US Collapse/Failed State before 1900?

Perhaps even worse civil war, but I don't know how it could happen.

Or, on the flipside, no Civil War at all, with slavery surviving until about 1900 or so, until the economy suffers a major breakdown, and/or political unrest explodes into full-blown societal violence; I actually started a mini-TL on this very scenario(list-based, which was inspired by another list done by Lost The Game a while back), but the U.S. ended up under Socialist administration(some inspiration from Red Dawn, there), so that may or may not quite count, depending on the criteria, but I'd think so.
 
The U.S. probably would have collapsed if it didn't reform the Articles of Confederation.

That's also plausible as well, I think. Although I think the most likely scenario there is that it'd probably split into two or three successor nations, depending on what the Mid-Atlantic states do; perhaps, for example, "Columbia" for New England and New York + New Jersey, the "American Federation", of Pennsylvania, Maryland and Delaware(and may or may not include part or all of Virginia) with claims to at least a good part of the Northwest Territory, and all the rest might just call themselves the "Confederate States of America"(yeah, cliche, I know.), or something along those lines.
 
but the U.S. ended up under Socialist administration(some inspiration from Red Dawn, there), so that may or may not quite count, depending on the criteria, but I'd think so.

Ending up under a certain political ideology doesn't in any way default into being a failed state. Thats not to say that certain ideologies can't end up being failed states, but except for certain anarchistic and/or anti-authoritarian ideologies, it rarely have any direct influence on a state's succes.

You think most of Europe is a failed state since they (with northern europe being the most triumphant example) have governments fairly close to what most Americans think of when they say socialism? looking at where most of the worlds democratic population is standing on political ideology, its USA thats an outlier, with even their far left wing being fairly centrist in most other (westernized) countries.

And before being smart and saying USSR, that was more of a dictatorship (well, tyrannical Oligrachy / Junta ), dolling themselves up in the clothes of 'Commuism' as that is an easier sell. And their failure was due to the rulers more than the ideology they were said to be following
 
There are two or three possibilities. I will list them in what I believe is order of likelihood

1. A failure of the Constitutional Convention to create an effective central government for the US, leading to the gradual balkanization of the original 13-state "USA" into several squabbling independent nations, competing over the western lands, and evolving radically different political structures, none of which would become powerful enough to resist any subsequent attempts by Spain, France, Britain, etc. to exert their authority in North America. At best, these several nations eventually expand to the Mississippi River, but no farther, and none of them control its mouth, which remains French or Spanish (and possibly eventually, Mexican or controlled by some other sucessor states of Spanish or French empires.

2. Victory of the Confederacy in the American Civil War. Not only would the original USA cease to exist as a unified nation, the victory of succession as a concept might easily lead to further regional secession movements in both sucessor states, creating as many as 5-10 independent nations in what OTL is the continental USA, all of which are weaker than other regional nations or remnant European empires.

3. No American Civil war at all. The US legally retains slavery in the South and the Federal Government accepts as a given that these "property rights" are inviolable. Or, alternatively, the abolitionist movement becomes politically dominant and bans slavery legislatively or by regulation, resulting, not in secession of the southern states, but a collapse of political and social order in the south, with armed militias (both white and black) figting each other and the central government resorting to increasingly repressive measures to enforce emancipation while at the same time fighting armed groups, both black emancipationist and white reactionary, to restore order.
 
One other scenario. Not having George Washington as the military leader of the the Revolution and later as first President. Assuming the United States could win the Revolutionary War with a different General, there were still branch points when the United States could have failed. If General Lee or Gates (two rivals who clearly wanted to lead the Continental Army) had successfully dislodged Washington, and then somehow won the war (which I find doubtful since neither man demonstrated, as far as I can tell, the strategic vision of Washington, nor Washington's talent for withdrawing from battle with his forces intact), one could easily imagine them being more likely to stage a military coup taking control or if elected the first President, (Lee would of course have to survive longer in this timeline), holding power for three or more terms. These situations would have made it very likely that America would have followed the course so many other presidential democracies have.

--
Bill
 
Ending up under a certain political ideology doesn't in any way default into being a failed state. Thats not to say that certain ideologies can't end up being failed states, but except for certain anarchistic and/or anti-authoritarian ideologies, it rarely have any direct influence on a state's succes.

You think most of Europe is a failed state since they (with northern europe being the most triumphant example) have governments fairly close to what most Americans think of when they say socialism? looking at where most of the worlds democratic population is standing on political ideology, its USA thats an outlier, with even their far left wing being fairly centrist in most other (westernized) countries.

And before being smart and saying USSR, that was more of a dictatorship (well, tyrannical Oligrachy / Junta ), dolling themselves up in the clothes of 'Commuism' as that is an easier sell. And their failure was due to the rulers more than the ideology they were said to be following

Well, okay, but I actually meant that the Socialists took over after the U.S.A. had become a failed state; apologies, however, as it appears I wasn't as clear as I could have been.(P.S., btw, I actually do agree with you re: Northern Europe. :cool:)
 
Is there any time or event before 1900 that the USA could have collapsed or become a failed state?

Have the Nullification Crisis turn out differently by replacing Jackson with a less resolute President and having more States join South Carolina's side. The precedent gets established that States can refuse to recognise Federal laws they don't like, and soon enough the Federal Government becomes a practical irrelevance, leaving the individual States de facto independent.
 
Ending up under a certain political ideology doesn't in any way default into being a failed state. Thats not to say that certain ideologies can't end up being failed states, but except for certain anarchistic and/or anti-authoritarian ideologies, it rarely have any direct influence on a state's succes.

You think most of Europe is a failed state since they (with northern europe being the most triumphant example) have governments fairly close to what most Americans think of when they say socialism? looking at where most of the worlds democratic population is standing on political ideology, its USA thats an outlier, with even their far left wing being fairly centrist in most other (westernized) countries.

And before being smart and saying USSR, that was more of a dictatorship (well, tyrannical Oligrachy / Junta ), dolling themselves up in the clothes of 'Commuism' as that is an easier sell. And their failure was due to the rulers more than the ideology they were said to be following

If your definition of socialism is broad enough to include modern Europe, it's broad enough to include Soviet Russia as well. Conversely, if you're insisting on the strict definition of socialism in order to exclude the USSR, you're also going to exclude Northern Europe.
 
If your definition of socialism is broad enough to include modern Europe, it's broad enough to include Soviet Russia as well. Conversely, if you're insisting on the strict definition of socialism in order to exclude the USSR, you're also going to exclude Northern Europe.

Think we have differing definitions of 'Socialism', just like the tag 'Liberalism' being seen as very different beasts in USA and Europe ...
 
Or, on the flipside, no Civil War at all, with slavery surviving until about 1900 or so, until the economy suffers a major breakdown, and/or political unrest explodes into full-blown societal violence; I actually started a mini-TL on this very scenario(list-based, which was inspired by another list done by Lost The Game a while back), but the U.S. ended up under Socialist administration(some inspiration from Red Dawn, there), so that may or may not quite count, depending on the criteria, but I'd think so.

The Confederacy not seceding does three things that hurt the US. Their continued obstructionism will delay the formation of western free states. Their continued obstructionism will delay the construction of the transcontinental railroad. Most importantly, their continued obstructionism on tariffs will lead to spiraling federal debt.
 
Top