What would it take to keep the 13 colonies divided

aspie3000

Banned
When the 13 colonies of the United States rebelled against the mother country and formed a union which would become the United States they diffed quite a bit culturally. The puritans of the New England colonies differed greatly from the Dutch culture of New York, the Quaker and German culture of Pennsylvania, the Cavalier culture of Virginia, and the West Indies culture of South Carolina and Georgia to say nothing of the Scots Irish in Appalachia. Books like American Nations by Colin Woodard, and David Hackett Fishers' Albion's Seed theorize that the cultural divisions laid out by these colonies still persist strongly to this day. However necessity brought them together as any of the colonies going it alone would be easy prey for colonial powers. So my question is what if anything could keep these colonies from unifying and in what scenario could they survive and with their manifest destiny result in a timeline where there's multiple nation states on the North American continent?
 
Well, they pretty much have to work together to have a chance of winning the revolution. If some colonies completely sit it out, the others will likely be crushed and it'll be decades before there's another movement toward independence.

That being said, the fact that they work together to achieve independence is certainly no guarantee of solidarity thereafter. (More) acrimonious debate and more firmly entrenched positions might have led some states to leave rather than accept an untenable constitution or stay in an ineffective Articles of Confederation government. If no agreement can be reached on a constitution by the mid-90s, it's certainly possible that some states might choose to break away. You could easily have either some of the Southern states or the NE states break away, leaving a smaller group of states to agree to a constitution. So, you might have the US actually formed in 1795-1800 or so with only 8-10 states. The ones that leave could remain independent, form some other confederation, etc.
 
Very easy, just have no one come up with a working replacement for the Articles of Confederation. It's worth nothing that significant minorities in New York WANTED to be reannex by the British during this chaos... and if they somehow got control of the NY legislature (which they wouldn't as it was a large minority not a majority since all the ORIGINAL loyalists left) the British reply would have been "good riddance, we are not going through that again." Colonies stay divided.
 

Grimbald

Monthly Donor
I doubt that 13 (or more) nations was at all likely but three is quite possible: New England allied with the UK and Canada, the middle colonies (Pa, NY, NJ) and the southern (slave) states.

NE is land locked while the other two expand westward eventually fighting for control of what is now the USA.
 
Very easy, just have no one come up with a working replacement for the Articles of Confederation. It's worth nothing that significant minorities in New York WANTED to be reannex by the British during this chaos... and if they somehow got control of the NY legislature (which they wouldn't as it was a large minority not a majority since all the ORIGINAL loyalists left) the British reply would have been "good riddance, we are not going through that again." Colonies stay divided.

I am about to (re)start my TL with this POD very shortly.
 
Well, there's France as well, don't forget. And Spain/Mexico.

Exactly, and a UK/Canada that may choose to move South in some areas (such as WA).

In general, smaller colony-based countries will have considerably less success at expanding.

If you start with the 3 countries/confederations that Grimbold suggests (New England allied with the UK and Canada, the middle colonies (Pa, NY, NJ) and the southern (slave) states), what you might have after a few decades is:
- The New England Confederation that stays about the same (possibly adding Vermont and Maine)
- The United American States (PA, NY, NJ, and possibly MD and/or Deleware) adding Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan
- The Confederated American States (the South) adding KY and TN

A lot will depend on how these 'countries' deal with Spain and each other and whether one, or several, do parts of the Louisiana Purchase with France.
 

aspie3000

Banned
Exactly, and a UK/Canada that may choose to move South in some areas (such as WA).

In general, smaller colony-based countries will have considerably less success at expanding.

If you start with the 3 countries/confederations that Grimbold suggests (New England allied with the UK and Canada, the middle colonies (Pa, NY, NJ) and the southern (slave) states), what you might have after a few decades is:
- The New England Confederation that stays about the same (possibly adding Vermont and Maine)
- The United American States (PA, NY, NJ, and possibly MD and/or Deleware) adding Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan
- The Confederated American States (the South) adding KY and TN

A lot will depend on how these 'countries' deal with Spain and each other and whether one, or several, do parts of the Louisiana Purchase with France.

I'd imagine that the richest of the three nations would be the southern one as plantation agriculture was insanely profitable especially with the advent of king cotton. I think that the south would buy Louisiana.
 
Top