The Collapse of the Farce

I lost track of causation when it came to the convention. Why were things happening the way they did? What was different from OTL? Probably I don't know enough about the original - would you mind sharing? I seemed like the attendance elf state conventions determined everything, but maybe there were missing compromises due to a certain man's absence?

Anyway, overall very interested. Am I right in supposing the issue with the northwest was that Virginia was pushing for established Protestantism?

Edit: Ah. I should have kept reading. Patrick Henry.
 
Last edited:
Has the border in Minnesota changed? It looks like it has changed.

I also note that the southerners are following the old interpretation of West Florida's borders when it was British, rather than the much more southerly interpretation historically taken by the US in relations with Spain. I assume that is weakness?

You know, there may not be war over Vermont, but I can't really see there not being An Incident. If you take my meaning.

One thing that will be critical: the slave trade. In placing much of the Midwest in Virginia, you've increased the land for slavery while the number of slaves is constant. That means eventually prices may surpass OTL, which in turn creates incentive for the trade. That may be exacerbated further because of disrupting politics at precisely the time gradual abolition movements were starting in the north.

Come to think of it, western PA saw an increase in slave use (mostly domestics and iron workers) after gradual abolition was passed. There's a real chance Westsylvania will practice slavery - at least for a time.

The banning of the slave trade was a generation later, and will be rough in this timeline. After all, if one group of states bans it, it becomes more profitable for those still sailing the triangle. Of course, the US is broken up enough that Britain may be able to bully them out of the trade piecemeal as they did some minor powers.

Unrelated: For ancestral and philosophical reasons, I'm hoping Rhode Island follows ideological links and joins the Second Republic.
 
I agree with Thande on the naming. New England was a well-established geographic term, as was Carolina and "the Carolinas." Even if they'd both slapped an "of America" on the end in the heat of the moment, I expect it would be elided out over time in the same way that popular memory forgot the United States of North America.

I think we need a map showing patterns of western settlement and British-held forts. Both have become much more relevant, no?
 
Oh, I forgot economics. Up to the Civil War, most banking in the whole south of the country was done through a single institution in Baltimore. I remember a quote by one Virginian in the period that the south could go it alone and make do, but only if they got Pennsylvania to come with them.

New York will manage, and Rhode Island at least has the Atlantic, but economically the Carolinas are positioned to end up someone's economic colony. Now if it's Spain or Virginia they stick to, the shared interests and similar relative strengths should prevent anything too onerous. But if it's anyone else it'll be a big problem. But honestly even Virginia has a lot of economic and educational infrastructure building to do if it wants it's economic life run from within it's own borders.

The whole is much greater than the sum of its parts....
 

Jasen777

Donor
Edit: Ah. I should have kept reading. Patrick Henry.

Madison isn't there (his death in 1783 is the POD), and he was the largest influence IOTL. And instead of him we have a anti-federalist delegation engineered by Patrick Henry (whose influence in Virginia is even greater than IOTL due to Madison being gone), lead by Richard Henry Lee.

Has the border in Minnesota changed? It looks like it has changed.

I botched it. Of course the border was defined in a way that it couldn't exist (line form the Lake of the Woods west to the Mississippi, they didn't know the Mississippi didn't extend that far), but my new one below is better hopefully.

I also note that the southerners are following the old interpretation of West Florida's borders when it was British, rather than the much more southerly interpretation historically taken by the US in relations with Spain. I assume that is weakness?

Basically. It's the border as Britain had set it when it owned the territory. A secret article in the Treaty of Paris set it where America would claim it, but that was only in the event that Britain retained the territory. Since it was given back to Spain, Spain is claiming the previous border.

Unrelated: For ancestral and philosophical reasons, I'm hoping Rhode Island follows ideological links and joins the Second Republic.

It would indeed be a shame if Rhode Island had to fall in with the Congregationalists.

I agree with Thande on the naming. New England was a well-established geographic term, as was Carolina and "the Carolinas." Even if they'd both slapped an "of America" on the end in the heat of the moment, I expect it would be elided out over time in the same way that popular memory forgot the United States of North America.

I don't know. Admittedly my names were unimaginative, but I just don't see "New England" as an option at this point. Carolinas would work but was that ever used to refer to Georgia after 1732?


The whole is much greater than the sum of its parts....

Yep. It won't be as easy as they expect.

1790final.png
 
Madison isn't there (his death in 1783 is the POD), and he was the largest influence IOTL. And instead of him we have a anti-federalist delegation engineered by Patrick Henry (whose influence in Virginia is even greater than IOTL due to Madison being gone), lead by Richard Henry Lee.

I botched it. Of course the border was defined in a way that it couldn't exist (line form the Lake of the Woods west to the Mississippi, they didn't know the Mississippi didn't extend that far), but my new one below is better hopefully.

Quite so. Although now I'm wondering about Virginia and North Carolina. I'd thought that little jog at the Mississippi end was a later development. No?

Basically. It's the border as Britain had set it when it owned the territory. A secret article in the Treaty of Paris set it where America would claim it, but that was only in the event that Britain retained the territory. Since it was given back to Spain, Spain is claiming the previous border.

It would indeed be a shame if Rhode Island had to fall in with the Congregationalists.

Well, independence would be entertaining as well. But going with the Midatlantic would with make the Second Republic "the Quaker bits, and Maryland." Not that the Quakers were a majority anywhere, but they exerted disproportionate influence even in OTL - that might be magnified in this awkward shaped creature. Religious tolerance and open immigration is a given. Ending the slave trade, a better chance at gradual abolition, wider franchises, prisons aimed at reforming criminals, pacifists in positions of power, recolonization of Africa, maybe even a relatively enlightened Indian policy.... It wouldn't all happen, but it'd certainly all be on the table.

Either way, the space between New York and Virginia is by far the most diverse of the successor republics. The German minority is already large and growing, but there is also still a small cone of Welsh speaking settlements northwest of Philly. I wonder if Philadelphia might edge out Charleston and New York as the main city of Jewish America, given that both screwed up pluralism.

Virginia is the big colonizer now, but that's not going to be the long-term trend. Overflowing Yankees were the core of the big drive west a generation later. At this stage they're still moving into northeastern PA and upstate New York, but mostly they'll still funnel through western PA and end up in the Midwest, starting in the southern half. That means a close ongoing relationship between New England and the Midatlantic. It also means that unless New York gets really serious about sponsoring settlement, most of the settlers in their portion of the west will be coming north from the Pennsylvania belt.

I don't know. Admittedly my names were unimaginative, but I just don't see "New England" as an option at this point. Carolinas would work but was that ever used to refer to Georgia after 1732?

Yep. It won't be as easy as they expect.

Well it should be straightforward. Did people drop "New England" in popular parlance during the revolution? If so, what did they replace it with? If they just kept saying the name while at war with Britain, why wouldn't they use it in this situation?

As for Georgia, they are helpless without outside help. Just about the entire population lives within a couple day's walk of the South Carolina border. Basically they're an appendage of Charleston. I'd say go for it.
 

Jasen777

Donor
Quite so. Although now I'm wondering about Virginia and North Carolina. I'd thought that little jog at the Mississippi end was a later development. No?

Good catch. I had to use a modern map for a base map and didn't even notice the line wasn't straight. That line is really messed up, hopefully my fix is close to correct.


Well it should be straightforward. Did people drop "New England" in popular parlance during the revolution? If so, what did they replace it with?

It's hard to tell from sources what terms people actually used at the time and what is back projection. But my names were lacking, so I'll change it.


As for Georgia, they are helpless without outside help.

Well that is certainly true.


Map - added squares for British held forts.

1790final.png
 
I cann't see New York successfully pressing those far western claims. Between the locals and the British Empire I see some territory reverting ownership. The USA I don't see bailing New York out either, rival and all.

Regarding Vermont, I recall when researching Independent Vermont that New York fid have a long term occupied portion of Southwestern Vermont. And that at one time number of new Hampshire border towns tried to Secede to Vermont.

Alos fo New England I expect the issue of Maine to be a bigger deal there. Both its northern border and its status as part of Massachusetts.
 
I cann't see New York successfully pressing those far western claims. Between the locals and the British Empire I see some territory reverting ownership. The USA I don't see bailing New York out either, rival and all.

Agreed. Eyeballing it my guess would be that the "US" will definitely get all of its claims in the long run, New York all of its contiguous claims, but that at least the Upper Peninsula will remain in British hands. Wisconsin I'd lean toward "US" ownership (the British gave it to the republic, not NY, after all), but it could be picked off by Britain as well if circumstances were right or they decided to try for it.

Lower Michigan will be the main area of conflict as I see it. The British have the strength to take it, if not the will, but in so doing they'd probably drive New York back into the "US" and militarize both. Probably becomes New Yorker (New Yorkish?), but in the long run I can't see them keeping it. It'll want it's own government, which probably entails defection to the Second Republic. Though if they build an Erie Canal, that'll help tie the Michiganders in.

Regarding Vermont, I recall when researching Independent Vermont that New York fid have a long term occupied portion of Southwestern Vermont. And that at one time number of new Hampshire border towns tried to Secede to Vermont.

Alos fo New England I expect the issue of Maine to be a bigger deal there. Both its northern border and its status as part of Massachusetts.

Very interesting about Vermont! Could you direct me to a source?

I disagree in part on the rest of NE, I believe they already solved the Maine issue in cutting a deal with Britain. It certainly looks that way on the map.
 
Last edited:

Jasen777

Donor
New material Monday, I swear :p

And that at one time number of new Hampshire border towns tried to Secede to Vermont.

And at one time they tried to form a state in between New Hampshire and Vermont. Very chaotic situation.

Admiral Matt said:
I believe they already solved the Maine issue in cutting a deal with Britain.

Yes, the border was settled as part of the Adams treaty with Britain (Chapter 3).
 
Agreed. Eyeballing it my guess would be that the "US" will definitely get all of its claims in the long run, New York all of its contiguous claims, but that at least the Upper Peninsula will remain in British hands. Wisconsin I'd lean toward "US" ownership (the British gave it to the republic, not NY, after all), but it could be picked off by Britain as well if circumstances were right or they decided to try for it.

Lower Michigan will be the main area of conflict as I see it. The British have the strength to take it, if not the will, but in so doing they'd probably drive New York back into the "US" and militarize both. Probably becomes New Yorker (New Yorkish?), but in the long run I can't see them keeping it. It'll want it's own government, which probably entails defection to the Second Republic. Though if they build an Erie Canal, that'll help tie the Michiganders in.



Very interesting about Vermont! Could you direct me to a source?

I disagree in part on the rest of NE, I believe they already solved the Maine issue in cutting a deal with Britain. It certainly looks that way on the map.

Agreed there will be a desire to divide and dominate on this "Continent" as well. Of course the USA could get some nice trade deals to keep that from happening? Perhaps Be and USa dividing the Northern West Between them?

I know such an alliance is unlikely, but why not throw out the possibility while we speculate if only to hear why it is ridiculous?

The factor I think you overlook would be the native nations. They face divided invaders but retain Britain as patron. Who knows how well the nations will cooperate in subjugation? And I can't see much in the way of men or money coming from New England in the like to lend a hand.

Who knows maybe Tecumseh will get his Confederation for a time?

Regarding Vermont, I can't offer sources, it as been a long time since that research. So you would have to track such data down. I recall the Allen Cabal was a big player and that Ira Allen was driving for admission to Canada right up to the change in policy by the neighboring states. The deal was meant to be preserving Vermont asp art of Britain.

Of course much like Texas the great drive was admission throughout. Crittenden was titled Governor rather than president and the Vermont Coppers(their minted coins) had the words STELLA. QUARTA. DECIMA. Fourteenth Star.

I see regarding the Michigan border.
 
To continue the issue of Western borders... The jag in the OTL Kentucky-Tennessee border is due to a surveying error which might not happen, or will at least happen in a different way, TTL. I'd draw that border totally straight.

Also, let's remember that New York will get Erie TTL, since they aren't giving their western claims to Congress, and Pennsylvania won't have a need to buy it since they already have Ohio.

I'm also uneasy about New England ceding its claim to the Northwest. Connecticut didn't cede its last bit (the Western Reserve) until 1800(!) OTL, since it needed it to pay its promises of land grants to Revolutionary War veterans. They might be mollified with Maine... but there'd at least be grumbling.
 
Agreed there will be a desire to divide and dominate on this "Continent" as well. Of course the USA could get some nice trade deals to keep that from happening? Perhaps Be and USa dividing the Northern West Between them?

I know such an alliance is unlikely, but why not throw out the possibility while we speculate if only to hear why it is ridiculous?

The factor I think you overlook would be the native nations. They face divided invaders but retain Britain as patron. Who knows how well the nations will cooperate in subjugation? And I can't see much in the way of men or money coming from New England in the like to lend a hand.

Who knows maybe Tecumseh will get his Confederation for a time?

Regarding Vermont, I can't offer sources, it as been a long time since that research. So you would have to track such data down. I recall the Allen Cabal was a big player and that Ira Allen was driving for admission to Canada right up to the change in policy by the neighboring states. The deal was meant to be preserving Vermont asp art of Britain.

Of course much like Texas the great drive was admission throughout. Crittenden was titled Governor rather than president and the Vermont Coppers(their minted coins) had the words STELLA. QUARTA. DECIMA. Fourteenth Star.

I see regarding the Michigan border.

I doubt an outright alliance. No one particularly wants a conflict. I think everyone will try to muddle through and things will fall out roughly the way I mentioned earlier.

The Indians are indeed a big question. Right now any given tribe in the Midwest can negotiate with basically all parties for the best possible deal. Whether any of the deals will be stuck to is another matter, unfortunately. It actually says to me that Tecumseh's unification of the regions tribes would hurt more than help, as it would be the only way to make the successor republics cooperate.
 
New material Monday, I swear :p

And at one time they tried to form a state in between New Hampshire and Vermont. Very chaotic situation.

Yes, the border was settled as part of the Adams treaty with Britain (Chapter 3).

Oh, I just realized something. Virginia and New York enacted legislation requiring members of minor churches to pay for recognized churches. And New England split from its neighbors on a matter of religious policy.

Immediately before the start of the Second Great Awakening.

Historically, IIRC it started in what is here trans-Appalachian Virginia circa 1790. It was most intensely experienced in upstate New York. And it spurred the greatest social reform movements in New England. The preachers who started it are already in place, and now powerful religious and political issues are suddenly in the spotlight.

I'd need to read a lot more, but at a guess against this backdrop it will take off faster. Not sure if it will exacerbate the divisions or obfuscate them, but faith will be a driving force in events for the next generation.

Wow. This is going to be fun.

To continue the issue of Western borders... The jag in the OTL Kentucky-Tennessee border is due to a surveying error which might not happen, or will at least happen in a different way, TTL. I'd draw that border totally straight.

Also, let's remember that New York will get Erie TTL, since they aren't giving their western claims to Congress, and Pennsylvania won't have a need to buy it since they already have Ohio.

Those seem to already be on the map. What about the little bump that happens in the west on the border between North and South Carolina?

I'm wondering how exactly South Carolina will manage with that border. I do agree they wouldn't let Georgia have it all, but well. The solution is rather awkward (not to say it couldn't happen). Perhaps it'll end up being only a temporary solution. Time will tell. But if part of Louisiana falls into Carolinian or American hands in the future, Georgia will seriously regret having a western border!

I'm also uneasy about New England ceding its claim to the Northwest. Connecticut didn't cede its last bit (the Western Reserve) until 1800(!) OTL, since it needed it to pay its promises of land grants to Revolutionary War veterans. They might be mollified with Maine... but there'd at least be grumbling.

Actually, yes. Maybe the process of dissolution and arrangements could be stretched out a bit? Many issues weren't resolved within the union for a long time, it wouldn't make sense for people to get along any more efficiently after they decide to stop cooperating. No reason to change the results shown on the map - just that the kinks may not all be worked out by 1790.

For example, perhaps at the time of this map Massachusetts has sold off its claims to New York, but Connecticut is still holding out. Coastal PA will still be largely inhabited by Connecticutians insisting that they're part of the state's "Western Reserve," while Boston tries to get Hartford to negotiate. The conclusion could be the same, but it might make more sense if it happened a bit later after tempers had cooled a bit.

Or maybe Virginia at that time was negotiating to enter into the leading position with the southern Confederation, but talks drag out. The problem being that under the AoC 75%-majority voting system they'd always be overruled if the other three agreed on anything. And given Virginia's disproportionate strength, that would happen constantly. So after X years of attempting to merge, negotiations peter out.

Or, something to that effect.
 
Last edited:
Ah, great, the Tennessee-Kentucky bump did get corrected in the most recent map. I didn't notice.

The "bump" of South Carolina just west of Charlotte was to enclose all the lands ceded by some Indian tribe whose name I don't remember. The cession occurred well before the Revolution, so that border will turn out the same way TTL.

The border in OTL Alabama-Mississippi is another matter. Going by pre-PoD claims, Georgia should get it all except maybe a thin strip to the north (depending on which stream is deemed to be the source of the Savannah River). They aren't going to give it up easily, but South Carolina isn't going to like that. Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of that land goes to Spain. They weren't able to enforce their claims OTL due to American strength, but against only the Carolinas, they'd have a bigger chance.

And, Admiral Matt, I like your notion of New England's cession of western lands ending up at the result we see on the map, but just taking a lot longer to get there.
 

Jasen777

Donor
Oh, I just realized something. Virginia and New York enacted legislation requiring members of minor churches to pay for recognized churches.

How it works is that they're supposed to pay a tax that goes to the denomination of their choice. Then the denomination's leaders would give the money out to pay pastor's salaries and for church buildings. If they had no preference, the money would be saved to fund seminars in the county the money came from. In practice though it won't be that pretty, for one thing you have to have official recognition of a denomination and recognized leaders...
 

Jasen777

Donor
Interlude

From: Notes on Governments – A Study of 18th Century Republics

Following the collapse of the First Republic 3 regional republics emerged, in roughly the north, middle, and south of the old country. These were: the Republic of New England, the United States of America (the 2nd Republic), and the Confederation of the Carolinas (popularly called just Carolina). There were also states that went independent (some temporarily), but it is the 3 new confederations that are of most interest to us right now. First, a brief overview.

Carolina

The Confederation of the Carolinas was the successor confederation to lest modify the failed Articles of Confederation. This was to prove less than completely satisfactory in the long run.

Carolina consisted of the states: North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. They drew together as a way to help counter balance Virginia, as well as due to Georgia’s desperate concern for assistance in combating the Creeks, and of course, geography. Apparently thinking that the Articles of Confederation were not fatally flawed, but rather that a similar government could work if it involved a smaller number of states with more in common, Carolina made only a few (but significant) changes to the AoC.

The biggest change was undoubtedly that the Confederation Congress was given the power of taxation, that is to set obligatory taxes, and not just request money from the states. The taxes would still be actually collected by agents chosen and paid by the states however, which left some question to how effective this would be.

Members to the Confederation Congress would still be appointed by the state legislatures, with each state getting 5 to 8 members based upon their population (both free and slave) – a compromise between state equality and representation based solely on population. Members could serve for no more than 3 years out of six, and were always subject to recall by their state legislatures. The first session saw 5 representatives from Georgia, 6 from South Carolina, and 8 from North Carolina. A further improvement over the AoC government was that it only took a majority of Congress to pass legislation.

The Carolina government retained some of the serious flaws of the AoC however. Notably, the absence of a national executive or judiciary. In addition, western land claims, including South Carolina's negotiated from Georgia, were retained by the states, demonstrating the clear desire for East Coast interests to stay in domination of the Confederation. There would be no national capital, but Congress would vote on where the next session would meet.

New England

The Republic of New England was the successor confederation in the northeast section of the former country. Consisting originally of Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Hampshire, New England's new government made a much farther break from the old AoC than Carolina. It was a block based on largely similar economies, mutual protection, shared tradition of Congregationalism, and as always, geography. In addition, Massachusetts agreed to split Maine off as its own state in the formation of the new confederation.

The Federal Congress was divided into two houses, the Senate and the House of Representatives. The senate had equal representation for every state (4) appointed by state legislatures, whereas in the House of Representatives the states would have one representative for every 40,000 (or part thereof) free people, with the exception that no state could have 50% of the seats. This saw the first House with 10 representatives from Massachusetts, 6 from Connecticut, 4 from New Hampshire, and 3 from Maine. Representatives would serve two years terms, and Senators would serve 5 year terms and could not serve consecutive terms.

A bare majority of both Houses would be needed to pass bills. Congress had the power to impose taxes, and the national government actually had the ability to collect them through an executive branch.
The Chief Executive was to be nominated by the House of Representatives and confirmed by the Senate. He would be responsible for overseeing the implementing of Congress' directives. The Chief Executive would not have a veto over legislation. He would serve a 2 year term, subject to removal by a majority of both Houses.

The New England national government also instituted a federal court, consisting of 7 judges, for the purposes of settling disputes between the states and between states and the national government. Judges were appointed for a 10 year term by the state supreme courts, with states taking turns in appointment by population (therefore the first court had 2 judges from Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire, and 1 from Maine).

The meeting place for Congress, and thus the default national capital, would rotate between the state capitals until other plans were made.

United States

The successor confederation in the middle part of the country retained the name United States of America. It consisted of initially of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland. In addition, the new state of Westsylvania was created from Pennsylvania and the Old Northwest. The states were those that did not defect from the old union, and shared geographical proximity and religious pluralism, and not necessarily much else. Although Pennsylvania was the dominate force in the group, Delaware and New Jersey needed the union as they were not particularity viable as independents, and Maryland's only other real option was subservience to Virginia.

Like the New England Congress, the USA Congress was divided into two houses and had the power to impose taxes. The Senate was the upper house, consisting of 3 members from each state, serving 4 year terms, with their method of appointment or election left up to their states. The lower house was the House of Representatives and had one member for every 30,000 free people (agreed to over Maryland's objection) or part thereof. Each state was guaranteed 3 representatives in the House, and a single state was linted to one-third of the total (a measure to blunt Pennsylvania’s dominance that they hoped would prove irrelevant as new states joined from the Old Northwest). The first House would see 3 representatives from Westsylvania and Delaware, 6 from New Jersey, 8 from Maryland, and 10 from Pennsylvania. A majority in each House would be necessary to pass bills.

The USA executive branch was to be headed by a 3 man executive council. The first member of which was elected by means of an electoral college where each state selects electors to cast votes for an executive. Each state retained the right to determine the method of choosing electors and each state had the right to select a number equal to their number of representatives in the Senate plus the number of representatives in the House of Representatives (or the number they would be if there were no cap on the number of reps in the House, if higher). The second member of the executive panel would then be selected by the House of Representatives with the provision that he must be a citizen of a different state than the first. The final member would then be appointed by the Senate with the provision that he must be a citizen of a state differing from the first two. All executive panel members would serve four year terms. The executive panel would oversee the implementation of Congress' bills and could veto legislation if all 3 members agreed.

A national court was also set up, similar to New England's, with 9 members who would be nominated by the Senate and confirmed by the Executive council (2 of 3 necessary) and would serve for life.

Philadelphia would serve as the national capital until plans could be determined to build a new capital district.
 
So ny thoughts on how Britain, France, and Spain will react to the break up. And treat the new countries?

Britain, I think will single out New York as its problem. And jockey with Spain and Virginia for influence in the Carolinas. For the rest trade. Maybe also encouraging RI independence quietly?

Will this impact the Revolution in France significantly?
 
Hmm, I hope New York stays independent as it would mean a stronger British North America, and possibly a better deal in the long run for the Native Nations.

I wonder how keen the Carolinas will be on helping Georgia with the Creeks? And will Spain be able o take advantage of the weak confederation to the North?
 
Top