WI: Individual States of America

So, I've had this idea for a while and I'm thinking of making it my first TL: what if instead of creating the Constitution, the Founding Fathers decided that the States should go their separate ways.
I'm guessing this would result in very Federalist and pro-reform countries in the north and very Original Republican pro-slavery countries in the south. The Federalists countries would ally with Britain and the Republics would ally with France.

How plausible is this?

And how long would it take for war to break out in that situation?
 

jahenders

Banned
If the Constitution attempt fails, they'll likely stay with the Articles of Confederation for a while. If ultimately, they decide to break apart, some of the states will immediately work to form federations with others.

So, you might wind up with
A) Southern: GA, NC, and SC.
B) NE: MA, RI, CT.

NY, VA, and/or PA might decide to stay independent.

MD, NJ, and DE will join whoever's near them.

I think they'd likely all be too involved in stabilizing to want to get involved in European wars, but they'll all be trying to push their borders to some degree.
 
There are many good threads concerning this perennial question. One goes into if 9 states voted for the Constitutiin and 4 wanted to stay with the Articles (9 being the minimum needed for the Constitution to go into effect).
 

Skallagrim

Banned
Why do they decide this? There has to be some sort of impetus for it, and it would have to be drastic. Even if the Constitution is rejected, an attempt to somewhat revise the Articles was the main (less radical) alternative. If, as @Napoleonrules writes, the Constitution would be rejected, revision of the articles would be the next option on the table, and practically everyone supported at least that.

The more unlikely course would be to not revise the Articles at all, which has the best chance of leading to disintegration of the Union (or rather: the Confederation, at that stage) due to hard-to-resolve conflicts between various states and the lack of a central authority powerful enough to succesfully mediate or adjudicate. But even then, a simple POD of "no changes to the Articles" would need a pretty impressive reason for that to happen, since revision was far more likely, and it's still not a fail-safe guarantee for later disintegration of the confederal US.

Let's take a step back and consider the kind of POD that could lead to disintegration. My best guess would be: George Washington is killed, someone else assumes command of the military, the war drags on longer, and somehow this (preumably less competent and less honourable) military leader attempts to seize political power at the end of the war. This military coup (or quasi-coup) is ultimately foiled or rolled back, but many people are now wary of centralised (military) authority. Federalism still takes off, but more as a local drive to further integrate the northeastern states. Strong nationalists like Hamilton are looked upon with suspicion, especially when they also have a military background.

The Articles basically last, but the confederation becomes ever more divided. Clearly, certain issues cannot be resolved adequately. Federalism still blooms in New York and New England, leading to an informal regional sub-confederation. Fervent attempts from these part to get the Articles amended lead to hostility from the south. As politics become increasinly embittered, and the Congress of the confederation does nothing but squabble anymore, New England eventually opts to secede and form its own, explicitly federal government. New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania also secede, but do not join New England. They form a new confederation of their own, along the lines of earlier proposals to revise the Articles.

The remaining states - basically everything south of the Mason-Dixon line - remain under the original Articles. I don't see them splitting apart, since they were basically in political agreement. Well... maybe if Virginia and North Carolina clash over competing border claims? I find that somewhat unlikely, but if it happens, you get two confederations in the south: Virginia-Maryland-Delaware and North Carolina-South Carolina-Georgia.

None of these would, in such a tumultuous time, really become involved with European wars. The New England federation and the New York-New Jersey-Pennsylvania confederation would both tend towards friendly relations with Britain, for purely economic reasons if nothing else. The deep south will just want to trade and not have that trade be taxed, and since the original Articles (under which all southern states would presumably remain) do not provide for a clear political executive figurehead... the man pushing for alliance with France - Jefferson - will have less opportunity to gain a paramount position from which he can effect that. (He should be happy nonetheless, since everything south of the Mason-Dixon line will look just as he imagined it should look. Especially if the deep south splits off. The upper south will then essentially be a Virginia-led confederation, exactly in line with his politics.)

On a more global scale, Britain would be jeering about the fact that the United States imploded within a matter of years, but the fact that a variety of republics would still have emerged from the process, alive and well, would probably give repulicans all over the world reason to feel vindicated.

Long term predictions: the more northern polities will have an economic advantage on the outset, although in OTL, there was a tendency to tax southern trade and use (most of) the profits to subsidise northern industry. This basically kept the south agrarian and made the north ever more industrial. Separated nations means the north cannot exploit southern trade like that. If the south can get wise and shake off its policies of anti-industrialism, they can use the profits of their own trade to build their own industry. This would make them a bit less dependent on that one perfidious institution, slavery. (They still won't abolish it, but it did get increasingly central to southern economy as the decades rolled by. If they can industrialise sufficiently before the 1840s, slavery will in any case be less central to their economy. By that point the British will presumably be stamping out slavery everywhere. Since slavery would be less developed in this ATL, there would be considerably fewer slaves in this TL's southern confederation(s). That would make abolishing the practice somewhat more realistic, the optimist in me dares to hope. But the pessimist in me suspects that, at the very least, the deep south would stick to slavery at all costs. In a confederal setting, each state decides on abolition on its own, so the deep south states can basically just refuse to abolish for all time. In that case, international outrage will eventually lead to a trade boycott, and it all ends very much like South Africa.)
 
Why do they decide this? There has to be some sort of impetus for it, and it would have to be drastic. Even if the Constitution is rejected, an attempt to somewhat revise the Articles was the main (less radical) alternative. If, as @Napoleonrules writes, the Constitution would be rejected, revision of the articles would be the next option on the table, and practically everyone supported at least that.

The more unlikely course would be to not revise the Articles at all, which has the best chance of leading to disintegration of the Union (or rather: the Confederation, at that stage) due to hard-to-resolve conflicts between various states and the lack of a central authority powerful enough to succesfully mediate or adjudicate. But even then, a simple POD of "no changes to the Articles" would need a pretty impressive reason for that to happen, since revision was far more likely, and it's still not a fail-safe guarantee for later disintegration of the confederal US.

Let's take a step back and consider the kind of POD that could lead to disintegration. My best guess would be: George Washington is killed, someone else assumes command of the military, the war drags on longer, and somehow this (preumably less competent and less honourable) military leader attempts to seize political power at the end of the war. This military coup (or quasi-coup) is ultimately foiled or rolled back, but many people are now wary of centralised (military) authority. Federalism still takes off, but more as a local drive to further integrate the northeastern states. Strong nationalists like Hamilton are looked upon with suspicion, especially when they also have a military background.

The Articles basically last, but the confederation becomes ever more divided. Clearly, certain issues cannot be resolved adequately. Federalism still blooms in New York and New England, leading to an informal regional sub-confederation. Fervent attempts from these part to get the Articles amended lead to hostility from the south. As politics become increasinly embittered, and the Congress of the confederation does nothing but squabble anymore, New England eventually opts to secede and form its own, explicitly federal government. New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania also secede, but do not join New England. They form a new confederation of their own, along the lines of earlier proposals to revise the Articles.

The remaining states - basically everything south of the Mason-Dixon line - remain under the original Articles. I don't see them splitting apart, since they were basically in political agreement. Well... maybe if Virginia and North Carolina clash over competing border claims? I find that somewhat unlikely, but if it happens, you get two confederations in the south: Virginia-Maryland-Delaware and North Carolina-South Carolina-Georgia.

None of these would, in such a tumultuous time, really become involved with European wars. The New England federation and the New York-New Jersey-Pennsylvania confederation would both tend towards friendly relations with Britain, for purely economic reasons if nothing else. The deep south will just want to trade and not have that trade be taxed, and since the original Articles (under which all southern states would presumably remain) do not provide for a clear political executive figurehead... the man pushing for alliance with France - Jefferson - will have less opportunity to gain a paramount position from which he can effect that. (He should be happy nonetheless, since everything south of the Mason-Dixon line will look just as he imagined it should look. Especially if the deep south splits off. The upper south will then essentially be a Virginia-led confederation, exactly in line with his politics.)

On a more global scale, Britain would be jeering about the fact that the United States imploded within a matter of years, but the fact that a variety of republics would still have emerged from the process, alive and well, would probably give repulicans all over the world reason to feel vindicated.

Long term predictions: the more northern polities will have an economic advantage on the outset, although in OTL, there was a tendency to tax southern trade and use (most of) the profits to subsidise northern industry. This basically kept the south agrarian and made the north ever more industrial. Separated nations means the north cannot exploit southern trade like that. If the south can get wise and shake off its policies of anti-industrialism, they can use the profits of their own trade to build their own industry. This would make them a bit less dependent on that one perfidious institution, slavery. (They still won't abolish it, but it did get increasingly central to southern economy as the decades rolled by. If they can industrialise sufficiently before the 1840s, slavery will in any case be less central to their economy. By that point the British will presumably be stamping out slavery everywhere. Since slavery would be less developed in this ATL, there would be considerably fewer slaves in this TL's southern confederation(s). That would make abolishing the practice somewhat more realistic, the optimist in me dares to hope. But the pessimist in me suspects that, at the very least, the deep south would stick to slavery at all costs. In a confederal setting, each state decides on abolition on its own, so the deep south states can basically just refuse to abolish for all time. In that case, international outrage will eventually lead to a trade boycott, and it all ends very much like South Africa.)
Mostly agree... except NY is anti-federalist in nature and would not federalize with New England (Yankee originated as a NY term for a New Englander and NYers will remember the failed Dominion of New England). I personally see the USA being closer in structure to present day United Arab Emirates. Most other confederations in history either go more federal, such as Switzerland did, or go disolving. Few last long, but the UAE makes it work.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
Mostly agree... except NY is anti-federalist in nature and would not federalize with New England (Yankee originated as a NY term for a New Englander and NYers will remember the failed Dominion of New England). I personally see the USA being closer in structure to present day United Arab Emirates. Most other confederations in history either go more federal, such as Switzerland did, or go disolving. Few last long, but the UAE makes it work.

To be clear: I suggested that New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania would confederate with each other, and only be openly friendly/allied with New England.

As for confederations: I suspect they would eventually become more 'federal' in nature anyway, either oficially or unofficially. Especially the New York-New Jersey-Pennsylvania one. (That's funny, in a way: if the south also splits in two, there would be four 'unions', with the northernmost being clearly federal and integrated, the one south of that a very tight confederation or a looser federation, the upper south one a confederation, but ultimately likely to become tighter than under the Articles... and the deep south one presumably being most staunchly confederal and decentralised.)
 
Skallagrim said:
Let's take a step back and consider the kind of POD that could lead to disintegration. My best guess would be: George Washington is killed, someone else assumes command of the military, the war drags on longer, and somehow this (preumably less competent and less honourable) military leader attempts to seize political power at the end of the war. This military coup (or quasi-coup) is ultimately foiled or rolled back, but many people are now wary of centralised (military) authority. Federalism still takes off, but more as a local drive to further integrate the northeastern states. Strong nationalists like Hamilton are looked upon with suspicion, especially when they also have a military background.

The Articles basically last, but the confederation becomes ever more divided. Clearly, certain issues cannot be resolved adequately. Federalism still blooms in New York and New England, leading to an informal regional sub-confederation. Fervent attempts from these part to get the Articles amended lead to hostility from the south. As politics become increasinly embittered, and the Congress of the confederation does nothing but squabble anymore, New England eventually opts to secede and form its own, explicitly federal government. New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania also secede, but do not join New England. They form a new confederation of their own, along the lines of earlier proposals to revise the Articles.

OK, how about this: Washington is wounded in the Siege of Yorktown. The wound itself isn't enough to kill him, but the infection is and he dies before the Treaty of Paris is signed. Britain (or at least Britain's Parliament) doesn't want to continue the war, so the peace negotiations go ahead. When the Constitutional Convention occurs, it drags on for longer and achieves nothing because of the lack of a non-partisan charismatic hero like Washington for everyone to rally behind. When the delegates give up on coming to an agreement, the Federalists like Adams or Hamilton get mad. Adams gets New England to secede while Hamilton tries to build support in New York.
Congress responds to New England's secession by either doing nothing, encouraging other secessionist movements, or sending in the military - which backfires because the closest military force is in New York and they're sympathetic to the Federalists. Either way, New York secedes too and other states (New Jersey and Pennsylvania) follow suit.
 
OK, how about this: Washington is wounded in the Siege of Yorktown. The wound itself isn't enough to kill him, but the infection is and he dies before the Treaty of Paris is signed. Britain (or at least Britain's Parliament) doesn't want to continue the war, so the peace negotiations go ahead. When the Constitutional Convention occurs, it drags on for longer and achieves nothing because of the lack of a non-partisan charismatic hero like Washington for everyone to rally behind. When the delegates give up on coming to an agreement, the Federalists like Adams or Hamilton get mad. Adams gets New England to secede while Hamilton tries to build support in New York.
Congress responds to New England's secession by either doing nothing, encouraging other secessionist movements, or sending in the military - which backfires because the closest military force is in New York and they're sympathetic to the Federalists. Either way, New York secedes too and other states (New Jersey and Pennsylvania) follow suit.
Washington could die in 1784 when going to southwestern PA where he owned large land grants and in OTL went there to sue squatters who wouldn't pay rent. Have a PoD where one of the squatters throws a rock, knocks him off his horse and he strikes a rock on the ground and dies or a stick through the neck.

At this point the western edge of PA had not been surveyed and no one knew if Pittsburgh area was too far West to be in PA or the Ohio country (still VA). VA could demand jurisdiction in a murder trial. PA could refuse, and any trial that is an acquittal or a lesser charge or punishment less than death could result in VA being very upset. Could see VA refuse to give up NW territory in 1784 and become more obstinate in giving up territory (no accepting Kentucky wanting to be a state, refusal to compromise over Maryland disputes).

Maryland only ratified the Articles of Confederation after VA gave up the NW territory. It was the one sticking point. The Articles have to be ratified by all 13 states or it doesn't go into effect. Maryland refuses outright to ratify. States that ratified, possibly including PA, repeal their ratification.
 
Top