WI: The US collapses shortly after it's independence.

[unprincipled peter]

I would propose a breakdown in writing a new constitution. Everyone knew the Articles of Confederation needed revision. OTL, it went rather well. Yeah, ratification was sort of iffy, but it was close enough either way to make it hard seeing some sort of compromise not being reached. IMO, you need to blow it up, and do so early.

 

[dfl_90]

The drafting of amendments is a good place to start if you want to derail the process. The Articles of Confederation could only be amended unanimously, which was difficult enough without considering that Rhode Island was often obstructionist and several states rarely sent representatives. As a consequence, the Federalists, meaning those in favor of the new constitution, feared that the state legislatures would take the debate on ratification as an opportunity to demand amendments that had previously been impossible to implement under the Articles. The state delegations had done a significant amount of wheeling and dealing at the Constitutional Convention to make the constitution as palatable as possible for all the states, but the state legislatures weren't necessarily fully aware of all the compromises that had already been made and as such might reignite debates that had already been settled. My understanding is that Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Virginia, New York, and North Carolina all ratified under the condition that certain amendments be made following ratification. That partly happened because the Federalists successfully argued via the press that the details could be hashed out after the fact, but had a few states not been convinced, then things start to get more complicated. Not only would another convention potentially be needed, but states that had previously ratified would need to redebate and ratify the amended version. Instead of the roughly one year it took in OTL, this process might drag on for several. George Washington, viewed as a symbol of solidarity among the states, hadn't been thrilled about attending the first convention despite supporting it and may not attend the second. That could very well sap it of some of its legitimacy. Additionally, since Washington's not getting any younger, he may be more reluctant to accept the presidency if it's offered a few years later than OTL. Having Adams or Jefferson or some other alternative at the helm is going to create a very different tone for the early days of whatever union follows.

 

[Kevin in Indy]

how did Virginia manage to push its claims northward?

Was the George Rodgers Clark expedition a Virginian enterprise?

 

[SOAWWIISoldier]

The US Government sponsored. It was something that Jefferson very much wanted.

Was the George Rodgers Clark expedition a Virginian enterprise?

 

[Kevin in Indy]

The US Government sponsored. It was something that Jefferson very much wanted.

I was referring to the conquest of the NW territory during the ARW.

 

[Xibalba]

So if i'm recapping correctly; the POD will be Massachusetts fails to ratify the proposed constitution (which may be slightly different in this TL), which leads to a different outcome in the other states which still have to ratify it. This means the Articles of Confederation are still in place for the time being. Attempts will be made to reach a compromise, but let's assume these fall short and the union fractures along regional lines. With three distinct blocs forming. New England, Mid Atlantic States and the Southern States. NY could join up with either NE of the Mid Atlantic states. Since relations between the states are amicable at this moment in time a compromise could be reached between over the North Western territories especially between Virginia and NY (or NE if NY joins up with them). There would also be some border disputes between Spain and Georgia which may be settled in a different manner then in OTL, but it may not be a stretch to assume that Florida remains with Spain for the moment. This settles the map east of the Mississippi.

 

[SOAWWIISoldier]

When I think of the Clark expedition, I'm thinking of the mission to Oregon.

 

[Diego]

So basically in this scenario, the Southern Confederation grows into something geographically resembling the OTL United States, but without the Northeast and with somewhat altered boundaries elsewhere. I don't think they would be interested in the Pacific Northwest, Alaska, or Hawaii, but might take more territory from Mexico or find a way to annex one of the Caribbean islands. This would have a different name than the United States and would be sort of a blend between the OTL United States and the Confederacy, with its capitol at Richmond. The city of Washington does not get built.

Very unlikely for a union of the four southern states to grow beyond what they claimed in 1790, they wouldn't have the industrial power of the north, and only half of the manpower of OTL USA, they would also lack the motivation that the expansion of slavery would give them if they were in a union with free states. In fact most probably they would become an english speaking version of Latin America, with an olygarchic elite, slavery, a quite rigid and stratified society, and a plantation based economy.

 

[Miguel Demiurgos]

What if the Spanish have Louisiana but over the years they only keep the southern part and the British the north.

 

[Valentinian]

Very unlikely for a union of the four southern states to grow beyond what they claimed in 1790, they wouldn't have the industrial power of the north, and only half of the manpower of OTL USA, they would also lack the motivation that the expansion of slavery would give them if they were in a union with free states. In fact most probably they would become an english speaking version of Latin America, with an olygarchic elite, slavery, a quite rigid and stratified society, and a plantation based economy.

I think the four southern states would still want at least New Orleans. The Cumberland and Tennessee Rivers still lead to New Orleans. Prior to railroads, this is the best way to sell your cash crops to European markets. A Southern Confederation-British alliance during the Napoleonic Wars to conquer (at least southern) Louisiana could happen. Throw in British promises (whether real or a tease) to the Southerners for Caribbean conquests, and it could be almost certain.

 

[Slime_blob]

USA was not the only union in Americas to exist and collapsed. Gran Colombia in 1830, United Provinces of Central America in 1839.

hear hear

Its a bit odd that just because the US didn't became fragmented banana republics. We don't like expect coups revolts whatever succeeding in the USA.

Civil war? Coups?

 

[Diego]

I think the four southern states would still want at least New Orleans. The Cumberland and Tennessee Rivers still lead to New Orleans. Prior to railroads, this is the best way to sell your cash crops to European markets.

Yes, I agree.

A Southern Confederation-British alliance during the Napoleonic Wars to conquer (at least southern) Louisiana could happen.

I would say possible with the butterfly effect, but not likely. It becomes likely only if the Southern Confederation develops a somewhat powerful military and if they are in good terms with Britain. But for that to happen they would need to invest on its military and that means they need to raise taxes a lot. I say that because if the British do all the work of invading and occupying New Orleans they will have no reason to give it to the Americans.

The other condition would depend on Britain and how they act about their former colonies in the 1780s and 1790s, and also if they press Americans to serve in the British Navy during the Napoleonic Wars.

We must think about the previous relationship of the Southern Americans with the French, the Spanish and also with the Indigenous Peoples, if they want to occupy New Orleans it will be difficult to do so when they are trying to wipe the indians from their territory, and if they are not diplomatic with the Spanish and French during the 1790s the Southern Americans will find it difficult to settle their western territories.

Throw in British promises (whether real or a tease) to the Southerners for Caribbean conquests, and it could be almost certain.

Most French colonies were given back after the war, there is also a possibility that the French receive Louisiana back in Vienna.

 

[Galba Otho Vitelius]

In response mainly to Diego, the degree of industrialization was not important in the 18th century, when the industrial revolution was just getting underway. Areas with plantation economies actually had more access to cash than areas without slaves and were generally more powerful. This was why ITTL the national capitol was eventually built in the South. Virginia was an important state even in the nineteenth century, and could have pressed its claims to what we view as the Great Lakes states.

 

[Diego]

In response mainly to Diego, the degree of industrialization was not important in the 18th century, when the industrial revolution was just getting underway. Areas with plantation economies actually had more access to cash than areas without slaves and were generally more powerful. This was why ITTL the national capitol was eventually built in the South. Virginia was an important state even in the nineteenth century, and could have pressed its claims to what we view as the Great Lakes states.

My two objections to your response here are first that most of the expansion you described in the first post could only happen during the 19th century and second that Virgina had dropped their claims to the territory north of the Ohio River in 1781-1784. so, before the POD.

 

[The Gunslinger]

Without a united United States, Britain really has no reason to hand over the forts it occupies prior to it signing the Jay Treaty. A bunch of the Old Northwest is British in all but name and Britain can collude with, bribe, or threaten the squabbling republics to keep a lot of it.

 

[chornedsnorkack]

hear hear

Its a bit odd that just because the US didn't became fragmented banana republics. We don't like expect coups revolts whatever succeeding in the USA.

Civil war? Coups?

There WAS a civil war. Oh, and there were a couple of serious plans for coups. The Newburgh Mutiny of 1783. And the Contingent Election of 1801. Jefferson intended civil war if the lame duck federalist Congress elected Burr.

 

[Slime_blob]

There WAS a civil war. Oh, and there were a couple of serious plans for coups. The Newburgh Mutiny of 1783. And the Contingent Election of 1801. Jefferson intended civil war if the lame duck federalist Congress elected Burr.

what i meant is a civil war every like couple. of years. And successful coups

 

[unprincipled peter]

Very unlikely for a union of the four southern states to grow beyond what they claimed in 1790, they wouldn't have the industrial power of the north, and only half of the manpower of OTL USA, they would also lack the motivation that the expansion of slavery would give them if they were in a union with free states. In fact most probably they would become an english speaking version of Latin America, with an olygarchic elite, slavery, a quite rigid and stratified society, and a plantation based economy.

They'll feel the squeeze to expand once their lands become more barren after decades of soil depleting planting. By this time, will they be too late to the game?

 

[unprincipled peter]

I think the four southern states would still want at least New Orleans. The Cumberland and Tennessee Rivers still lead to New Orleans. Prior to railroads, this is the best way to sell your cash crops to European markets. A Southern Confederation-British alliance during the Napoleonic Wars to conquer (at least southern) Louisiana could happen. Throw in British promises (whether real or a tease) to the Southerners for Caribbean conquests, and it could be almost certain.

Whomever holds the Northwest Territory will want NO as well. The problem is whether anyone has the power to take it. And if Spain/France isn't playing games by closing the Mississippi, the will won't be there. And, if there's rivalry for the port, there are a lot of native tribes for each anglo side to ally with to deny the other. This is a political/power situation different from OTL, where USA was unified against the natives.

Britain did team up with Portugal (now residing in Brazil) to take French Guiana, so teaming up with an American state to take NO (and Spanish held Floridas) is a possibility. It has to happen in the few years between Peace of Amiens and Iberian invasion. Britain wasn't all that aggressive against Spain prior to Amiens, and had no real reason to deprive either France or Spain of NO. Would one of the American nations get involved in Europe? That's what Britain is going to want in return. Post Iberian War, Britain will be promising return of Louisiana to Spain (if Spain hasn't kept it, which is likely sans British intervention.

Kentucky is the 'southern' state most interested in Mississippi commerce. Tennessee is selling it's goods (hogs) by massive hog drives to the east. Kentucky as well. Certainly, both states have need of the rivers to sell grains, but all is not dire if they don't have NO.

 

[Valentinian]

Whomever holds the Northwest Territory will want NO as well. The problem is whether anyone has the power to take it. And if Spain/France isn't playing games by closing the Mississippi, the will won't be there. And, if there's rivalry for the port, there are a lot of native tribes for each anglo side to ally with to deny the other. This is a political/power situation different from OTL, where USA was unified against the natives.

Britain did team up with Portugal (now residing in Brazil) to take French Guiana, so teaming up with an American state to take NO (and Spanish held Floridas) is a possibility. It has to happen in the few years between Peace of Amiens and Iberian invasion. Britain wasn't all that aggressive against Spain prior to Amiens, and had no real reason to deprive either France or Spain of NO. Would one of the American nations get involved in Europe? That's what Britain is going to want in return. Post Iberian War, Britain will be promising return of Louisiana to Spain (if Spain hasn't kept it, which is likely sans British intervention.

Kentucky is the 'southern' state most interested in Mississippi commerce. Tennessee is selling it's goods (hogs) by massive hog drives to the east. Kentucky as well. Certainly, both states have need of the rivers to sell grains, but all is not dire if they don't have NO.

Whoever owns the Northwest Territory will have the luxury or curse (depending on how you see it) of looking either south to NO or northeast to Quebec through the Great Lakes/St. Lawrence. If those areas are controlled by rival powers, say France keeps NO and the British are in Canada, the Northwest Territory nation (if there is one) will either be a strategic player in the balance of power of the area or the plaything of powers far greater than itself.