In a world where the Americans win the war of independence but fail to form a more perfect union, can each of the states survive as independent countries? Obviously New York and Virginia can do it, but what about, say, Delaware? I can see the New England states perhaps merging together, but can other small states go at it alone?
Are the Thirteen States viable alone?
- Thread starter pa_dutch
- Start date
I think any country is "viable"; whether or not it's rich or poor, a democracy or a dictatorship, is another story.
No state 'goes it alone' unless you're counting North Korea; as long as the states share economic interests, they can rely on eachothers' resources to make up for what they lack. Singapore is little more than a rock, with no natural resources to speak of, but it has one of the highest standards of living in the world.
OTL
By the time of the American Revolutionary War the original 13 Colonies were running out of farmland to feed their growing population.
They either had to import food or export people.
George Washington was surveying a third option: new lands to the west when he clashed with the French at Fort Duquaine (sp?).
By the time of the American Revolutionary War the original 13 Colonies were running out of farmland to feed their growing population.
They either had to import food or export people.
George Washington was surveying a third option: new lands to the west when he clashed with the French at Fort Duquaine (sp?).
I think so. They don't really have many threats other than each other, and countries with representative governments tend not to go to war very much. The smallest states won't do anything to offend anyone, as they don't have Western claims. Those with Western claims might go to war, but they are big enough to defend their own Eastern territory, so don't think that's a problem. Catholic powers would have to be made to try to conquer them, so the biggest threat in Britain absorbing them one by one again.
Well, the Americans did have all the land from the Appalachians to the Mississippi to fight over. Virginia, Georgia, and North Carolina will have plenty of outlets for their population (which, unless I'm wrong, isn't so crowded just yet). South Carolina's strangely thin claim of western reserve is a bigger question.
New York and the New England states will probably go to war over the lion's share of the Midwest. I can see New York allying with Pennsylvania to knock out Connecticut's influence in the west, especially as Connecticut was trying to take the entire northern tract of Pennsylvania with it. In return, New York might give Pennsylvania its Erie triangle.
Massachusetts still has Maine as a population outlet.
Virginia was the richest of the original 13 colonies, and also had most penetration into the Ohio country. But ultimately, I can't see these wars getting that bad. Let's say Virginia defeats New York to settle the Ohio. What's going to happen then? If we look at our timeline, those settling west of the Appalachians quickly resent being controlled by the East. They will rebel, and they will get funding from other states worried about Virginia's dominance, so they will probably succeed. After that happens once or twice, the states will probably try to give up having vast empires.
Was America really that barren? Because given the population density of places like China, Japan, and the Netherlands, I wonder about this.
Both Japan and the Netherlands import a lot of their food, I believe. Not sure about China.
There were quite a few German states then (and for about another century) which were smaller than Delaware.
they can and will, slowly, of course minor state would want allies with a major one(a delaware-maryland friendship and mutual defense treaty,etc) and they would keep good relationship in trade matter, about politcs and fights for the west...that will be messy with the big guys(new york vs pennsylvania for michigan, virginia vs pennsylvania for Ohio,etc)
they can, in europe were far smaller and viable state
Yes, though obviously none will be up to par with the USA. I see a few of these joining together or being absorbed by the neighbors though.
The New England states will likely federate fairly quickly. They were already well known for the merchants and trading, and I see nothing about that changing here. Save perhaps eventually tempting Acadia away from Britain/Canada - probably buying it from a very close Britain - New York would close off expansion west, so if they expand, they could rely on overseas colonies.
New York will be a power in its own right, but by joining either New England or Pennsylvania's grouping, they have the chance to play kingmaker. They can cement New England's place as the New World's leading merchant power, ensure Pennsylvania becomes its leading industrial power, and either one they join now has the potential to compete with Virginia over the Ohio valley. Of course, they could well remain independent, in which case all bets are off.
New Jersey joins either Pennsylvania or New York or gets divided between them. My money is on them joining Pennsylvania and perhaps urging New York to do the same.
Pennsylvania could likely rope in New Jersey and Delaware, forming a rump Middle American United States of sorts from the three early adapters of the Constitution. They were already on the way to being the industrial and production capitals of the 13 colonies, and I see little to change that here. They might compete with Virginia over the Midwest, but I see them dividing it cleanly, with Pennsylvania dominating the Great Lakes and Virginia getting the Ohio River region.
Poor Delaware... so far from god, too close to Maryland and Pennsylvania. Whichever moves first gets it, but my money is on Pennsylvania, if only to ensure Philadelphia has coast access.
Maryland will be stuck between Virginia and Pennsylvania, blocked off from the West, but unlike Delaware, more than capable of playing the two against each other to remain independent. Which is actually where I see Maryland's role in this - serving as a buffer state between the Virginian and Pennsylvanian heartland, with Baltimore eventually becoming the diplomatic center of the former 13 colonies.
Virginia would be the strongest of the bunch, to say nothing if they can rope in North Carolina or Maryland. They had the biggest, richest and most educated population base, the strongest hold out west with the best ways to access it, and without the influence of the other Southern states, have a good chance at eliminating slavery. They'd also have the best, and perhaps ONLY chance to claim land on the other side of the Mississippi River.
North Carolina is almost certain to either join either Virginia or South Carolina, depending on who makes a better offer or where they feel they'll get a better deal with. There is also the potential for division between the two - there was an existing cultural and economic divide between the Northern parts of the state that related more to the Upper South/Virginia, and the Southern parts of the state, that had more in common with the Deep South/Carolina Georgia.
South Carolina has the chance to be the only real power south of Virginia, at least if they can be diplomatic. They'd be the kings of the cotton trade, and unabashedly in favor of slavery and the slave trade.
Georgia at the time consisted of Savannah and some plantations at this point. I guarantee they either join with South Carolina or become a European satellite state VERY quickly.
End result, you might not have 13 colonies turn into 13 countries, but the 5 or 6 you'd eventually end up with are all viable and potentially distinct from each other.
The New England states will likely federate fairly quickly. They were already well known for the merchants and trading, and I see nothing about that changing here. Save perhaps eventually tempting Acadia away from Britain/Canada - probably buying it from a very close Britain - New York would close off expansion west, so if they expand, they could rely on overseas colonies.
New York will be a power in its own right, but by joining either New England or Pennsylvania's grouping, they have the chance to play kingmaker. They can cement New England's place as the New World's leading merchant power, ensure Pennsylvania becomes its leading industrial power, and either one they join now has the potential to compete with Virginia over the Ohio valley. Of course, they could well remain independent, in which case all bets are off.
New Jersey joins either Pennsylvania or New York or gets divided between them. My money is on them joining Pennsylvania and perhaps urging New York to do the same.
Pennsylvania could likely rope in New Jersey and Delaware, forming a rump Middle American United States of sorts from the three early adapters of the Constitution. They were already on the way to being the industrial and production capitals of the 13 colonies, and I see little to change that here. They might compete with Virginia over the Midwest, but I see them dividing it cleanly, with Pennsylvania dominating the Great Lakes and Virginia getting the Ohio River region.
Poor Delaware... so far from god, too close to Maryland and Pennsylvania. Whichever moves first gets it, but my money is on Pennsylvania, if only to ensure Philadelphia has coast access.
Maryland will be stuck between Virginia and Pennsylvania, blocked off from the West, but unlike Delaware, more than capable of playing the two against each other to remain independent. Which is actually where I see Maryland's role in this - serving as a buffer state between the Virginian and Pennsylvanian heartland, with Baltimore eventually becoming the diplomatic center of the former 13 colonies.
Virginia would be the strongest of the bunch, to say nothing if they can rope in North Carolina or Maryland. They had the biggest, richest and most educated population base, the strongest hold out west with the best ways to access it, and without the influence of the other Southern states, have a good chance at eliminating slavery. They'd also have the best, and perhaps ONLY chance to claim land on the other side of the Mississippi River.
North Carolina is almost certain to either join either Virginia or South Carolina, depending on who makes a better offer or where they feel they'll get a better deal with. There is also the potential for division between the two - there was an existing cultural and economic divide between the Northern parts of the state that related more to the Upper South/Virginia, and the Southern parts of the state, that had more in common with the Deep South/Carolina Georgia.
South Carolina has the chance to be the only real power south of Virginia, at least if they can be diplomatic. They'd be the kings of the cotton trade, and unabashedly in favor of slavery and the slave trade.
Georgia at the time consisted of Savannah and some plantations at this point. I guarantee they either join with South Carolina or become a European satellite state VERY quickly.
End result, you might not have 13 colonies turn into 13 countries, but the 5 or 6 you'd eventually end up with are all viable and potentially distinct from each other.
There was an obvious need for a confederation and cooperation during the war. Post war, the problems with the articles of confederation became apparent; however, the need to protect themselves from Great Britain, Spain and France, kept the states from going their own way after the war.
During the constitutional convention, the biggest compromise was the balancing of the small state/large state interests. There were also compromises concerning slavery. However, had Northern states been more anti slavery at that point, then the convention could have failed.
I don't think there is any realistic scenario where we end up with 13 completely sovereign countries. At worst we end up with several loose confederations. While a New England confederation seems likely, there would be tension between the haves -Mass and potentially Conn, and the have nots - New Hampshire and Rhode Island. Rhode Island was very wary of the much larger (in terms of population), Massachusetts and all of its additional claims for land, and may not want to be too closely aligned with Mass.
By the time of the convention, New York and New Jersey were at best neutral regarding slavery, while most of Penn was more anti slavery. So the slavery issue might be a reason those states don't confederate together.
However the sheer size and power of Virginia, will most likely be enough to have the Carolinas and Georgia all join with Virginia to form the strongest confederation (at that time). Plus with all of their claims on western lands, you can really see that confederation, with all of its similaries, actually forming a more cohesive federation, and cooperating to try to take control and settle all the western lands. If NY, PA, etc. are not at least a strong confederation themselves, all of their western claims probably get lost to the southern confederation.
Maryland and Delaware either get wooed into joining with Pennsylvania, etc, or joining Virginia (most likely), if the try to remain independent from the other confederations, they are probably invaded and annexed at some point.
During the constitutional convention, the biggest compromise was the balancing of the small state/large state interests. There were also compromises concerning slavery. However, had Northern states been more anti slavery at that point, then the convention could have failed.
I don't think there is any realistic scenario where we end up with 13 completely sovereign countries. At worst we end up with several loose confederations. While a New England confederation seems likely, there would be tension between the haves -Mass and potentially Conn, and the have nots - New Hampshire and Rhode Island. Rhode Island was very wary of the much larger (in terms of population), Massachusetts and all of its additional claims for land, and may not want to be too closely aligned with Mass.
By the time of the convention, New York and New Jersey were at best neutral regarding slavery, while most of Penn was more anti slavery. So the slavery issue might be a reason those states don't confederate together.
However the sheer size and power of Virginia, will most likely be enough to have the Carolinas and Georgia all join with Virginia to form the strongest confederation (at that time). Plus with all of their claims on western lands, you can really see that confederation, with all of its similaries, actually forming a more cohesive federation, and cooperating to try to take control and settle all the western lands. If NY, PA, etc. are not at least a strong confederation themselves, all of their western claims probably get lost to the southern confederation.
Maryland and Delaware either get wooed into joining with Pennsylvania, etc, or joining Virginia (most likely), if the try to remain independent from the other confederations, they are probably invaded and annexed at some point.
My own opinion is that only the larger colonies (Virginia, New York, Pennsylvania, the Carolinas, Georgia, etc) could be viable on a long term basis as fully independent nations. Not only are they large, but they can relatively easily expand westward as contiguous states. But even that's iffy over the long term
I think some sort of New England confederation would be almost immediately essential for the New England colonies to survive long term as independent nations. All of them are too small and their way westward is constrained by British territory or other, larger US states.
In the long run, I find in difficult to see any of the colonies thriving as independent nations without large confederations developing, especially considering the fact that a "balkanized" Eastern North America would be easy pickings for other colonial powers or fertile ground for its own conflicts.
I think some sort of New England confederation would be almost immediately essential for the New England colonies to survive long term as independent nations. All of them are too small and their way westward is constrained by British territory or other, larger US states.
In the long run, I find in difficult to see any of the colonies thriving as independent nations without large confederations developing, especially considering the fact that a "balkanized" Eastern North America would be easy pickings for other colonial powers or fertile ground for its own conflicts.
Smaller states have survived in Europe for much longer periods. They don't need to expand Westward to survive.
I also disagree with your last paragraph. Why would France, Spain or Britain be mad enough to try to reconquer Pennsylvania or New York? The colonies could always agree a Monroe Doctrine for North America among themselves. They would be no more Balkanised than Western Europe.
OTL, USA was united, and the threat of USA defending Latin America was rolled out repeatedly. When USA was out of action by Civil War, France promptly invaded Mexico, and Spain tried something with Peru.
TTL, supposing USA collapses like Gran Colombia or United Provinces of Central America... Sure, smaller states could be "viable" as independent States, like Salvador, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Paraguay or Uruguay. And a foreign invasion or rise of an aggressive danger in America could trigger alliances against. But without a ready made state and federal military budget in place, mobilizing an alliance against a colonial invader would take time and have cooperation problems. USA and CSA did not make a truce in Civil War to defend Monroe Doctrine in Mexico.
They could, I suppose, but there is just as much likelihood that they may end up squabbling among themselves over the pre-existing claims each had made to western territories up to the Mississippi River. The existence of the US and made it possible for the states to give up these claims and cede them to the central government. With no USA there would not likely be such a mechanism to resolve these conflicts.
I still like the idea I remember reading on a previous thread like this, of rising nationalism leading to an American reunification about the same time as the German and Italian unifications.
I now kind of want to read an ASB story with Abraham Lincoln as the American Bismark.
I now kind of want to read an ASB story with Abraham Lincoln as the American Bismark.