Worldbuilding Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for writers/artists using science, geography and culture to construct imaginary worlds and settings. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
In the scenario proposed in this question, the Thirteen Colonies choose not to unite. Sure they work together, but not as a United Nation, as a coalition of Independent Nation States; all working together, but all technically independent of each other.
As much fun as this scenario is, I cannot think of a realistic reason for it to occur. Why would the Thirteen Colonies choose to be allied, individual nation states instead of being one united country?
They might chose to remain apart because the colonies did not really have that much in common in the first place. While all the colonists spoke English, and the vast majority of the residents at that point (~1790) were of English or Scottish origin, the economies of the states were dependent on different things.
New England's colonies were based on fishing, whaling, shipbuilding, and shipping. They were heavily involved with the non-English colonies in the Carribean, as shippers of food to the plantations there and processors of molasses (into rum). There were basically no slaves in New England (less than 4,000, about 3/4 of them in Connecticut). The population of New England in 1790 was just over 1 million.
The middle colonies (NY, NJ, PA, DE, and MD) were sources of the food that the New Englanders traded, and also furs. Furs were the primary product of the interior United States and they flowed through Pennsylvania to Philadelphia, or down the Hudson to New York. There were some slaves in the Middle States; about 150,000, 2/3 of them in Maryland. Maryland is often considered a slave state, but it is the only 'traditional' slave state whose slave population dropped after 1790. Whereas the number of slaves in the US tripled between 1790 and 1860, it dropped by 10% in Maryland as the state shifted away from the plantation economy and Baltimore came to more closely resemble Philadelphia as a manufacturing and shipping hub. The free population of the middle states was 1.2 million.
The South sold cotton, tobacco, and indigo. Since the south's trade was more lucrative and population of free whites was MUCH smaller, the south had no incentive to start manufacturing, whereas Philadelphia, New York, and Boston had manufacturing economies as advanced as anywhere outside England, even as early as 1800. Slaves were of course plentiful in the south, making up close to half the population. The free population of the south was about 900,000.
Economy pulled the country in different directions.
The South would have wanted to maintain ties with England, since that was the richest country in the world and the primary customer for southern cotton and also indigo.
New England, on the other hand was basically in competition with the British shipping and shipbuilding industries. The New England colonies would have been geopolitically advantaged by an alliance with the Spanish colonies in the new world, a huge market for New England manufactures and shipping. At this time, Spain had little manufacturing and a small merchant navy.
The middle colonies would have been been somewhere in the middle (lol?) not being especially advantaged or disadvantaged by association with England. As the only net food producers of the New World, they would benefit most from the growth of other colonial empires that they could feed (perishable food being difficult to ship across the Atlantic).
Economic difference caused a potential for separation between the states. The impetus for separation could be one of the below:
This was of course slavery, the issue which came the closest to actually splitting the nation. In addition to the actual civil war, there were tensions around the 3/5 Clause of the Constitution, the Missouri Compromise, the Nullification Crisis, the aftermath of the Mexican-American war, etc. Had the issue gone to war during, say, the Missouri Compromise of 1820, its entirely possible, the New England, Middle, and Southern sections of the country would have gone their own way. This is especially true since the New Englanders voted differently from the rest of the nation in the 1820s. New England provided 31 of 34 dissenting electoral votes against James Madison in 1816, and the only dissenting vote in 1820. NE voted 51 of 51 for John Quincy Adams while the rest of country voted 30 of 210 for him in 1824. In 1828, NE went 50/51 for JQA, and the rest of the country 33 of 210.
The other event that could have split the nation was ratification of the Constitution. It was a heroic effort on the part of many of the founding fathers to convince state legislatures to ratify. As it was, two of the original 13 states (North Carolina, and Rhode Island) had not even ratified the Constitution by the time George Washington too his initial oath of office. Many of the largest states,had close votes: 187-168 in MA, 89-79 in VA, 30-27 in NY. Rhode Island rejected the constitution in a referendum, and North Carolina's legislature voted once against ratifying before coming around later. Incidentally, that means that neither state nor NY voted in the first presidential election. Imagine if you weren't allowed to vote and then Hillary or Trump (pick who you hate more) became president!
In any case, if ratification was a close call in many places, and could have failed. In that case, it is not at all clear what would have happened, but three regional nations, or 13 individual nations are both possibilities.
Simple answer is that the Articles of Confederation were a pretty big failure which could have lead to the "US" to devolved into 13 sovereign states, rather than what did happen (the writing of the Constitution and strengthening federal power), however when British forces attack in 1812 they would need to "unite" as an alliance to ward of the UK which is another point of a possible Federalization, but it is more likely to establish a long term International alliance between the 13 states rather than a federated government due to the states would have stabilized by this point and there would be much greater push back against a stronger union since they'd have already seen it fail once. This also would be on the tail end of the French Revolution. Many of the founders of the US likely would have seen that and a good number of them would have to question how lucky they were that the results were as they were and wouldn't want to risk pushing more political reform that could end worse.
This obviously changes history a bit like, no war with Canada and the Civil War never happens, but alliances would change and the North would block the South from searching for slaves in its territory at some point, especially with the South growing military power... Slavery would still be abolished by the early 1900s and racial tensions wouldn't be as high... Also Southern cities might be more powerful than they are today.
The Louisiana Purchase wouldn't happen, which might have causes another state to form there and possibly war with the 13 states. The US wouldn't have been able to back the Allies side in WWI or WWII which might have lead to a German and Japanese victory... California, Texas, Hawaii would all likely be their own countries, bigger, with other smaller countries around them probably. Alaska might have been bought by Canada. Also the moon landing would likely not have happened and I think the Space age would have been pushed back a few decades. Same with all our current technology without the US pushing for and having the resources to do these things. Also you have a lot of oppressed people throughout Europe that would likely overthrow Germany eventually and China would never stop trying to rebel against Japan so that area would likely be a chaotic area similar to Africa.
Without all the superpower rising up and all the war in other countries far away the nations that are the US and Canada currently would likely be still the most peaceful area on Earth, but tensions would rise and there'd be minor skirmishes, but ultimately there'd be no reason to unite so under anything other than maybe a looser confederation than the Articles of Confederation did, more in line with a UN or Nato.
Look up real history: The United States in 1776 was indeed a federation of independant states (“state” is like kingdom but not specific to monarchy; different from the meaning assumed today as a synonym for provence).
The Constitution created a central government, 11 years later!
The Wikipedia page gives a good overview. Look at what happened: they planned a meeting for the stated purpose of ammending the Articles, but took matters in their own hands and wrote an entirely new government, and then had to convince everyone to switch to it!
Why were they driven to that? Maybe they weren’t so driven in the alternate history, and a few significant ammendments would be sufficient to address the problems, or the same problems were not even present due to diplomacy and events prior to getting to that point.
Maybe the founders had ideas but couldn’t agree on a federal government so didn’t persue it but revised the Articles instead as they were supposed to. Maybe one particular person was present and made them do the job they were meant to do and not waste time on a more ambitious project; work on that after we ship our deliverables, as a good manager will do; but that ended up working well enough and a whole new government did not gain traction.
Maybe Jefferson had died early, or wasn’t present for some other reason.
So it’s the fact that we did create a Federal Union that is extrodinary and if anything had gone differently it would not have happened that way.
Now even with a full Republic having feneral authority, states rights were a big deal and it wasn’t until WWⅡ that the US became such a strong single federal entity. It could have gone differently with events weakening the central-ness, even without changing the fact of the Union.
Again, look at the intracacies of history to get a much more varied story than you might know or suppose today.
More of a comment than an answer, but as many of the posters upthread noted, The initial "Articles of Confederation" were based on the premise that each colony was a sovereign State, and the correct terminology for the nation prior to the Civil War was "These United States".
The American Creed also outlines this historical basis:
I believe in the United States of America as a government of the people, by the people, for the people; whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed, a democracy in a republic, a sovereign Nation of many sovereign States; a perfect union, one and inseparable; established upon those principles of freedom, equality, justice, and humanity for which American patriots sacrificed their lives and fortunes.
I therefore believe it is my duty to my country to love it, to support its Constitution, to obey its laws, to respect its flag, and to defend it against all enemies.
And historically, some of these early States really did take the idea of Sovereignty to the limit; the "Whiskey Rebellion" of 1791 was a direct challenge to the idea of "These United States" being a unitary nation, and the events leading up to the American Civil War were based on the principle of "States Rights" and how much authority the central government in Washington had over the States. Slavery was the proximate cause, since it was also an emotionally charged and easily understandable issue, but the idea that Washington could restrict the spread of slavery to the new territories was the trigger for many of the Confederate states, since they could collectively see the end of their power and influence as they became outnumbered in the expanding Union.
The CSA is probably a good forecast of how a disunited States under the Articles of Confederation would have evolved. Even under the existential threat of military conquest, the various States that made up the CSA never operated in a unified manner. One could suggest that the squabbling States of the original Articles of Confederation would have been unable to drive out Spain or France from North America, and the British would have been able to create a sort of counter nation on the West Coast, retaining the Oregon Territories and joining them to British Columbia, and expanding north to Russian Alaska and south the Spanish California. France still retained notional rights to the Louisiana Territories, and the interior may well have been left to the plains Indians.
Durakken suggests that the Articles of Confederation basically failed (which it did). kingledion suggests that differences in manufacturing base and preferred trading partners and attitudes on slavery and loyalty would have kept the colonies apart. Those are both great ideas.
Perhaps another option would be if England did not force the colonies to unite in the first place. The Seven Years War (or more to the point: the "French and Indian War") began when England decided to stop French expansion in the inland areas. Ben Franklin had the bright idea that maybe the colonies should create a unified governance for defense of the 13 colonies, thus proposing his Albany Plan and calling for the Albany Congress of 1754 (twenty years before the first Continental Congress).
Maybe, just possibly, if England had decided to wage a Continental war (in Europe) and focus its strong navy and commit troops to attacking France directly (along with its ally Fredrick the Great of Prussia), the New World could have been spared as a theater of the War. England, knowing that France did not have a navy strong enough to transport troops and supplies to win in America, might have decided that America was theirs for good and that England should therefor focus military action directly against France. This would mean the Colonies would have less to fear, and they might not have felt the need to unite in defense.
Also, maybe England would instead decide to wage economic war against France, and to treat the Colonists a lot better then they actually did. England regarded its colonies as golden gooses that you just squeeze the crap out of. Thus, you get bumbling moves like the Stamp Tax. What if, instead, England had decided that the better way to extract wealth was to invest in growth and productivity, rewarding entrepreneurship and fostering strong market development. As kingledion points out, each colony had different things to offer, and under an English crown, these differences would be skillfully exploited for the good of the Crown, but also for the good of each colony individually. If each colony is relatively happy with its relationship to England, then there's nothing to rebel against. Call off the tea party.
