When it first gained independence from Britain in the aftermath of the American Revolutionary War in 1781, the United States were not quite as united as they would be by the end of the decade. There was no Constitution: instead, under the original Articles of Confederation the 'country' was essentially a loose league of quasi-independent mini-countries (it's all in the name: 'state' is usually synonymous with 'country'), with a federal government consisting of one Congress that was so ineffective it might as well not have existed at all.
Naturally, this state of affairs could not last. The ramshackle government that was the Congress of the Confederation had no ability to levy a tax (it had to request money from the states); could not regulate interstate commerce (meaning that each state ran up its own separate debts and made its own trade agreements); could not fund a proper military as a result of its constant lack of funds; caused severe inflation that made the Continental Dollar worthless when it did try to print more money; and was unable to stand up to foreign powers due to all of these problems, which meant that among other things the British maintained a military presence on the officially American side of the border up north and Spain extracted the unfavorable Jay-Gardoqui Treaty of 1786 (banning Americans from navigating the Mississippi River for 25 years).
Still, perhaps the worst development stemming from the Articles of Confederation was none of the above, but rather the tendency for the states to fight amongst themselves over territory and resources. For example, Connecticut and Pennsylvania intermittently warred with each other (the 'Pennamite Wars') over the Wyoming Valley on the northern Susquehanna River between 1769 and 1799 and actually got worse after the War of Independence, with Vermont entering the conflict on Connecticut's side until Congress ruled in favor of Pennsylvania's claim to the territory. The disconnect between central state governments & frontier communities and the latter's dissatisfaction with the former resulted in the latter rebelling or trying to secede at times: Shays' Rebellion in Massachusetts 1786-87 and the emergence of the 'State of Franklin' (1784-88) in what is now eastern Tennessee was an especially prominent example of this occurring. Even after the Constitution was ratified, territorial disputes and frontier uprisings continued to threaten the USA into the early 19th century, with examples such as the three-way 'Walton War' between the Carolinas and Georgia in 1804-18, the Toledo War between Ohio and Michigan in the 1830s, and a tax revolt called the Whiskey Rebellion requiring a 13,000-strong force led by George Washington himself to be put down in 1791-94.
Eventually, this state of affairs was ended by the adoption of the Constitution, creating a functioning federal government and keeping the United States...well, united into the 19th century, where it took its first steps towards becoming a great power on the global stage.
But what if...the Constitution never came to pass, and instead the various states deemed their great experiment to be a failure & went their separate ways? With the dissolution of the United States, where there was two countries - including the Vermont Republic, which was technically independent until 1791 - there are now 14. Where does America go from here?
Firstly, we will likely see two large blocs form in the north and south. Up north, the New England states and New York will find it in their interest to enter a coalition to deter potential British aggression; defend themselves from other states, such as Pennsylvania (see the Pennamite Wars above); and reinforce their shared commercial interests, being a collection of maritime states dominated by big merchants. Down south, the states of the Old South from Maryland and Virginia down to Georgia are likely to do the same, this time to counter the specter of Spanish aggression and effectively coordinate efforts against poor white rebels on the frontiers or slave rebels within their borders.
In due time, these coalitions will likely evolve into proper nations, built on the shared cultures and economic systems of the states that comprise them: the Northeast would be on the road to becoming a centralized, naval-oriented republic dominated by ever-more-powerful business magnates as envisioned by Alexander Hamilton, while the Southeast moves towards an aristocratic republic ruled by and for the planter elite with a small middle class surviving in the big cities (such as Richmond and New Bern) and the majority of the population being either white peons, little better than serfs, or black slaves. The Northeast is likely to absorb Pennsylvania and New Jersey, while both nations will face continued resistance from poor white frontiersmen out west that may eventually give rise to a third power: an Appalachian nation of yeoman farmers that is essentially Thomas Jefferson's dream brought to life, agrarian but democratic and with little opportunity to be particularly racist due to having a much smaller black population than the Old South.
Further west, the Great Lakes area may well never be colonized by American settlers, as the disunited states of America would lack the strength to expel Tecumseh's Native American confederacy and their British backers (and the Northeasterners, owing to their trade connections to Britain, would be even more vehemently opposed to taking action against the British). Thus, unless the British withdraw support for them at an inopportune time, we would see the emergence of a Native American state in Ohio, Michigan and Indiana. If the British do drop support for Tecumseh and his people, the Great Lakes could still be overrun by American colonists at a later date, though as they would have settled these territories much later than the original frontier settlements in the Appalachians, these Midwestern colonists may be a much more mixed bunch than the Scots-Irish Appalachians (especially if they include large quantities of immigrants from Europe) and be less inclined to stick together as one country, meaning we will probably see the emergence of multiple smaller states (a Republic of Ohio, a Republic of Michigan, etc.) there.
So what are the long-term effects? Well firstly, much of the western half of the United States would not be settled, at least not by the various American peoples of this timeline. At most, they might be able to break into the sparsely-populated and controlled territory of the Louisiana Purchase, and even that would likely break up into many smaller countries for the same reasons that a successfully colonized Midwest would.
Down south, without American support Texas would either not exist or (in case the Mexicans are still stuck with the leadership of Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, one of the worst generals ever in modern history) be much smaller, unable to expand beyond the Nueces River as it was historically.
Britain would have a free hand to settle all of Oregon, while California and the American southwest would remain under Mexican authority with no united America around to seriously contest any of this. If the butterfly effect fails to prevent the emergence of the Mormons and they are still persecuted across the disunited states of the East to the point where they flee to Utah, they may become the westernmost outpost of American settlement.
Slavery will still not be abolished peacefully, as the advent of the cotton gin makes the practice far too lucrative to let go (much as it did historically) and the South has no federal government to fear. Moreover, the Southern planter elite would still find promoting a racial divide between poor whites and black slaves to be in their interest, preventing these two marginalized and impoverished groups from allying against their mutual overlords. If abolitionism still takes hold in the Northeast, an Underground Railroad would have much closer 'stations' for slaves to finish their journey at: instead of voyaging to Canada, they could 'get off their train' in Pennsylvania or New York. In case the two nations come to blows (perhaps the South sends slave-catchers up north in violation of Northeastern sovereignty, or the Northeast supports slave rebellions south of the border), the South would have a stronger chance of winning early battles and wars before industrialization - a development much more likely to be supported by the Northeast's business tycoons than the agrarian planter aristocracy of the South - greatly expands the divide between the two's wartime strength.
Could a movement or individual emerge to reunite America? Possibly. But they would most likely only emerge in the lands of the original Thirteen Colonies, where there would be any memory of a United States at all: that means in the Northeast, the Appalachians or the South. Even if they prove successful, this 'America' would have little to no power beyond the Appalachians, unless their leaders make the decision to push westward and expand into lands that were never really 'American' and where the people are either Native Americans, foreigners (ex. Mexicans, British and so on) or think of themselves as 'Ohioans', 'Missourians', etc. rather than proper Americans.
Colonialism, at least the variety practiced by the European powers, would remain a much stronger force in the Western Hemisphere without the Monroe Doctrine. Britain, France and Spain would have a much freer hand in manipulating and harassing the Latin American states (if they even emerge, instead of remaining Spanish colonies owing to the butterfly effect). Spain would also likely succeed in holding on to its last colonies, Cuba and the Philippines, with no united America having the strength to wrest these lands from its control.
-------------------
Thank you for reading all the way to the conclusion! If you like what you've just read, then by all means, please leave a comment. For that matter, if you don't like what you read, leave a comment anyway. I would be happy to receive any questions, suggestions or (civil) criticism you might have.
Thank you for reading all the way to the conclusion! If you like what you've just read, then by all means, please leave a comment. For that matter, if you don't like what you read, leave a comment anyway. I would be happy to receive any questions, suggestions or (civil) criticism you might have.
No comments:
Post a Comment