How would a US with these borders develop differently from OTL?

[NAF]

The POD can be anywhere from 1700 to the beginning of the Revolutionary War.

1. Without the influence of slave-holding planters in the Deep South, would this US be significantly more socially progressive and racially tolerant that OTL?
2. How differently would this US develop demographically?
3. Does this US have the capacity to be a great power on the world stage?
4. Without cheaper labor available in the south and west, does the North see the same deindustrialization it did OTL with the development of the Rust Belt?
5. Do you see this US retaining a policy of isolationism?

Let's say that in TTL the Deep South is independent and the Louisiana territory is under the control of a friendly Britain which has no intentions of selling any of its land to the US.

 

[Arkenfolm]

British Louisiana gives the US a powerful local rival which will strongly influence the development of the US military. The Army will be a lot stronger, at the expense of the Navy (although they'll probably get ample amounts of riverboats for protection of the Mississippi frontier).

But otherwise the US still has many of the pull factors which will make it a major destination for immigrants. There's still a substantial amount of resources allowing for the US to easily be the number two industrial power in the world, with only Germany and later Russia posing a real challenge.

 

[Wolttaire]

I’d assume this mean we have a balkanized North America?

 

[NAF]

I’d assume this mean we have a balkanized North America?

Yes. The Louisiana and Oregon territories in TTL are controlled by Britain, the Deep South is independent, and Mexico retains its northern holdings.

 

[Willmatron]

Does this mean the south and east of the Mississippi could be the CSA and with the rest being under control of Mexico, Spain or broke off on their own.

 

[NAF]

Does this mean the south and east of the Mississippi could be the CSA and with the rest being under control of Mexico, Spain or broke off on their own.

Correct.

 

[Histor32]

I think in this scenario you could get Ontario or at least lower Ontario to join at some point as well as nova scotia and maritime's.. A must would be be to secure the St. Lawrence and the great lakes. depending on when this takes place. if there is no south in this revolution you may not get a revolution.

Lets say its a bartered peace. This US is granted independence and the southern colonies choose to remain with the crown. This would get you a nation of potentially but not assured, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi with Florida being taken at a later time.

Next problem is the French still own said Louisiana territory, how did the brits take it? what of Napoleon running around Europe. Mexico stands to be stronger and possibly on par with this smaller united states. You will still have the Native question to be resolved.

The Mississippi depending on how well these nations are getting along .. would be heavily fortified, making it possibly not the highway of the interior it is in our time line.

one last items, once these other territories potentially gain independence who and where do they go to. Canada runs down to the gulf and includes Oregon? Canada would be like the size of Russia. I would also assume in this scenario that Alaska would go to Canada.

Now on to a few points. no this US wouldn't deindustrialize. you still have the great lakes, Appalachia, new England.

Socially? I could foresee them being more progressive. ( by the standards of the time )

oh and another big item too note:
Immigration will be awkward. The US was vast and sparsely populated making it ideal for immigrants. I would assume those coming to the US would be going to the Midwest.

oh oh .. a bigger point. So if the southern states remain british, what happens when slavery is abolished in the empire? Does this prompt another revolutionary war? Does the US help out the southern states or the british. if they do help the british or remain neutral, what do they get for it.

and lets keep playing here. does the war of 1812 still happen.


in 1776 while slavery wasn't exactly liked by the enlightened, it was considered just a "is what it is" type thing at the time.


there is just a crap ton of butterflys here.

 

[Nephi]

The Deep South may end up British again. It seems like it those borders we're post independent US and somehow the British get Louisiana, maybe they find out Spain was going to give it back to France and trade it for a sugar island.

It looks like that would just be Georgia which at one point had calims to the Mississippi River.

Basically they may walk after the articles of confederation are dropped.

Georgia would have issues with Spain over the border with West Florida, unless Britian keeps that too.

But they may well end up back into their fold rather than remain independent.

 

[Thoresby]

1. Almost certainly more socially progressive though without the Deep South it would be massively whiter meaning while you wouldn't have Jim Crow but you also wouldn't have the Civil Rights Movement. Basically more European.
2. Well with the Deep South in a separate country there won't be a Great Migration. It will also be more Yankee without the population replacement of the 19th century of New Englanders moving West and being replaced by new immigrants. Boston won't be an Irish city in this tl.
3. Yes. The area could easily support a population of 100-150 million and with the Great Lakes it would be a major industrial power.
4. Yes. Every Western country has to some extent deindustrialised since the 1950's, even Germany and Japan. Unless you can keep labour costs and this living standards low margin industry (e.g. textiles) is leaving for cheaper shores.
5. Quite likely. While a Great Power if the US has good relations with it's neighbours and other nations (presumably this mega Britain) willing to act as world policeman it would have no motive to develop it's hard power.

 

[Histor32]

1. Almost certainly more socially progressive though without the Deep South it would be massively whiter meaning while you wouldn't have Jim Crow but you also wouldn't have the Civil Rights Movement. Basically more European.
2. Well with the Deep South in a separate country there won't be a Great Migration. It will also be more Yankee without the population replacement of the 19th century of New Englanders moving West and being replaced by new immigrants. Boston won't be an Irish city in this tl.
3. Yes. The area could easily support a population of 100-150 million and with the Great Lakes it would be a major industrial power.
4. Yes. Every Western country has to some extent deindustrialised since the 1950's, even Germany and Japan. Unless you can keep labour costs and this living standards low margin industry (e.g. textiles) is leaving for cheaper shores.
5. Quite likely. While a Great Power if the US has good relations with it's neighbours and other nations (presumably this mega Britain) willing to act as world policeman it would have no motive to develop it's hard power.

I think this megs Britain is over extended. How did the get all of this, the USA isn't going to want to be surrounded.. Would allay with Spain I believe. Still doesn't explain how the got French Louisiana

 

[TheArbiterofAwesome]

Napoleon sold France to the US. I presume the Brits could have got it after they defeated a France who didn't sell.

A good POD may be in the post-revolutionary era when Georgia and South Carolina wanted to import more slaves to replace the large percentage they had lost in the war and the rest were opposed. The rest caved in order to keep the 2 in the fold. Had they stuck to their guns the 2 may have walked. This was shortly before the cotton gin and the explosion in the slave population it caused.

The Deep South may NOT end up as a heavy slave area in this TL. The Creek would make up most of eastern AL and western GA at this time and would have to be beaten by a far weaker opponent in GA/SC. The Chickasaw, Creek, Cherokee, Seminole, & Choctaw were referred to as "The 5 Civilized Tribes" because of how rapidly they assimilated European culture. They were more populous at that point and had already weathered much of the disease issues that took out so many Natives. The Creek alone would have prevented the westward expansion of the Georgians and Carolinians. It took a couple different state militias (over 5000 men) under notorious traitor Andrew Jackson (who was a Tennesseean) as well as allied native armies from the Cherokee (mostly not in the area and not fans of Georgian planters) to defeat the Creeks. In the South there's still a fairly common saying "Lord willing and the Creek don't rise" (meaning "it'll happen if nothing prevents it"). The saying doesn't refer to a water creek, but to the Creek tribe rising in war. That's how powerful a mark they left on the psyche of the settlers in the area that they're still the symbol of a supernaturally immovable force 200 years after the conquest of their homeland.

That doesn't get into how impossible it would be for two weak former colonies to evict the Cherokee from their easily-defended, heavily-wooded, mountain homeland (which included western SC and northern GA).

Basically you're looking at a map with a reduced Georgia holding just the eastern portion of that state and an Alabama and Mississippi split mostly between much more developed Choctaw and Creek nations. The Choctaw and their close relatives the Chickasaw were descendants of the Mississippian culture and would dominate Mississippi on that map. They had particularly close relations with the colonial powers and were known to be happy to trade. They have a very good chance to survive up to now on that map. The British were never particularly invested in settling West Florida beyond Mobile, Pensacola, and Biloxi as trade ports and the same was true of the French and Spanish. There simply wasn't much in the hinterlands that interested them much.