In a Balkanized america who will the be the closest to a great power

Assuming all of norh america is Balkanized at some point in the 1800s which state and or country would become the closest thig to a great or secondary regonial power
Both mexico and canada are balanakzied along with the carribean Central America and the carribean
 
Depends on any regional alliances that would form. In this case, New York and New England would be one for most of the 1800's due to industrial capacity. Ditto for the Great Lakes states in such a position.

Historically, no state had enough population to be dominant over the others individually. Today, this isn't the case, California and Texas would be on their own.
 

SinghKing

Banned
Depends on any regional alliances that would form. In this case, New York and New England would be one for most of the 1800's due to industrial capacity. Ditto for the Great Lakes states in such a position.

Historically, no state had enough population to be dominant over the others individually. Today, this isn't the case, California and Texas would be on their own.

1800's- early 1800's? Would California, Texas and all of Mexico's former northern territories still be Mexican (initially at least) in such a TL? IMHO, the Republic of Texas (which would be vastly expanded) and R.o.California (likewise, all too easily) would still probably be the most likely candidates to become America's Great Powers.
 
1800's- early 1800's? Would California, Texas and all of Mexico's former northern territories still be Mexican (initially at least) in such a TL? IMHO, the Republic of Texas (which would be vastly expanded) and R.o.California (likewise, all too easily) would still probably be the most likely candidates to become America's Great Powers.

I agree. I think the question is, how expansionist do they want to be? I could certainly see them carving up the American Southwest at the very least and maybe even dominating everything west of the Mississippi from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico.
 
1800's- early 1800's? Would California, Texas and all of Mexico's former northern territories still be Mexican (initially at least) in such a TL? IMHO, the Republic of Texas (which would be vastly expanded) and R.o.California (likewise, all too easily) would still probably be the most likely candidates to become America's Great Powers.

Given that California flirted with joining the British Empire IRL with a strong US just to it's east what are the chances that it would join if the USA didn't exist?

I would have to say that New York / New England would be the most likely, although at best as a regional power.
 
It really matters how and why this Balkanization occurs. But if we assume this happens somewhese in the 1820-1840 period, I think you need to look to the most developed areas with the greatest population for starters. To me that means northeastern North America (Pennsylvania/New York north into Lower Canada) and Central Mexico as the locations where the great powers are most likely to evolve.

I strongly believe that anything which balkanizes the early US into several nations would very likely butterfly away Texas and/or California as major powers simply because the population movements that ultimately made them the two most populous and "powerful" States in OTL's USA required the existence of an expansionist and united USA. When they were part of New Spain or Mexico, they were backwaters.
 
there will always be a settler expansion mindset. people will move west, and move west again. The difference is that the political mindset of expand and then join the US is going to be different. The breakaway areas are just as likely to set up their own gov't rather than join one of the small Balkan states.

And, there may not be as many people to expand, especially as the 19th century rolls on. The massive immigration patterns were partially formed by the romantic notion of the US as some bastion of hope. With balkanization, and petty squabbles/wars, along with more intervention from European powers, that aura of hope may not arise, and the immigrants may go elsewhere. With a lower level of settler expansion, the Texans (for example) may be quite content to live relatively uninhibited by a distant Mexico City gov't, and eventually assimilate.
 
Pretty much any scenario could happen, and balkanization in the early 1800's is a very different beast from the late 1800's.

In 1800, Virginia is the most populous state (807,557), with very high chances of expansion into the currently "territory" of the Great Lakes Region. Given it's political power at the time, it's not impossible to see it expand well and keep on growing. However, the large slave population and the slower population growth it saw OTL may make this hard (by 1900, Virginia + West Virginia would have been the 7th most populous state at around 2.8m).

Pennsylvania was the second most populous state in 1800 (602,545), and remained the second most populous one throughout the entire century (reaching 6,302,115 in 1900). It was similarly well placed for good expansion into the Great Lakes, and probably has better long term industrial prospects that Virginia, but it suffers from lacking coastal access, which would be especially damaging as an independent nation (meaning it would have no independent access to world trade and migrants, which could massively cut its potential.) It is also right inbetween two populous neighbours that - if relations turn sour - could well decide to "claim" some of its land.

New York had become the most populous state by 1810 (959,049) and stayed like that throughout the century (7,268,894 in 1900). It has the advantage of having a great port city (NYC) that would have been prime for immigration in favourable circumstances, thus giving it an advantage in growth, and it already had a great industrial base. It's disadvantage is that same city however, located in a horrible strategic location if there were ever any conflict between it and neighbours. It is also "hemmed in" by other states and by Canada; meaning it has to resort to force or to some form of micro-federalization in order to expand. *if* it achieves either successfully (whether to the north forming a "Greater New England", or to the south/west taking Penn land), it becomes the undisputed hegemon of the early century.

These three states (or any combination of them) are the main contenders for the early part of the century, and it comes down to who is able to expand into Ohio and the great lakes.

Take it to late-century however, and it becomes a very different beast.

The northern/great lakes states are still the most populous, but cannot really "expand" territorially, having to rely on growth within their borders instead. Whoever manages to create some sort of "federation" of a region of states will most likely win. If nobody makes a federation, NY/Penn/Ohio/Illinois stand the best chance, remaining prosperous immigration magnets from Europe that can keep growing in population until they reach European density levels. NY still has the advantage of NYC and direct access to the sea.

Texas and California are still pretty bare on population, and without being part of the United States would be less attractive as destinations for immigration (though they would still see some; Texas more than California due to ease of access). It would likely be too late however to establish the necessary "base" to become a great power in the next century.
 
don't forget, although Britain gave up the northwest territory on paper to settle the revolution, they didn't fully move out til after the war of 1812. If US balkanizes prior to that war, I'd wager that Britain would have held onto it, and no balkanized state is going to be able to force them out. So, don't count on that territory for any of the states.
 
I believe Virginia would dominate the middle Atlantic and some of the Ohio Valley fairly easily, with fierce competition with Penn and the Carolina's being the only thing really keeping them in check, especially when coal becomes important
 
Top