with the recipient. Maybe he would trade it away, but the USA would have had nothing he would want in exchange, and anyway Louisiana is still too important both in terms of controlling North America and keeping Saint-Domingue supplied. The seriousness with which he was contemplating getting rid of it is totally overblown, he never would have actually gone through with it.
 
What a lot of people don't realize is that colonial Louisiana was one of the most under-utilized territories in North America. From what I can tell much of Louisiana was incredibly sparsely populated before Napoleon and his exiled supporters swelled the population considerably. Most of the important settlements were located near the mouth of the Mississippi. Chicago, the important port on the Great Lakes that it became, wasn't even founded back then. It wasn't "strategic" back then. I have no doubt that Napoleon would have sold it if he decided it was a waste of money. After all Louisiana was only revitalized by the arival of Napoleon's followers and a large portion of the French treasury.

Though I have to agree that "Sea To Shining Sea" takes it a bit too far. The timeline "Sea To Shining Sea" includes this America taking New Spain's oil-rich Tejas and gold-rich California. Not to mention Cuba and the Philipines. And Russia's mineral-rich Alaskan colony. Or how about how they made the vibrant Kingdom of Hawaii into a puppet republic that ends up "asking" to be annexed a scant few years later. Honestly STSS's America seems little better than the British Empire. Especially when the "tyrannical" British end up abolishing slavery.
 
Though I have to agree that "Sea To Shining Sea" takes it a bit too far. The timeline "Sea To Shining Sea" includes this America taking New Spain's oil-rich Tejas and gold-rich California. Not to mention Cuba and the Philipines. And Russia's mineral-rich Alaskan colony. Or how about how they made the vibrant Kingdom of Hawaii into a puppet republic that ends up "asking" to be annexed a scant few years later. Honestly STSS's America seems little better than the British Empire. Especially when the "tyrannical" British end up abolishing slavery.

Ive said before that Sea to Shining Sea is complete ASB and its literally just an Ameriwank. I even think that having Napoleon hand over the whole Louisiana Territory to a united America is not very realistic. He could possibly sell some of the eastern, unpopulated Indian dominated areas to the USA but I doubt he'd sell the whole territory, I mean why would he want to give New Orleans and control of the Mississippi away. All he needs is his French supporters to found cities in unpopulated places which is what he did and look what the Kingdom of Louisiana has become today.
 
Perhaps the Union army having better aerial defenses would have meant the alien space bat could not have intervened in the civil war and lead to Confederate victory, which we know occurred, and has since lead to the dissolution of both groupings of states.

Had to make the joke.
 
With all this talk of Louisiana and the somehow united US, what about Mexico and California? The Gold Rush would still happen and Mexico probably would still be in civil war (they're good at it) so I would think that California would secede. I say California singular because I think that with the threat of attack from a united US (they saw themselves as the bringers of liberty, something that wouldn't go down well with the Imperial Mexico) Baja California would be too scared to leave.

But that's my opinion, maybe we could have a united Las Californias in this TL?
 
Perhaps the Union army having better aerial defenses would have meant the alien space bat could not have intervened in the civil war and lead to Confederate victory, which we know occurred, and has since lead to the dissolution of both groupings of states.

Had to make the joke.

Pff, please. I don't think that war between the Confederation of Southern States and the Union of Virginia had a victor. It was just a sad stalemate that patriots use on both sides to show their greatness over the other.
 
Also, while I do agree that 'Sea to Shining Sea' is going too far in terms of just how powerful the US is (my timeline might get into territory of Ameriwank, but I hope to avoid that as much as possible), people seem to forget that when the US dissolved, it had a really large population. Like, ~5.3 million. As far as the new world is concerned, that is massive and it probably would've grown even larger if it weren't for constant war tearing the area asunder. In that regard, I think people really underestimate just how strong a Union would've been.
 
I think it's reasonable that the "United States of America" would be reasonably powerful, but "Sea To Shining Sea" made them ludicrously over-powered. They went from a ragtag collection to a massive global superpower in like two centuries. That may seem like a long time but in history terms it's absolutely nothing. There's no reason an America spanning everything east of the Mississippi couldn't be a fairly prominent power in the continent. Just not the globe-spanning country the Author of "Sea To Shining Sea" wants.

I think the author of that timeline was written by someone living in the Union of the Potomac, which was the last states in the Union renamed themselves when America fell apart. It's some guy living in Baltimore pining over what could have been.
 
Top