The Divided Nations of America

I went back several pages to see if any one had done this before, no one had. So what if the American Government failed to reconcile the Articles of Cofederation and make the constitution we know today. In the absence of a strong central government do the states become seperate countries? Does England swoop in and take over each new nation one at a time tell they control the colonies again? Do some of the Nations try and take French land? Does France try and take over some of the seperate nations? and what kind of world would It be if the States had become Nations?
 
You would probably see the New England states form a new country. Georgia would also own Alabama and Mississippi. Virginia would be another regional powerhouse.

This fracture would allow England to retake the colonies much easier. But you must remember how war-weary the general populance was. Combined with the French revolution around the corner and conflicts in other colonies, I can't see an immediate renewal of the war.

I don't know what would happen with the Louisiana purchase, maybe it is parceled amongst the states, or Mexico could get it.

From there on out, the butterflies would be massive you might want to devote a whole timeline to this.
 
You would probably see the New England states form a new country. Georgia would also own Alabama and Mississippi. Virginia would be another regional powerhouse.

This fracture would allow England to retake the colonies much easier. But you must remember how war-weary the general populance was. Combined with the French revolution around the corner and conflicts in other colonies, I can't see an immediate renewal of the war.

I don't know what would happen with the Louisiana purchase, maybe it is parceled amongst the states, or Mexico could get it.

From there on out, the butterflies would be massive you might want to devote a whole timeline to this.

Actually the reason why I asked it was because I was planning on making a timeline based on a division of the states.Would the states band together to keep the british out if they attaked?
 
I went back several pages to see if any one had done this before, no one had. So what if the American Government failed to reconcile the Articles of Cofederation and make the constitution we know today. In the absence of a strong central government do the states become seperate countries? Does England swoop in and take over each new nation one at a time tell they control the colonies again? Do some of the Nations try and take French land? Does France try and take over some of the seperate nations? and what kind of world would It be if the States had become Nations?

If one has been here a few years that one has seen everything. While this has been discussed before, there is nothing like a fresh debate - since you are not posting an ATL.

In essence, the Articles of Confederation weren't that bad and really could have lasted for many decades to come. The central government could be strengthened to a degree that still lets the states retain their sovereignty.

The English are not going to try taking over the independent states since there is no way that they can militarialy take them back and not have them be a constant drain financially.
 
That would probably prompt them to form a closer union, or at the very least, a federation that can rasie taxes to fund a standing army. If they don't have an army to fight with, eventually they will be invaded and there is nothing the state militias could do about it.

You main powers would be (probably)
-New England Confederacy (Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Conneticut)

-New York

-Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware and Maryland might form some kind of a federation, I am unclear on their immediately post-war histories.

-Virginia

-Carolinas (Maybe, if so South Carolina would be the economic powerhouse)

-Georgia (If it didn't join this carolina union, they could potentially follow our timeline and buy Alabama and Mississippi)


An interesting thought is what would become of the Cherokee nation, for that matter, all of the other Indian nations still around. There would be no centralized american government to drive them on a trail of tears.
 
I considered writing a TL on this a few months back. I kind of got stuck on exactly what to do with the Louisiana Purchase and I never got back to it so I never posted it.

I think that initially all of the states would break up, and then later New England might form some sort of federation. You also have to remember that most of the states had western claims before they ceded that land to the federal government. So Kentucky stays part of Virginia, Tennessee part of North Carolina, and Georgia holding the northern portions of Mississippi and Alabama (they would eventually have to negotiate a treaty with Spain on the exact boundary with Florida, just as the US did in OTL). Also there were the many conflicting claims that Virginia, Pennsylvania and New York made in the Northwest Territory. Without a federal government to mediate, there could be some tension or even war. I think that some of these small states would make alliances with European powers, and eventually American geopolitics could simply become an extension of European geopolitics (like in Turtledove's TL-191). There is also the problem of Louisiana, which is where I got stuck. France was desperate to sell because without Haiti it was both useless and indefensible to them. That is why they sold it. However, I don't think any of the individual states would have the resources to purchase it. Does Napoleon partition it and sell it to various states? If so which ones get which parts? Does he try to defend it or use it as a base for an invasion of Canada? That may overextend the French, Spanish and British armies and lead to interesting Napoleonic Wars. Does he try to sell it to another European power? If so who? These questions are made even more complicated when you consider that Spain sold it to France in a secret treaty, so as far as the rest of the world knows, it is still Spanish territory.
 
Well, the carolinas were originally colonized by a group of proprieters from england (I believe, I can't really remember that much of state history). Beyond that, it seems like a logical union due to their similiar economy and proximity to eachother, incase of foreign agression.

Another interesting factor is currency. Will each state continue to print its own money? If so, inflation will continue to rise and you could see a massive economic crisis.
 
I considered writing a TL on this a few months back. I kind of got stuck on exactly what to do with the Louisiana Purchase and I never got back to it so I never posted it.

I think that initially all of the states would break up, and then later New England might form some sort of federation. You also have to remember that most of the states had western claims before they ceded that land to the federal government. So Kentucky stays part of Virginia, Tennessee part of North Carolina, and Georgia holding the northern portions of Mississippi and Alabama (they would eventually have to negotiate a treaty with Spain on the exact boundary with Florida, just as the US did in OTL). Also there were the many conflicting claims that Virginia, Pennsylvania and New York made in the Northwest Territory. Without a federal government to mediate, there could be some tension or even war. I think that some of these small states would make alliances with European powers, and eventually American geopolitics could simply become an extension of European geopolitics (like in Turtledove's TL-191). There is also the problem of Louisiana, which is where I got stuck. France was desperate to sell because without Haiti it was both useless and indefensible to them. That is why they sold it. However, I don't think any of the individual states would have the resources to purchase it. Does Napoleon partition it and sell it to various states? If so which ones get which parts? Does he try to defend it or use it as a base for an invasion of Canada? That may overextend the French, Spanish and British armies and lead to interesting Napoleonic Wars. Does he try to sell it to another European power? If so who? These questions are made even more complicated when you consider that Spain sold it to France in a secret treaty, so as far as the rest of the world knows, it is still Spanish territory.

Well on the subject of Louisiana...somethiong to consider....One of the compelling reasons for Spain to agree to the retrocession was that France would have the burden of forstalling American encroachement on New Spain.

With the states divided the threat to New Spain is not so compelling from the Spanish point of view, they may not even retrocede it.

Really though it depends on how Georgia and Spain have dealt with the West Florida border issue, and how Virginia/New York/Pennsylvania/Connecticut/Massachusetts and Britain have come to terms over the NW.

Britain is still afterall likely to have its outstanding issues from the Treaty of Paris that were addressed OTL in the Jay treaty of 1796. Here argueable the individual states are in a a much lesser bargaining position because of there more disunited state and even their own tensions over there various overlapping claims. Britain for instance is in a position to play the needs of one group against another. A deal with Virginia and the New England states ( assuming their claims ) could result in effective partition of the region between Virginia and British UC. With perhaps a portionof the Ohio Country going to Pennsylvania. Campaigns against the Indian Confederacy of the NW would also occur piecemeal. Probably more as a Virginia project than amnything else.

Something else to consider, none of the individual state/countries will want one of the other's to have sole control of New Orleans. Better it be held by Spain for instance such that all are on a level playing field as regards the export of goods from their western territiories.
 
Last edited:
An interesting thought is what would become of the Cherokee nation, for that matter, all of the other Indian nations still around. There would be no centralized american government to drive them on a trail of tears.

There would have been an Indian war with the state of Georgia against the Cherokees. American settlers were encroaching upon Indian territory by the time Jackson became president. While it is sorrowful that the Cherokee were removed, on the other hand Jackson did probably save thousands by defusing the possibility of war.
 
Since the US Constitution clearly did not grant the president the power to purchase such territory to begin, why would the AoC not be applied in the same fashion.
 
I went back several pages to see if any one had done this before, no one had. So what if the American Government failed to reconcile the Articles of Cofederation and make the constitution we know today. In the absence of a strong central government do the states become seperate countries?
Curiously, Harry Turtledove I think it was made a book about this premise. The states all become independent countries this way just after the ARW basically and nobody takes them over. The richest nation in the continent is California, which is where the main character comes from but the story takes place in the nation of Ohio...


Yeah, I don't get it either.
 
There would have been an Indian war with the state of Georgia against the Cherokees. American settlers were encroaching upon Indian territory by the time Jackson became president. While it is sorrowful that the Cherokee were removed, on the other hand Jackson did probably save thousands by defusing the possibility of war.

Hardly "saving." The Trail of Tears killed 1/4 to 1/3 of the Cherokee nation alone, not to mention the others killed by forced removal of tribes in both the SE and the midwest.

Jackson's intent was never noble. He was elected on a crass promise to steal Indian land and give it to whites. "Vote yourself a farm!" Had he never agitated for removal, it would not have come about so soon and on such extreme terms.

A brutal war with GA is still quite likely, but the Cherokee would have the option of moving to the Carolinas or Tennessee (depending on what TN is part of ITTL). Or even appealing to them as fellow "civilized" Christian people, which the Cherokee and Baptist missionaries did very effectly IOTL, nearly winning the vote against removal.
 
I think that initially all of the states would break up, and then later New England might form some sort of federation. You also have to remember that most of the states had western claims before they ceded that land to the federal government.

Didn't they give up those claims directly after the end of the AWI? I thought due to the fiancial burden of the war, that's something that they all agreed to do. If a breakup occurs after this ... do they just reassert their claims? That's not going to go over well with some of the states, and while the British most likely won't get directly involved militarily again at this point, they would be all to happy to play off the states and regions against each other by 'recognizing' one states claims to a region and ignoring others. Add a little fire to the smoke. I suppose either by reasserting their claims or via just pouring or funneling settlers into area they are definitely going to wanting the land.

So Kentucky stays part of Virginia, Tennessee part of North Carolina, and Georgia holding the northern portions of Mississippi and Alabama (they would eventually have to negotiate a treaty with Spain on the exact boundary with Florida, just as the US did in OTL).

Well, continuing from above I think the territories and lands that the states claim and try to settle will be absorbed as part of the states the majority of the populations come from. Thus, like you said you won't have Kentucky, just a larger new Western part of Virginia. Those states with the greatest opportunity to increase in size might eventually find if transportation is too slow to bind the state together, elements of it might seek their own version of independance. Example, perhaps those on differnt sides of the Appalacian mountains. The smaller states that seem to have little chance at more land most likely will create financial and trading ties with each other at some point. A New England state is very likely.

Also there were the many conflicting claims that Virginia, Pennsylvania and New York made in the Northwest Territory. Without a federal government to mediate, there could be some tension or even war.

There's going to be a lot of tension, that's a certainty. If Britain plays her hand too hard, she'll keep the states frightened enough they'll likely keep cooler heads. But if the Brits show themselves uninterested or involved elsewhere than some settler conflicts could happen, followed by state militias being deployed and if stupid decisions are made even worse.

I think that some of these small states would make alliances with European powers, and eventually American geopolitics could simply become an extension of European geopolitics (like in Turtledove's TL-191).

I don't see this happening. At least not for several years, unless events push them into it. I think there is an ardent anti-European spirit in the states at this time. They had forged something different than the 'old Europe' and besides commercial ties were leery or any bonds or alliances with European powers. Avoiding entangling alliances makes for great policy, but over time it's likely to be forgotten or events change things. So, perhaps eventually the regions and states do get pulled into the 'great game'. Makes for a very interesting map and North America. Love to see a map.

There is also the problem of Louisiana, which is where I got stuck. France was desperate to sell because without Haiti it was both useless and indefensible to them. That is why they sold it. However, I don't think any of the individual states would have the resources to purchase it. Does Napoleon partition it and sell it to various states? If so which ones get which parts?

Hmmmm, I'm trying to remember which states gave Jefferson so much grief after buying the land. Read several books about the period and their impact on the Lewis and Clark venture but am blanking. I see Virginia being a power, especially early on in contrast to most of the states. I could see her possibly trying to make the purchase but there is going to be a lot of 'diplomacy' with the states afterwards possibly resulting in parties buying the bits they want or need from Virginia. A Virginia stretching from her Atlantic port, to the Mississippi and then down to the gulf makes for a very powerful country. One state with Richmond/Atlantic outlets, Saint Louis and the River, along with New Orleans and the Gulf trade is gold! If the Southern states don't reach agreements with or are naive enough not to sense the importance they are just asking to be swallowed up eventually in some form or another. Lots of butterflies
 
Hmmmm, I'm trying to remember which states gave Jefferson so much grief after buying the land. Read several books about the period and their impact on the Lewis and Clark venture but am blanking.

The states considering secession over the Louisiana Purchase were the New England states. They seem to have favoured the idea of secession only for themselves since they thought about more often than we currently give them credit for.
 
Didn't they give up those claims directly after the end of the AWI? I thought due to the fiancial burden of the war, that's something that they all agreed to do. If a breakup occurs after this ... do they just reassert their claims?

The states gradually gave up their claims from 1782-1802. So some of the claims still existed in 1789, and those that had been given up would probably be reasserted in this TL.
 
The states gradually gave up their claims from 1782-1802. So some of the claims still existed in 1789, and those that had been given up would probably be reasserted in this TL.

Ah, I see. Thanks ... I'm guessing that I was just assuming that the 'call to give up the claims' equaled much faster actions by the states. Suggested reading for some interesting quirks concerning the claims and territories is the book "How the States got their Shapes". Pretty interesting and a quick read.
 
It seems to me that the easiest way to look at Louisiana is to say that it becomes an independant nation. I'm not sure after that. Full Republic of Texas tough.
 
Texas is actually probably less likely to form as its own republic, due to the lack of a unified america to fight the Mexican War. I can see Napolean parceling up the territory and selling it the various states and Spanish Mexico, meaning an eventually enlarged Mexico. I suppose britain, and later Canada would get both Alaska and the Oregon territory.
 
Top