Failed continental congress: would the American states get colonialist?

they were big and important until the 1820s ... then the started a very steady decline until teh growth of Washington, DC during the New Deal. the scramble for Africa occurred after VA's heyday. This is also why presidents form VA abruptly stopped pre-Civil War.

True, but a big part of what sapped Virginia's strength was the rise of the industrialized north, it's alignment with the slave-owning south, and how most immigrants moved to the North and West, and many of Virginia's best and brightest moved elsewhere.

With the USA out of the picture, it's a whole new ball game. Virginia would be in a position to be the dominant power of the region. As mentioned before, they own OTL Virginia, West Virginia and Kentucky from the outset, have a strong chance of absorbing most of OTL Tennessee, Indiana and Illinois, and maybe even absorbing Maryland/Delaware and North Carolina, or at least parts of those three. Toss in being the only one of the 13 Colonies to be in a position to claim land on the west bank of the Mississippi, and they have the best position on paper bar none.

This is doubled by the fact that they have strong leadership (Jefferson, Madison, Henry, Clay, Houston and the like), plenty of land to attract immigrants, resources and capitol to industrialize, and maybe even abolish slavery from the outset given how much the early Virginian statesmen favored abolition. The Old Dominion would do well indeed!

As far as colonial U.S. states: One thing to consider is whether or not some groups would eventually form smaller c(con)federations. there is no reason to believe that New England and NY might not draw together given their shared merchant/industrial character and the need to fend off continued British presence in Canada and possible conflict with other states with conflicting interests and clamis in North America. As a result, the New York/New England Yankee Confederation might focus on merchant marine and industry and seek to carev a piece of Africa and/or the Caribbean off as raw material suppliers.

Since the south remained largely agrarian, I don't think they would have the means or need to become colonialists. Think about it: they do not develop much industry even into the early 20th century, what need have they or raw materials? They are raw material suppliers to Europe and the North.

You have a point about regional coalitions.

I see Georgia and South Carolina banding together out of necessity. They might rope in North Carolina, or lacking that, divide it with Virginia. Give them time, and much of Alabama/Missisippi will be under their control. Reliant on cotton and slave-based agriculture, the most backwards and underdeveloped of the former British Colonies.

North Carolina will certainly join or be divided by a stronger neighbor. Only Question is if that neighbor is Virginia or the Georgia/S.Carolina confederation.

Maryland might try to make a go on it's own for a while, but I see the lure of federating with one of it's neighbors being too strong. My money would be with Virginia, seeing as the combined power would make the Chesapeake Bay their own personal little inlet.

Delaware is screwed. Only question is who annexes it first, Maryland or Pennsylvania.

Pennsylvania, New York and New Jersey are the wild cards, the former two especially. New Jersey will likely be New York/Pennsylvania's Maryland - makes a go at independence before merging with a larger neighbor for mutual benefit. Pennsylvania could be independent and prosperous on it's own, and in which case, it would likely serve as the region's mediating power, given it's sole land claims would likely be in Ohio.

Of the bigger two, New York is a wild card especially. It could be a notable power on it's own, but it's an absolute game changer. It joins New England, the trade/industry and position of the region raises all the more higher. It joins Pennsylvania/New Jersey, the resulting nation would likely serve as the other great power of the region along with Virginia, taking form like a smaller, more federalized version of the OTL United States. They'd also be in a much better position to claim more territory out west and elsewhere - I could see them aim to make the Great Lakes the core of the nation, expanding into Ohio, Michigan, dividing Indiana/Illinois with Virginia, and snagging the remainder of the Northwest. As they develop and industrialize, which would make the stature of the nation all the greater, I could see them making moves for lower Ontario, or far more likely, seeing yo buy it from the British, which they might get, given Britain would likely want to play them off with Virginia.

New England is pretty much what we'd expect - a moderately industrialized, heavily mercantile gentleman's republic, like a region sized version of Nantucket. If they can rope in New York, they may make a play for greater expansion - otherwise, I see them mainly sticking to themselves, focused on trade and industry, though they may make overtures to absorbing Acadia when the British pull out in time. Oddly enough, New England is also the one I see most likely to set up colonies. Maybe a few islands here and there, starting as whaling stations or trading posts that grow into something more. If Belgium can get colonies, I certainly can see New England get some.

I severely doubt it. Filibusters worked only against areas that had a weak hold by the empires in question, and weren't worth the trouble in keeping anyway; the force of the UNITED States was behind such takeovers(even if it was in an unofficial capacity); and lastly, the presence of American settlers being there already.

As for Central America, there's a difference between already thoroughly populated states with mountainous and jungle filled terrain rebelling from an empire with internal problems than having numerous small rival states competing with said empire over territory. By the time the Anglo states managed to get enough military dominance over one another to safety expand beyond the Mississippi basin, they're going to most likely be dealing with a Mexico that has sorted its shit out. All it has to do is play them against each other and arm the Natives.

More than likely we're going to see Mexico and Britain using the independent Anglo states and Native tribes against each other in dominating the west. The Oregon territory is almost certainly going to be Britain's playground; you could make a case they might even scoop up California. There might be some small victories for the 13 (or whatever number remains after they fight it out), but they, as representatives of New York or Virginia or whatever, or trying to found independent states is so unlikely outside of luck, and very weird and specific scenarios it's almost not worth considering.

What you're proposing sounds more like those who believe the CSA is somehow going to transform into USA part II because of some residual USian super power pixie dust. The strength of the US is the United part of the name, allowing the country to expand relatively unopposed to the Pacific. This will not be the case without such a union.

This really depends if you think the loss of Northern Mexico had more to do with American Expansion or Mexican instability. If the former, you are right, if it's the latter, the lack of the United States wouldn't change a thing but which flag replaces the Eagle on a Cactus in TTL Austin and Sacramento. Hell, Northern Mexico might even break off for good TTL. I personally support the latter theory, and think Europe would be just as happy to divide and play the various smaller states of Mexico as they would America. One things for sure, the Continent would be a LOT more divided then OTL.
 
I see Georgia and South Carolina banding together out of necessity. They might rope in North Carolina, or lacking that, divide it with Virginia. Give them time, and much of Alabama/Missisippi will be under their control. Reliant on cotton and slave-based agriculture, the most backwards and underdeveloped of the former British Colonies.

North Carolina will certainly join or be divided by a stronger neighbor. Only Question is if that neighbor is Virginia or the Georgia/S.Carolina confederation.
Remember how Georgia claimed northern Alabama and Mississippi iOTL - and it claimed the southern parts, too, but they were disputed with Spain. I could see it going either way TTL, depending on how much Spain tries to take advantage of Georgian instability. Given how they paid off even General Wilkinson OTL, I'd go for Spain keeping West Florida at least until filibusterers come in. Let's also not forget the Creeks, who I think would join the Spanish given pressure from Georgian settlers.

As for North Carolina, I'm going to place it with Virginia without any doubt. Much immigration had taken place from Virginia, and much of the colony's external trade went through Norfolk.

Delaware is screwed. Only question is who annexes it first, Maryland or Pennsylvania.
Pennsylvania. The two colonies had been closely linked ever since Penn's original grant; I don't think Delaware ever had a separate governor from then until the Revolution. Of course, there was also some enmity between the two over that, but I think the combination of those historical ties and the Delaware River providing easy communication with Philadelphia (and threatening to block its port...) will be too much to resist.

This really depends if you think the loss of Northern Mexico had more to do with American Expansion or Mexican instability. If the former, you are right, if it's the latter, the lack of the United States wouldn't change a thing but which flag replaces the Eagle on a Cactus in TTL Austin and Sacramento.
I call it for Mexican instability, given the revolts in the Rio Grande Republic and the Yucatan without any American involvement...
 

Jasen777

Donor
... With the USA out of the picture, it's a whole new ball game. ...

Personally I don't see ex-colonies taken away core territory from each other for the first generation. Couldn't see Virginia grabbing any part of Maryland or N.C. Though there could easily be conflict over the west and Vermont.

An issue is whether the settlers from Virginia will still want to be Virginians when they're over the Appalachians. OTL they wanted to be their own state right off the bat, in a situation where there is no U.S. it's quite possible they would want independence and could look to other states for help or even Spain in getting it.
 
In OTL, various states actually had their own schemes in West Africa. The Maryland Colonization Society founded the Republic of Maryland in Liberia, and the Mississippi Colonization Society started Mississippi-in-Africa. New York and Virginia also had ventures, but I don't think they actually founded anything on their own.
 
You have a point about regional coalitions.

I see Georgia and South Carolina banding together out of necessity. They might rope in North Carolina, or lacking that, divide it with Virginia.

If it's divided, where would be the sensible place to do it? The Neuse River? Or the Cape Fear River, perhaps? Where does tobacco agriculture give way to rice?

Maryland might try to make a go on it's own for a while, but I see the lure of federating with one of it's neighbors being too strong. My money would be with Virginia, seeing as the combined power would make the Chesapeake Bay their own personal little inlet.

Delaware is screwed. Only question is who annexes it first, Maryland or Pennsylvania.

Delaware has historic links to Pennsylvania, but it's a slave-based tobacco economy, so it seems to make a lot more logical sense to join with Maryland-Virginia rather than the abolitionist Quakers of Pennsylvania.

Of the bigger two, New York is a wild card especially. It could be a notable power on it's own, but it's an absolute game changer. It joins New England, the trade/industry and position of the region raises all the more higher. It joins Pennsylvania/New Jersey, the resulting nation would likely serve as the other great power of the region along with Virginia, taking form like a smaller, more federalized version of the OTL United States.

If we think in terms of power bases, New York City seems far more connected to Philadelphia than it does to Boston. Not only are the trade routes stronger, they also share the fact they're ethnically diverse, whereas I can imagine Yankee New England looking down on non-WASPs.

I do wonder how well these East-coast coalitions will be able to maintain control over Western settlers. There's a reason that Kentucky and Tennessee split off in our timeline. I can't imagine places like Illinois-Indiana not declaring independence from the Tuckahoe elite in Richmond.
 
Might I suggest the New Englanders and Marylanders have whaling stations in the Pacific and treaty ports in China? Japan would usually be the obvious choice for Americans to try and go imperial over, but they might not have even the small fleet Commodore Perry used to get the Japanese to stop shooting and slicing everyone trying to land. Though he did threaten to bring a hundred ships to attack them within the year... What coastal and border fortifications do you all see for the colonies? Would Pennsylvania take back Delaware and set down straight line for colonizing inwards with a hoard of immigrants? Would one of the New England states(in term of countries) not be abolitionist and keep providing the South with slaves for the triangle trade?

For the talk about Georgia being unstable, I agree. I also see it as ridiculous that they should take claims away from Indian Tribes, the Spanish, and South Carolina when they were a small group hugging the river border with South Carolina before the war.
 
Delaware has historic links to Pennsylvania, but it's a slave-based tobacco economy, so it seems to make a lot more logical sense to join with Maryland-Virginia rather than the abolitionist Quakers of Pennsylvania.

There weren't only Quakers there. I'm sure they have enough people willing to fight to keep the vital coastline within their influence.
 

Dirk_Pitt

Banned
Thanks Evan. You just explained a minor mystery to me, Evan. Why George Rogers Clark never went further in his campaign than Cahokia. Not up to Detroit, which could have secured the Great Lakes for the US in 1777, not starting up any forts or trading posts on the Upper Mississippi that would cement America's claim to the Upper Mississippi---or conquering down the rivers to Hudson's Bay in order to conquer Hudson's Bay forts and secure what would be most of Canada for the US.
Clark did not do it because Clark was conquering for Virginia, not some Continental Congress meeting in New York. ;)

New York? Don't you mean Philidelphia?
 
What about the forms of Governments? I imagine any state aligned with Virginia would go with something like the Virginia plan. Whereas anew York may take up a version of Hamilton's version of government.
 
I think smaller confederations are very likely. I don't see the states each remaining separate and independent. Wars between the states will be likely, so there's going to be some movement of borders and possibly even the outright annexation of smaller states by larger ones.

Also, these confederations are probably not going to be little United States.. (United Stateses?) Virginia clearly dominate any kind of Chesapeake confederation. New York would likely be the most powerful in its confederation depending on who is in it. They'll basically be a big state and its satellites. Legislatures in the small states will likely consist of pro-big state and anti-big state factions.

Wars with the European powers will be much more likely. Not necessarily because the Europeans will try to recolonize them, but they will find them easier to push around than a continent-sized economic powerhouse like the USA. As conflicts with Europeans arise, there may be interest in trying to wrest European colonial possessions away.
 
What about the forms of Governments? I imagine any state aligned with Virginia would go with something like the Virginia plan. Whereas anew York may take up a version of Hamilton's version of government.

I think if these confederations are pressed militarily (say if they fail to pay their debts to a foreign power) I could definitely see a military dictatorship arising. If there is a requirement for a standing army then I would imagine civilian power would be slowly subverted. In some generals eyes I could imagine they would blame decentralization as the root cause of Americas problems and so would use all means to protect their confederations' unity.
 
In some generals eyes I could imagine they would blame decentralization as the root cause of Americas problems and so would use all means to protect their confederations' unity.
That's true. A total failure of the United States under the Articles of Confederation may turn the US into a cautionary tale moving forward.
 
New York? Don't you mean Philidelphia?
No, the Congress of the Confederation had been meeting in New York for several years before the Federal Convention. I think it was the Pennsylvania mutiny that chased them out of Philadelphia.
 
There weren't only Quakers there. I'm sure they have enough people willing to fight to keep the vital coastline within their influence.

Well, it's not so much what Pennsylvania wants, but what Delaware wants. They're going to see a threat to their economic system from Pennsylvanian ownership, but can keep the money flowing by joining with Maryland. As I said, I imagine Pennsylvania will end up joining with New Jersey and New York, with which it had much more natural links.
 
Top