US fails to centralize post-independence

Would it have been possible for the United States to become so devolved following American independence that the states become de-facto independent? Similar to the Holy Roman Empire? Perhaps if Washington somehow dies during the war, or the Federal government is unable to decide on a permanent capital.
 
Or if they kept the original Articles, the USA would be doomed.

Granted, this could benefit the native Americans to play them off one another enough for them to reinforce their strengths and have them respect their sovereignty over the land
 
Would it have been possible for the United States to become so devolved following American independence that the states become de-facto independent? Similar to the Holy Roman Empire? Perhaps if Washington somehow dies during the war, or the Federal government is unable to decide on a permanent capital.
I think that at best if you want it to have a "monarchic" feature that the States or certain states would have the same head of state. It happened in the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth under what is called Golden Liberty or Nobles' Democracy which doctrine stated that "our state is a republic under the presidency of the King".
 

RousseauX

Donor
Would it have been possible for the United States to become so devolved following American independence that the states become de-facto independent? Similar to the Holy Roman Empire? Perhaps if Washington somehow dies during the war, or the Federal government is unable to decide on a permanent capital.
Yes, the constitutional convention fails and the article of confederation remains in effect, the US would have being like an 18th century EU
 
I meant as we know it. Sure the US would survive and likely become a regional power, but not the juggernaut it is now

I dunno, it sounds like a fun video game for Texas to annex its own Latin American Empire; America is so wealthy that a backwater like Montana is richer than Pakistan, that major states like California and Texas are equal if not more powerful than France or the UK. A lot of the fundamentals are still in force with abundant land & resources, a lack of serious regional competitors, access to European innovations, markets, and immigration.

If you split the USA into regional states, they'd be just fine and major international actors today.
 
I dunno, it sounds like a fun video game for Texas to annex its own Latin American Empire; America is so wealthy that a backwater like Montana is richer than Pakistan, that major states like California and Texas are equal if not more powerful than France or the UK. A lot of the fundamentals are still in force with abundant land & resources, a lack of serious regional competitors, access to European innovations, markets, and immigration.

If you split the USA into regional states, they'd be just fine and major international actors today.

First off, we're talking about the original 13 colonies starting out and them competing with one another for land and so on. Texas would not exist and the lack of real central powers mean that things like the Louisiana purchase or even going west would be a colossal headache for them to deal with. Smarter nations and their neighbors could play them off against one another since they could be made to impede one another's progress.
 
First off, we're talking about the original 13 colonies starting out and them competing with one another for land and so on. Texas would not exist and the lack of real central powers mean that things like the Louisiana purchase or even going west would be a colossal headache for them to deal with. Smarter nations and their neighbors could play them off against one another since they could be made to impede one another's progress.

I think he meant it more as a proof of concept. Sure Texas and Montana won't be states ITTL, but the simple fact that an individual state could have a nominal (or per capita) GDP greater than most other countries indicates the scale of the underlying advantages of the US. These include ample navigable waterways, geographic isolation, and sheer volume of natural resources. It would take some pretty serious investment from the UK, France, or Spain to offset these advantages. Not saying it couldn't be done, just that IOTL, these powers were pretty engrossed with the Napoleonic wars and later the Crimean War, the unifications of Italy and Germany, the Opium Wars, and the Scramble for Africa, so it would require a major strategic retreat from at least one of those fronts for any European power to leverage concessions from the United States (even if the US kept the Articles of Confederation)
 
Under this context, if Mexico gets a wake up call (maybe losing a war against Central American countries or the UK) or diffferent post-independence circumstances, they can become the North American hegemon that was the US in this timeline.
 
The fact that the Constitution flew through ratification so fast with half the states shows there was a strong political desire for some sort of remaining unity. So scenarios involving sudden, lasting, and even hostile divides among the 13 states are not terribly plausible, however entertaining they seem. The states that resisted ratification are your trouble spots--North Carolina, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, and Virginia.

Potential for internal hostilities included Connecticut's land claims in northern Pennsylvania and its import policies undermining New York City's efforts to rebuild from the violent British occupation of the city, Rhode Island's reckless gamesmanship with Continental securities, which netted huge paper profits and screwed over outside speculators (rather than the acceptable tactic of simply screwing over the war veterans), and the armed debtors' rebellions in Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Hampshire. The shipping relationship between Britain and the Southern states was also going to continue to create regional tensions that could lead to small regional unions or alliance. Interestingly, there was also great accord among the states over how to deal with the Ohio country--accepting that there'd be new states created there. Plus Spanish policy of locking down Georgia to within a fraction of its land claims was also a source of shared unification. A surprising number of early Georgia gentry were transplanted Yankees.

In short, there were as many factors pulling the union together as there were tearing it apart. Had the Philadelphia Constitution failed, there were bound to be other attempts at reconfiguring the nation. Philadelphia was, after all, the 3rd try in as many years. When you read Madison's Notes, you come away certain they didn't want to end up like the HRE or northern Italy, the play thing of the centralized monarchs of western Europe.
 
I think he meant it more as a proof of concept. Sure Texas and Montana won't be states ITTL, but the simple fact that an individual state could have a nominal (or per capita) GDP greater than most other countries indicates the scale of the underlying advantages of the US. These include ample navigable waterways, geographic isolation, and sheer volume of natural resources. It would take some pretty serious investment from the UK, France, or Spain to offset these advantages. Not saying it couldn't be done, just that IOTL, these powers were pretty engrossed with the Napoleonic wars and later the Crimean War, the unifications of Italy and Germany, the Opium Wars, and the Scramble for Africa, so it would require a major strategic retreat from at least one of those fronts for any European power to leverage concessions from the United States (even if the US kept the Articles of Confederation)
Keep in mind this involved massive amounts of immigration from Europe.

With 13 or so different nations in the "USA" immigration patterns are going to be different . All those migrants might end up in Latin America or Australia.
 
Last edited:
Keep in mind this involved massive amounts of immigration from Europe.

With 13 or so different nations in the "USA" immigration patterns are going to be different . All those migrants might end up in Latin America or Australia.

If anything, I think that would encourage immigration from Europe since the various diversifying Northern states would try and compete for skilled labor (mostly NY, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts imo). Australia and Latin America don't have the sheer volume of arable land (given the agricultural technology of the time) to support the same scale of migration (plus Latin America would likely still be undergoing the very violent wars for independence that characterized this period. Plus, even irrespective of immigration policies, the underlying advantages are unchanged.
 
If anything, I think that would encourage immigration from Europe since the various diversifying Northern states would try and compete for skilled labor (mostly NY, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts imo). Australia and Latin America don't have the sheer volume of arable land (given the agricultural technology of the time) to support the same scale of migration (plus Latin America would likely still be undergoing the very violent wars for independence that characterized this period. Plus, even irrespective of immigration policies, the underlying advantages are unchanged.

Maybe.
but more part of the reason for the migration was that the USA could promise no wars or revolutions and plenty of land. If the Disunited states are fighting each other that could be a problem.
 
Maybe.
but more part of the reason for the migration was that the USA could promise no wars or revolutions and plenty of land. If the Disunited states are fighting each other that could be a problem.

But is there any indication that the states would be fighting each other? Sure there may have been some minor land disputes in the far West (read as: Ohio), but nothing that would have posed a serious threat to the political unity of the states (especially since all the states more-or-less unanimously agreed to adopt the constitution)
 
But is there any indication that the states would be fighting each other? Sure there may have been some minor land disputes in the far West (read as: Ohio), but nothing that would have posed a serious threat to the political unity of the states (especially since all the states more-or-less unanimously agreed to adopt the constitution)


That depends, some places like Connecticut would have had to go through New York to enforce her claim. If they tried that New York and Pennsylvania slap them down, they probably end up Incorporated into New York too if they tried that.

Vermont, now that one could have been divided by New Hampshire and New York, but they also had the British to their north, and French Canadians, Vermont could have gotten local support unofficially long enough from the Canadians that the British Empire could officially help them, or keep letting the Canadians unknowingly supplying them arms.

Also with Canada right there the British could have pulled all sorts of shenanigans on a disunited country agreeing to recognize a state independent of the rest of the US and as it's own country enforcing claims of that government. Thats a stretch but considering the Americans allied with the very French who were killing them a decade ago, it's not so much of one to think that a state or collection of that leave the US ask for assistance and get it.
 
Otl, Britain was slow getting out of the northwest territory. With a disunited USA, they’ll probably look to keep it.
It can’t be assumed that alt USA is otl with a different gov’t.

But that’s getting ahead of the story. First, we need to get through chapter one. It is not written in stone that otl gov’t is the only way to succeed at having a USA. Many states chafed at a strong national government, preferring state governments with economic and military protection. Strong central government only came decades later. I can easily imagine a looser union. Sure it would have difficulties, but so did otl. There was no guarantee that otl would succeed.

The border disputes and war debt resolution are real and serious, as is trade considerations. Such treacherous waters can be navigated, and I think that is what the op wants. It would be no more miraculous than otl.

I think you would find a country more intent on finding their way amongst themselves than having any real national foreign policy. War of 1812 certainly gets butterflied, as does Louisiana purchase. The west half of the continent likely is developed much differently. If the loose Union is successful, you could see a Spanish/Mexican population (for example) forming it’s own country and/or joining the loose USA. Loose is going to make it hard to expand too much. But the same could be said of otl USA.
 
That depends, some places like Connecticut would have had to go through New York to enforce her claim. If they tried that New York and Pennsylvania slap them down, they probably end up Incorporated into New York too if they tried that.

But why? Afaik New York didn't have territorial claims on Connecticut, and trying to annex it would only alienate the other 12 colonies for what gain exactly? New York was already more-or-less the wealthiest and most productive state, what could will annexing Connecticut get them?

Also with Canada right there the British could have pulled all sorts of shenanigans on a disunited country agreeing to recognize a state independent of the rest of the US and as it's own country enforcing claims of that government. Thats a stretch but considering the Americans allied with the very French who were killing them a decade ago, it's not so much of one to think that a state or collection of that leave the US ask for assistance and get it.

What states aspired to independence for the British to exploit exactly? That's the primary problem with these assertions. It's certainly possible for Britain to stir up such sentiments in the long run, but as I said in my original post, that would necessitate a major strategic disengagement from one of the other global theatres (Africa, India, the Pacific, or Europe) at the exact time that each of those theatres begins to flare up (Napoleonic Wars, Opium Wars, etc.). Certainly, each of these would have their OTL forms butterflied away, but the conflagration that consumed Europe from 1789-1815 had been brewing for a long time, and additionally, North America was only ever a marginal theatre for the UK after 1783 anyways. I'm not saying its impossible, I'm just saying its not worth it.
 
Perhaps it could happen if the US has a calmer start, no Whiskey rebellion or Shay's rebellion and thus less move to centralize is pushed back. If the forming of the Constitution is delayed 30 or even 20 years I could see no Constitution ever being implemented because of the issue of slavery.
 
Atamolis
N.Y. and Connecticut had disputes on their border and also, I think, with the Pennsylvania tract, and in the Ohio region.

As for annexing them: more industry, ports, people means more power. I don’t think N.Y. would go that far, though. Would stir up too much of a hornets nest.
 
Top