Smallest United States?

Driftless

Donor
No Louisiana Purchase means the USA stops at the Mississippi from Minnesota to perhaps Vicksburg, MS. There is no US Gulf Coast as the acquisition of Florida, which included the Gulf Coast of Alabama and over to where Louisiana (including parts of Mississippi) probably doesn't happen. With the "hard border" (the Mississippi river) between French territory and the USA more or less stopping north of OTL's Minneapolis/St Paul you could see some extension of the USA including perhaps some slice of southern Canadian prairies but very likely only a small chunk of Northern Minnesota beyond the headwaters Mississippi is part of the USA.

This USA is still a large country with significant agricultural potential and natural resources, if it gets Florida and the Alabama Gulf Coast so much the better. I expect west of the Mississippi you'll get some mix of Spanish derived entities, French derived, British, and possibly even Russian. All this being said there is no reason that this USA essentially the east of the Mississippi OTL USA won't survive.

In the summer of 1814 a relatively small British and Indian allies force was in military control of the upper Mississippi down to the Illinois border area. Not many men, but they held several key points along the river. Those British gains got set aside following the end of the war; but it could have become an issue, I suppose.

The British garrison at Prairie du Chien also fought off another attack by Major Zachary Taylor. In this distant theatre, the British retained the upper hand until the end of the war, through the allegiance of several indigenous tribes that received British gifts and arms, enabling them to take control of parts of what is now Michigan and Illinois, as well as the whole of modern Wisconsin.[136] In 1814 U.S. troops retreating from the Battle of Credit Island on the upper Mississippi attempted to make a stand at Fort Johnson, but the fort was soon abandoned, along with most of the upper Mississippi valley.[137]

After the U.S. was pushed out of the Upper Mississippi region, they held on to eastern Missouri and the St. Louis area. Two notable battles fought against the Sauk were the Battle of Cote Sans Dessein, in April 1815, at the mouth of the Osage River in the Missouri Territory, and the Battle of the Sink Hole, in May 1815, near Fort Cap au Gris.[138]

At the conclusion of peace, Mackinac and other captured territory was returned to the United States. At the end of the war, some British officers and Canadians objected to handing back Prairie du Chien and especially Mackinac under the terms of the Treaty of Ghent. However, the Americans retained the captured post at Fort Malden, near Amherstburg, until the British complied with the treaty.[139]
 
Last edited:

Saphroneth

Banned
The War of 1812 was the US attacking by surprise and trying to annex Canada while Britain was as occupied as it is possible for Britain to be (i.e. sustaining a blockade of most of the continent of Europe, funding the entire Coalition and also supporting a large continental army) without attacking enemy troops actually in Britain.

The fact that it ended with the US having lost its capital, the frontier not moving, some US states deciding to stop participating in the fight and the economy in freefall... demonstrates that the US can't really prosecute offensive war against Britain at that point.

Against someone else is... possible, but only if the US gets to fight an enemy who can't control the sealanes or who has no overseas support. (Taking French territories while the French navy is blockaded by the RN is doable, for example.)


Now, we should remember here that we're not asking "what happens if the US doesn't get X purchase". We're asking "how small can the US realistically be".
This means we should consider multiple paths of weakening the ability of the US to gobble up large chunks of land.

Here's one: the slavery issue is a deal breaker at the constitutional convention.
Here's another: Napoleon suffers an unfortunate death in 1812-13 and his successor accepts one of the peace offers. The US is now facing a pissed off Britain's main effort (much) earlier than OTL.
A third is the lack of Louisiana purchase.

Throw any two of those together and you've got a recipe for a smaller US.

There's also that if you can make the US less stable (i.e. make it less of an inviting destination for migrants, and specifically make it not look like the best choice) then you reduce the population powe the US can bring to bear.

So if you put that lot together, you can have:

A Northern US which consists of the Northern states, which has just been damaged heavily by an attempt to annex Canada.
A Southern US which consists of the Southern states, and has issues from slavery.
And a French-aligned state in the transmississippi, which is now the premier destination for migrants because it has plenty of land and doesn't look too unstable.

Natural boundaries - the Virginia border and the Mississippi. Whichever US you pick (Northern or Southern) it's rather smaller than OTL and has lower growth potential.


Not perhaps the most plausible - but we're not being asked for the most plausible.
 
The smallest possible United States sees the Thirteen States freed from British rule, but with areas west of the Proclamation line of 1763 remaining British (or indigenous ruled) if not reassigned to France or Spain.

A U.S. with a western border on the Mississippi River is both likelier and more interesting.
 

B-29_Bomber

Banned
I'm going to disagree that the US could survive. You had plots to separate trans-Appalachia by General Wilkinson and Aaron Burr, and even Hamilton had similar ideas separate from those two. Jefferson believed the US would take Louisiana regardless of buying it, and separate from Burr's treasonous ideas of conquering it, was telling the army (including a young William Clark) to map and spy on Spanish fortifications along the Mississippi. Daniel Boone and his children already lived in Spanish Louisiana along with lots of other Americans. You can't hold on to the Trans-Appalachia without the Louisiana Purchase and control of New Orleans until 1825 and the Erie Canal, and even then the decline of the Spanish threat and the rise of Napoleon did more to make the "west" not want to go independent or join the Spanish sphere than anything else.

I think the smallest the US can be (and be united, not devolving into states) is Jay's Treaty area plus Louisiana Purchase and a much smaller Texas (Nueces River border). A PoD of 1848 going bad for the US, the US doesn't invade Mexico or loses and this causes the British to thumb their noses at the US threats of war over Oregon/Columbia. The Adams-Onis Treaty remains the western border of the US, except for the rump Texas that is annexed. The reason I believe Texas is taken is that Americans had already spilled in sizeable numbers, hard to have a PoD that changes American culture of moving into western lands regardless of caring what the national flag over the land is. Americans just don't care who controls the politics, they just want land, it's when the laws don't suit them (especially regarding slavery) that they turn back to the US and want the army to save them and carry the flag to them.

Even then such a US will be under three pressures to be bigger-

1) Mormons exist. Mormons went to "Utah" before the annexation. Mormons under Mexican rule... they will, as all American ex-pats, be calling sooner or later on the US army to come in. Or they'll rebel on their own, setting up Deseret which will, as per Texas Republic, call on the US.

2) Astor family exists. They'll be pressuring the US on securing trade routes, coaling stations, protection of fur and fishing rights in the north Pacific and Alaska, and California etc. US may become a Pacific power without Oregon Country or California.

3) Slavery. Hard to butterfly away taking Florida, West Florida as with Texas had quite a bit of American immigration and was arguably American per the Louisiana Purchas and unless you butterfly away Jackson and the other southerners wanting to protect the borders and expand slavery you're going to have Florida. Platt Amendment might not occur to keep the US out of annexing Cuba as the US southern states will need more lebensraum to counter the geographic advantage to the North in extending further west in this ATL. Could still see a Spanish-American War and slavery extension to Cuba and Puerto Rico as there might not be a 1860s Civil War over the issue without Mexican Cessation.

Anything smaller than this description of an ATL and the US simply doesn't have the transportation or technology to stay together long enough for such infrastructure as needed to keep it together. Remember- the reason California became a state (without meeting the population requirement) and the Trans-Pacific RR was built towards the end of the Civil War because it was truly seriously believed that control over California was very tenous and it could go its own way. People don't realize how close the US came to not having some territories.

The Mormons weren't particularly loyal to the US. A great deal of the reason why they headed to Utah in the first place was the mistreatment they suffered at the hands of their countrymen.
 
The Mormons weren't particularly loyal to the US. A great deal of the reason why they headed to Utah in the first place was the mistreatment they suffered at the hands of their countrymen.

I'm not quite sure that's true. When the Mormons went to Utah they believed the US would be taking that land from the Mexicans very soon (in fact it would only be about a year). Mormons have always uniquely associated their religion as "American" and have been quite loyal. They fought alongside the US during the Mexican-American War and they helped build the Trans-Continental Railroad. They easily could have tried rebelling or aiding the CSA during the US Civil War but didn't. While they were mistreated in Upstate NY, Illinois, and especially in Missouri (did you know Adam and Eve lived in Missouri?!) they also had found friends and supporters (even a young Abraham Lincoln for some time).
 
I'm not quite sure that's true. When the Mormons went to Utah they believed the US would be taking that land from the Mexicans very soon (in fact it would only be about a year). Mormons have always uniquely associated their religion as "American" and have been quite loyal. They fought alongside the US during the Mexican-American War and they helped build the Trans-Continental Railroad. They easily could have tried rebelling or aiding the CSA during the US Civil War but didn't. While they were mistreated in Upstate NY, Illinois, and especially in Missouri (did you know Adam and Eve lived in Missouri?!) they also had found friends and supporters (even a young Abraham Lincoln for some time).

The Mormon Church was driven out of Missouri (their Zion) by force of arms and latter driven from the refuge in Illinois. Later a Federal Army was sent to Utah to compel submission to the USA. Later a couple of decades after the Civil War Mormons were for a time stripped of most of their Citizenship Rights. This is in the time frame when Mitt Romney's great grandfather led a Church colony to Mexico.
 
United States stops of the Appalachian Mountains the British keep the land between Mountains and the Mississippi and then it falls apart, New England goes its own way, the south is reabsorbed and their borders expanded to the sea (They really stop at the Mississippi but their colonial charters says from sea to sea) the United States forms stretching from Delaware to New York, it is a long narrow country, New York and Pennsylvania are only about a third the size of our time line states.
 
The failure of the Louisiana Purchase does not lead to an American loss in the War of 1812, thus no reason to expect that the "old Northwest" does not come under proper US control as it did OTL. If, for whatever reason, the Louisiana Purchase does not go through if Spain regains Louisiana with the defeat of Napoleon (maybe) then its likely Florida does not get transferred, if France keeps Louisiana then Spain is still likely to sell Florida to the USA. A USA that ends at the Mississippi does not mean that the south will break away early on due to slavery. Since the territory east of the Mississippi will be determined slave/free early on, you won't have the issue of the extension of slavery west of the Mississippi which was such a heated cause OTL.
 
The failure of the Louisiana Purchase does not lead to an American loss in the War of 1812, thus no reason to expect that the "old Northwest" does not come under proper US control as it did OTL. If, for whatever reason, the Louisiana Purchase does not go through if Spain regains Louisiana with the defeat of Napoleon (maybe) then its likely Florida does not get transferred, if France keeps Louisiana then Spain is still likely to sell Florida to the USA. A USA that ends at the Mississippi does not mean that the south will break away early on due to slavery. Since the territory east of the Mississippi will be determined slave/free early on, you won't have the issue of the extension of slavery west of the Mississippi which was such a heated cause OTL.

I largely agree, but could still see Spain parting with Florida nonetheless.
 
French Revolution? I apologize I assumed you meant the US Revolution, I suggest you be more specific in the future and as I should not have assumed US you should not assume everyone is going to assume French. But I did not ever say that America could take what it wants. I was simply saying you are incorrect in saying America couldn't hold it's own against French and British navies. The War of 1812 did prove that America could handle war with the British and survive, before then it wasn't clear if America could defend itself. You're making the USA seem weaker than it was. The Barbary Wars proved America to have quite a skilled shipbuilding industry and great captains with both equal to anything seen in Europe, many of those same naval heroes went on to War of 1812 to do more heroic deeds.
Your name is Napoleonrules and when somebody says "The Revolution" you don't automatically assume it's the French Revolution? Something is wrong here. ;)
 
if you get rid of the French Revolution, a lot changes.

For starters, Britain doesn't start mending fences with the US (Jay treaty) mid 1890's in an effort to separate them from the French.
Spain remains stronger (although it is declining, it doesn't go through the cataclysmic decline from the French invasion). A kickarse bonus would be to have Godoy kick the bucket early and a competent leader emerge.
With Britain still sparring diplomatically with the US, and Spain in a stronger position, it doesn't kowtow to the US, and retains its claimed territory of everything south and west of the Tennessee River, and presses its claim for Florida being at the English border. If they can pull that off, USA loses states of Mississippi, Alabama, half of Georgia, a third of Tennessee and a portion of Kentucky.

With Britain being unfettered of the FR and Nap wars, they could press Canadian claims to half of Maine, and refuse to give up the portions of the NW territory they were still in possession of (but were supposed to turn over after the American Revolution.

That's before the states start breaking apart.

depending on what the OP means by 'post revolution', if the constitution isn't ratified, and/or a weaker confederation emerges, you have a weak/disunited USA, which helps enable all of the above.
 
Top