DBWI: Balkanise America

Given the problems going on in America recently, I was wondering if the whole place wouldn't be better off balkanised. So, what would it take? What would it take to get all those little squabbling countries north of New Spain to be a strong, united, multi-ethnic power like the United States of the Danube? Virginians and New Englanders obviously don't get along, and their styles of government have certainly diverged over the years, but they have more in common with each other and even with Quebecois and Louisianans than Austrians have with Wallachians. If someone can set up a plausible scenario, I'd love to see it done.

Thoughts anyone?
 
While the Articles of Confederation were and still are a major failure. You need this "United States of America" to have a strong central government perhaps make the the Virginian general, a popular man in his back then, George Washington king of America.
 
Last edited:
While the Articles of Confederation were and still are a major failure. You need this "United States of America" to have a strong central government perhaps make the the Virginian general, a popular man in his back then, George Washington king of America.

That's true, I hadn't considered that. After all, history has shown that a strong monarch is essential for quick, lasting reforms. However, Washington was an incompetent general, and probably would have made a bad king too. When you need the FRENCH to help you fight your enemies, you know you're a bad commander.

What about Benjamin Franklin? I don't think he could ever be king, but I could see him elected to something Carolina's consulate if the Articles were scrapped and then centralizing the country from there.

I guess what I'm really wondering is, if the USD managed to come off alright, why couldn't there have been a USA? Why is it that Serbs and Croats can be part of the same country when Georgians and Carolinians are at each other's throats?
 

birdboy2000

Banned
To create a national identity, it helps to have a common enemy. Maybe if the War of American Independence lasted longer - say, if Britain is able to play the English colonists and the Quebecois against each other - then the siege of Quebec will fail. I know this seems paradoxical, but I think this is a good thing in the long run - not only can a national identity develop out of a longer struggle with the Brits, but Quebec and maybe Acadia and Vermont as well will stay out, making for a smaller, more manageable USA with the old enemy looming large on its northern border.

This would, however, require the Brits to grant a tolerance to a conquered people uncharacteristic of the British of the time.

(Yes, the original Articles of Confederation would still be unworkable, but this makes it more likely for another American confederation to replace it, instead of OTL's... well, Americanization.)
 
To create a national identity, it helps to have a common enemy.

re this common enemy concept. I'd point out that some of the men under King George III had a mad idea about stirring up the Indians against the rebels. If that had happened, it would had scant result militarily, but the political consequences would have been extreme. The colonials would have had a common enemy, a huge surge in rebel troops, and a belief that the English were more alien than fellow North Americans.
 
That's true, I hadn't considered that. After all, history has shown that a strong monarch is essential for quick, lasting reforms. However, Washington was an incompetent general, and probably would have made a bad king too. When you need the FRENCH to help you fight your enemies, you know you're a bad commander.

What about Benjamin Franklin? I don't think he could ever be king, but I could see him elected to something Carolina's consulate if the Articles were scrapped and then centralizing the country from there.

I guess what I'm really wondering is, if the USD managed to come off alright, why couldn't there have been a USA? Why is it that Serbs and Croats can be part of the same country when Georgians and Carolinians are at each other's throats?


ooc Why would France be considered militarily incompetant in this AU? During most of modern history France was the top military power.
 
ooc Why would France be considered militarily incompetant in this AU? During most of modern history France was the top military power.

OOC: I left that open for other people to come up with a reason.That's part of the fun of a DBWI, people can go where they want to with it.

IC: Yeah, I think it would be better to keep the Quebecois out during the beginning and have them join later. Their Catholicism and high population of French-speakers made them weary of being dominated by the CASP* South, and thus they pushed for a constitution that gave more power to the states. Without them I think the Articles might never have existed, and a stronger, more centralised government could be established from the get-go. All of course, with Benjamin Franklin as Consul.

This seems to make the most sense. After all, do you think the USD would have lasted if GREECE had been there from the beginning?

OOC: CASP=Caucasian Anglo-Saxon Protestant
 
Of course things can go a bit differently, but please compare the sheer area that is involved. The Danube is a relatively compact, and densely populated country.

And you are talking about a whole continent! I think it's obvious that Columbia is far to big to be a single country. I think it is not possible to govern a country that excels a certain area. (At least if it's a civilized country.)


OOC: Very intriguing wording of the title! Nice surprise effect.

OOC2: This is what qualifies as a "Triple Blind WI", isn't it?
 

DISSIDENT

Banned
Their squabbles are frequent, but never do they flare to continental war. Pennsylvania is still the most powerful nation, though it speaks a different language by majority. Virginia is powerful as well, but there are lingering racial tensions between the descendents of slaves manumitted in the 1900s, the old planter aristocrats and the middle class farmers.

There are smaller states with little to no military power beyond the Appalachians, such as the Watauga Association, the Ozark Republic, and Ohio, but these are dominated by the Republique d'Lousiane and the merchant elite in New Orleans, though since the native revolts in the northern prefectures, they have moved away from Lousianian dominance.

Past that are Tejas, California, and other Spanish speaking states ruled by caudillos after breaking from Spain or Mexico.

The largest wars have been Virginia and Pennsylvania in the Wheeling War in 1920, a dispute over the town of Wheeling on their common border that lead to full scale warfare and the Virginian Army shelling Harrisburg and Pittsburgh until air raids on Richmond and Newport lead to a treaty.

Mostly these states occupy themselves with trade and their internal affairs. To Balkanise them would create a needless rival to the balance of power in Europe. Why does the world need yet another empire? Are we, in the United States of the Danube, whose democratic society replaced the oppression of the Hapsburg tyrants, not an example enough for humanity? These republics and petty states would better occupy themselves with emulating us rather than forming themselves into a competitor.
 
I really don't see how this could happen. Inevitably, the Smithist dogma of a united post-revolutionary state in North America would eventually lead to collapse as the workers come to realize their exploitation by the patricians.

However, if you wait not much longer, the peace loving workers of the Popular Republic of Michigania will prevail, and the workers and servants of the other nations shall rally to our cause. Then, you will see the beginnings of a united North America.

This is just as it is beginning to happen now in Danubia. Their patricians' days of prosperity will end soon, as well.
 
Past that are Tejas, California, and other Spanish speaking states ruled by caudillos after breaking from Spain or Mexico.

If you read the first post, I wasn't including New Spain*. The Spanish never introduced the same governmental systems in their colonies as the British and the French, and they always absorbed the Indians into their Casta system instead of treating them like foreign entities. These and the power of the Church in New Spain prevent me from seriously including any of it in a balkanised America.

The largest wars have been Virginia and Pennsylvania in the Wheeling War in 1920, a dispute over the town of Wheeling on their common border that lead to full scale warfare and the Virginian Army shelling Harrisburg and Pittsburgh until air raids on Richmond and Newport lead to a treaty.

You forget the Cascadian war of independence and the Michiganian conquest of Canada**. And does no on else care about the way those dirty homilists*** treat their Indians? The Gitchee-Goomee genocide was appalling.

Mostly these states occupy themselves with trade and their internal affairs. To Balkanise them would create a needless rival to the balance of power in Europe. Why does the world need yet another empire? Are we, in the United States of the Danube, whose democratic society replaced the oppression of the Hapsburg tyrants, not an example enough for humanity? These republics and petty states would better occupy themselves with emulating us rather than forming themselves into a competitor.

The standard of living in most of these states is abysmal, especially in the Appalachians. Balkanising them would not only increase the standard of living, but would give us a strong ally in the Columbias to deal with the Empires of Brazil and Peru and the Narcotic Republics**** of New Granada.

OOC:kissingheart: Since there is now a Mexico, Tejas, and California, New Spain will refer to those countries that exist where the old viceroyalty used to, along with Central America down to Panama

**Canada is much smaller than OTL's Canada. It referrs to Southern Ontario, Manitoba, and Sasketchewan.

***Homilists=Communists. Coming from the Greek word for crowd, it is a somewhat derogatory term.

****This is not the official name of said republics. It is a running joke TTL since they are dominated by drug cartels
 
I really don't see how this could happen. Inevitably, the Smithist dogma of a united post-revolutionary state in North America would eventually lead to collapse as the workers come to realize their exploitation by the patricians.

However, if you wait not much longer, the peace loving workers of the Popular Republic of Michigania will prevail, and the workers and servants of the other nations shall rally to our cause. Then, you will see the beginnings of a united North America.

This is just as it is beginning to happen now in Danubia. Their patricians' days of prosperity will end soon, as well.

So Dearborn let you use the interweb, huh? Peace loving? Just because the Canadians refuse to take responsibility for a terrorist group's assassination of that monster La Follette you think you can violently impose your Smithist nonsense on them? Kanzler Schwarzennegger's reforms are doing more to combat poverty here than your "Revolution" has ever done in America. If you can't even crush the Black Hills Movement, I don't see how you could hope to balkanise the entirety of America!

OOC: Convergent names are fun
 
Top