Balkanization - how did the US avoid it?

Given the expanse of the continent, Spanish/English/French/Native American influences, religious/ethnic diversity, (not to mention the whole slavery issue), was it ASB that the US didn’t balkanize to some degree prior to 1900? Or did it all happen too fast for firm ideological boundaries to form? Or was there just enough money & power to go around for anyone with geopolitical ambitions to get distracted?

ric350
 
Given the expanse of the continent, Spanish/English/French/Native American influences, religious/ethnic diversity, (not to mention the whole slavery issue), was it ASB that the US didn’t balkanize to some degree prior to 1900? Or did it all happen too fast for firm ideological boundaries to form? Or was there just enough money & power to go around for anyone with geopolitical ambitions to get distracted?

ric350
Well for one, most of the major groups were greatly marginalized by the Anglophones (with a few exceptions).

So, if any balkanization did happen based on those factors it would have been bloody.
And I can speak from my own ancestry that for some people, when you're options are complete anglicization and the threats to your family, anglicization can look pretty appetizing.

Now I do love these types ideas, but your probably going to need a very early POD.
 
Too much money and momentum behind American capitalism by the time of the Civil War IMO, there was too much socioeconomic glue after the Union victory
 
I am on mobile/phone so it will be aggravating to type excessively so I will type some of my thoughts out in bullet points:

-Assimilation: @da Racontor provides a sadly true and ugly side of it and should not be discounted. But I will also say the USA was formed right when nationalism as we know it came to the fore, the Anglos were a majority (arguably supermajority at around 75% of ancestry), and assimilation to the founding Anglo ethnolinguistic culture seemed a winning idea in conjunction with:
-Ideals: modern-day memes and politics aside, the USA was an attempt to provide liberty and prosperity to the common man, and that did expand over the decades and centuries as non-propertied white men gained the franchise, then slaves were freed and gained it (even accounting they had to fight Jim Crow for a century), then women, etc. And for much of history most people could make a decent living in cities or strike out to being a farm/homeowner inland, doing better than their ancestors did.
-Unionism as a specific ideal: the colonies could “hang together or separately” as ole’ B-Frank stated, and then you had the Civil War fought to preserve the Union as @Hugh Third of Five pointed out alongside emancipation. That is a POWERFUL mythos to be founded on, then protect, not even a full century later.
-Federalism: despite the federal government growing more powerful over time, the state governments had much local power and still a large amount today. This lets localisms thrive while remaining unquestionably “American” in their and others’ eyes and work to local needs as they see fit.
-Geography: east of the Rockies is flat land outside the easy-enough-to-cross Appalachians, then the Intracoastal Waterway of the Mississippi watershed/Great Lakes/Atlantic Ocean/Gulf of Mexico. West of the Rockies is South Pass - one of the greatest mountain passes on Earth - opening right into the Snake River, then that onto the navigable Columbia, that in turn flowing into the Pacific Ocean. Outside of sheer distance, geography is so damned blessed east of the Continental Divide and then God stepped in with a goddamn amazing mountain pass and navigable river straight to the Pacific, I wonder if he was playing America in a Civilization match and created Earth as we know it so he could dominate the “game”. This geography ALSO allows incredible ease of trade and travel, which in turn ensures ethnolinguistic and cultural connection and continuity.
-Technology: …and all that even BEFORE @SWS rightly pointed out how the railroad and telegraph worked to make even the Intracoastal Waterway (almost, mind you) obsolete over time! These came in conjunction as Americans were still settling the majority of their territory, once again linking everyone easy and ensuring a monoculture.
-Population numbers and density: Americans were so numerous and had such a high birth rate not only did they sweep away dozens of weakened (via disease, intratribal warfare, Euro warfare) Amerindian tribes and nations, they completely overwhelmed what very few “rival” European colonists did exist in lands they took over be it Tejanos, Californios, and Neomexicanos in the Mexican Cession, Hudson Bay Company’s British traders in coastal Washington state, and even acculturating the Gallic Creoles and Cajuns in Acadiana. They were buttressed by the federal government’s support, technology linking them back east and letting them spread out fast, and the assimilation point above.

John Adams (born 1735) and Thomas Jefferson (born 1743) were born when the only Anglos on North America were in the Thirteen Colonies and Newfoundland. By their deaths in 1826 Anglos had well-settled Missouri and were snaking into Manitoba, Arkansas, and Texas. By the time their grandchildren’s generation had been established in adulthood and the frontier closed in 1890, Anglos dominated all the USA and Canada outside Quebec and the southernmost portions of the Mexican Cession. In the course of only over a century and a half and two full generations, Americans reached the Pacific. With how short 160 years is in history that alone ensures a sort-of monoculture and living memory from grandparent to grandchild from coast to coast that could take root. Whatever else one can say if it good or ill, it really is impressive.
 
Last edited:
Cultural legacy and ethnic homogeneity, plus, its not the worst set up politically for the lucky entities that are given statehood :3
 
I mean, was balkanization expected pre-1900? European nations weren't monocultures, even discounting colonial holdings. You also had big empires, like Russia, China, and the Ottomans that also welded together multiple ethnicities for centuries. A country balkanizing would be the exception, not the norm, from the 17th-19th centuries.

But yeah, the dominance of Anglophones provided a really effective vehicle for assimilation. There wasn't any demographic that could really contest Anglophone dominance. The Native Americans were genocided, other European settlers were too few in number, and African-Americans were continuously oppressed.
 
Hmmm good answers👍

I guess other than the ACW, the closest it came was the Mormans trying to build a separate religious “state”.

Also wasn’t there a plan at one point to give the Oklahoma territories to the Native Americans, as their own “nation”?

However I always thought it possible for New England to want to be its own dominion. They had the ethnic, religious, and social history to see themselves as separate from the rest of the country.

ric350
 
Last edited:
Hmmm good answers👍

I guess other than the ACW, the closest it came was the Mormans trying to build a separate religious “state”.

Also wasn’t there a plan at one point to give the Oklahoma territories to the Native Americans, as their own “nation”?

However I always thought it possible for New England to want to be its own dominion. They had the ethnic, religious, and social history to see themselves as separate from the rest of the country.

ric350
For quite a while what’s now Oklahoma was the Indian Territory. A lot of tribes were resettled there (it was the destination of the Trail of Tears for example) and it was reserved for native settlement until it was eventually opened to white settlers and later made into the state of Oklahoma. You might be conflating the Indian Territory with native tribes stratus in domestic US law, where they’re usually described as domestic dependent nations. But there were never any plans to make the Indian Territory an independent country.
 
Last edited:
Hmmm good answers👍

I guess other than the ACW, the closest it came was the Mormans trying to build a separate religious “state”.

Also wasn’t there a plan at one point to give the Oklahoma territories to the Native Americans, as their own “nation”?
The idea was to give them their own state in the union, not a separate country.

If you remove the Trail of Tears and prevent any similar events later one, maybe the could eventually turn into an associated state type thing.
However I always thought it possible for New England to want to be its own dominion. They had the ethnic, religious, and social history to see themselves as separate from the rest of the country.

ric350
Even the War of 1812 independence movement in New England wasn't very serious. Perhaps with the right earlier POD it could turn into something then domino into other regional movements.
 
The idea was to give them their own state in the union, not a separate country.

If you remove the Trail of Tears and prevent any similar events later one, maybe the could eventually turn into an associated state type thing.

Even the War of 1812 independence movement in New England wasn't very serious. Perhaps with the right earlier POD it could turn into something then domino into other regional movements.
You ever read Decades of Darkness? :p
 
Geography played a big part.

Istr that someone commented before the ACW that "Massachusetts and South Carolina, it may be, can separate and find a boundary line acceptable to them both; but there is no way that any such line can be drawn through the west."

Basically the whole area between the Alleghenies and Rockies is a natural unit, with no convenient lines of division. It is a vast river system, and until the advent of the railroads , those rivers were its main avenues of communication. Indeed they were still quite important even after that. The whole Ohio Valley, free and slave alike, stayed with the Union in 1861, and most of its early successes were on or near the Mississippi.

Once the railroads came, the country was far more tightly bound together, and balkanisation become even less likely.
 
Top