Dark ages America

[Brilliantlight]

1863 The CSA wins indepence
1864 Georgia the first of the Confederate states secedes from the Confederacy. Maryland secedes from the Union.
1865 Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina secede from the Confederacy while Deleware and New York secede from the Union.
1866 Both the Confederacy and the Union disolves due to a wave of secesions.
1867-1872 tensions grow between the various independent states
1873 Texas declares war on Louisiana, North Carolina declares war on South Carolina
1874 New York declares war on New Jersey, New Hampshire declares war on Vermont.
1975- 1910 Epidemics sweep across the former US as war and chaos reign. People start fleeing the cities.
1876 The formers states are breaking down as counties start declaring indepence. People start losing more and more rights in the chaos. Famine is becoming an everyday fact of life.
1880 Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont are admited to Canada after their state governments petition them to do so.
1878-1900 The states break down more and more. There are no less then 300 independent countries and autonomous regions. About a quarter of the former country is absorbed by Canada and Mexico. North America has no more then 3/4 of the population it had in 1860. Most of North America is in a semi-feudal state.

Wars of conquest period. Note: All states named are to give rough ideas only. The empires grab pieces of neigboring the states named and don't conquer part of the states they do grab
1895-1920 Mexico conquers part of Texas and all of New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada and Utah. The Kingdom of California conquers Oregon, Washington, Idaho and Mountana.
1890-1950 The Kingdom of Norfolk conquers the rest of Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky and Tennesee.
1900-1940 The New York Empire is born. Under the dynamic leadership of Emperor Micheal I the county of New York starts conquering the rest of New York and then conquers New Jersey. It also conquers most of Pennslyvania.
1905-1955 The Empire of Texas is born. Fredrick I conquers all Texas,Louisiana and Oklahoma.
1910 -1950 The Empire of Illinois under John II spreads out from Chicago and conquers Wisconsin and Iowa along with the rest of Illinois.
1920-1960 The Kingdom of Georgia conquers Mississippi, Alabama and Florida.
1960-1970 The rest of the US is conquered by the Kingdoms/Empires.

 

[Midgard]

Interesting timeline, with Balkanized North America. Would Britain, France, and Russia have a greater role in American politics? I would imagine Russia would try to grab California by 1870s-1880s, France attempting to make its bid for Louisiana, and Britain likely to occupy New England, especially if it has a chance. Also, would such a foreign intervention create somewhat of a feeling of unity between the various North American states, enough to form at least some form of a military alliance that would last only long enough to repel an aggressor?

Also, such TL could lead to longer survival of Native American nations, possibly with a greater chance of them creating smaller nation-states that could realistically compete with semi-feudal domains throughout North America. With support from the European Great Powers, such states could even last to the modern times...

 

[David S Poepoe]

Unrealistic. "Most of North America is in a semi-feudal state." - won't happen. While it is likely that the Confederacy may break apart, I doubt the Union would be doing the same. "tensions grow between the various independent states" - the states have been working together for years, this isn't like a new body created over night with ill-defined powers and limitations.

What is more likely would be the economic factors will step in, probably the likes of the 'robber barons'. Foreign powers will step in far before 1900 and the balance of power in North America would be settled by the early 1900s also. I consider it very unlikely that this 'collapse' would reach the county level.

 

[Brilliantlight]

Unrealistic. "Most of North America is in a semi-feudal state." - won't happen. While it is likely that the Confederacy may break apart, I doubt the Union would be doing the same. "tensions grow between the various independent states" - the states have been working together for years, this isn't like a new body created over night with ill-defined powers and limitations.

What is more likely would be the economic factors will step in, probably the likes of the 'robber barons'. Foreign powers will step in far before 1900 and the balance of power in North America would be settled by the early 1900s also. I consider it very unlikely that this 'collapse' would reach the county level.

I agree it isn't the most likely outcome but certainly a possible one. Basically the Civil War being won by the South would do two things.

1) Gives a precedent that you can leave the moment something doesn't go your way such as the "wrong" person is elected which leads to 2) Makes the central governments so weak that they are unable to do anything. Why pay taxes to a government that does nothing?

Tensions grow because with no strong central government every state looks out for itself. After that you will have disputes about tarrifs, trade restrictions, border disputes etc. that was either non-existant or settled by the US government. Eventually the tensions lead to war.

Europe could well intervene I admit but if it is being swept by a depression due to the collapse of US trade it may be too poor if it waits too long.

 

[BurningWickerman]

The Native Americans would have a high chance of surviving because of the mormons.
The mormons converted several groups of Indians. If they had been left alone by the Union they would have probably converted a fair amount.
A large number would probably be made into farmers working alongside white Mormons and be directly incorparated into a Mormon state.
They probably would have created some semi-modern Indian border states around them. Of course when the tech improvments in the 1860's 1870's were made that ment Indians could settle in the Plains and become farmers.
The Mormon influence would travel across the east plains even across non-mormon indians. A kind of trickle down effect.
By the time any homesteaders came they would have been destroyed by better-organised Indians and suspicious Mormons.

Large parts of Indian plains culture could survive in groups of Homesteader type communities propped up by Mormon-originated tech.

 

[Midgard]

Europe could well intervene I admit but if it is being swept by a depression due to the collapse of US trade it may be too poor if it waits too long.

The European intervention would likely come sooner rather than later, as even with no centralized US, there are other trade partners throughout the world. In fact, balkanized US could be even better for European trading powers of the time, as with competition between different statelets, European powers could choose and pick the best deals.

Another possible course of development is the various small states falling under spheres of influence from European Great Powers, guaranteeing their independence, etc etc. In effect the wars of Great Powers could be fought on American soil, and could become a catalyst for something like World War I that spreads to Europe.

 

[Brilliantlight]

Interesting timeline, with Balkanized North America. Would Britain, France, and Russia have a greater role in American politics? I would imagine Russia would try to grab California by 1870s-1880s, France attempting to make its bid for Louisiana, and Britain likely to occupy New England, especially if it has a chance. Also, would such a foreign intervention create somewhat of a feeling of unity between the various North American states, enough to form at least some form of a military alliance that would last only long enough to repel an aggressor?

Also, such TL could lead to longer survival of Native American nations, possibly with a greater chance of them creating smaller nation-states that could realistically compete with semi-feudal domains throughout North America. With support from the European Great Powers, such states could even last to the modern times...

To be honest lack of European involvement is the weakest part of the timeline. I could very well see Britian getting involved in New England. They would likely have more support from the local populace then the Ameriacan Revolution or the War of 1812. The situation is chaotic enough that many might start feeling "It is better to be part of the British Empire then this mess At least you get law and order".

France could get involved in Louisiana and get the same reception.

The Euorpeans would have intervene in the mid 1870s or later though for people to get that sick of war. After the 1890s you start having growing empires and kingdoms so it would have to be before then.

 

[Brilliantlight]

The European intervention would likely come sooner rather than later, as even with no centralized US, there are other trade partners throughout the world. In fact, balkanized US could be even better for European trading powers of the time, as with competition between different statelets, European powers could choose and pick the best deals.

Not really as there are hundreds of different trade law codes to follow instead of one. Also North America is poorer and it is more profitible to trade with a rich nation then a poor one. Between famine, disease and war North America is definitely an area to avoid trading with. Which may well be why they intervene. Publically it will be to restore order in North America , privately it is to protect their trade interests in it.

 

[Midgard]

Definitely, I can easily imagine various areas becoming protectorates of European power, unless the now-independent states manage to come up with something akin to Articles of Confederation, if only for the trading purposes. The difference in trade laws would hurt the American states as much as Europeans, especially since at this stage trade with Europe is more vital for Americans than trade with America is for Europe. Even so, Britain, France, and the others are likely to see easy pickings, and act accordingly.

Not really as there are hundreds of different trade law codes to follow instead of one. Also North America is poorer and it is more profitible to trade with a rich nation then a poor one. Between famine, disease and war North America is definitely an area to avoid trading with. Which may well be why they intervene. Publically it will be to restore order in North America , privately it is to protect their trade interests in it.

 

[Brilliantlight]

Definitely, I can easily imagine various areas becoming protectorates of European power, unless the now-independent states manage to come up with something akin to Articles of Confederation, if only for the trading purposes. The difference in trade laws would hurt the American states as much as Europeans, especially since at this stage trade with Europe is more vital for Americans than trade with America is for Europe. Even so, Britain, France, and the others are likely to see easy pickings, and act accordingly.

Yes, but they wouldn't want to get bogged down in a war in North America if they can help it. I would see them more back various governments with military aid.

 

[Midgard]

Yes, but they wouldn't want to get bogged down in a war in North America if they can help it. I would see them more back various governments with military aid.

We can even see something similar to Spanish civil war in 1930s, where even though officially the foreign government support to the warring sides is only diplomatic and financial, the governments cannot prohibit their citizens from going to fight on one side or the other - effectively sending unofficial military aid while keeping the apparent balance of power visibly intact.

 

[Brilliantlight]

We can even see something similar to Spanish civil war in 1930s, where even though officially the foreign government support to the warring sides is only diplomatic and financial, the governments cannot prohibit their citizens from going to fight on one side or the other - effectively sending unofficial military aid while keeping the apparent balance of power visibly intact.

That could well happen.

 

[Nicole]

First off, I don't see your Confederacy collapse as very likely. You give no reason for secssions, and some seem implausible.

1865 Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina secede from the Confederacy while Deleware and New York secede from the Union.

Why do Delaware and New York secede? I can somewhat understand the earlier Maryland (Though Lincoln would most likely ban secession, and would simply re-occupy Maryland to keep Washington, DC in Union hands) secession, but Delaware and New York seem out of the blue. Both were Free States, and the war would have helped coesion between the Union states. New York was talked about in earlier threads, but I don't think those reasons are enough. New York was a Free State, so slave traffic wouldn't be affected, as it was gone. And Delaware?

Pretending that the last event was plausible...

1866 Both the Confederacy and the Union disolves due to a wave of secesions.

Why? You give no reason. Throughout pre-war American history, secession was mostly seen as allowed, but never happened. What makes secession more likely now? Also, what happens to the large amounts of US territories?

Alright, so you don't give reasons for secession.. Going on to other events..

1878-1900 The states break down more and more. There are no less then 300 independent countries and autonomous regions. About a quarter of the former country is absorbed by Canada and Mexico. North America has no more then 3/4 of the population it had in 1860. Most of North America is in a semi-feudal state.

The counties in America have never had enough cohesion to form independent states. And if you make the towns indepednet, you have way more than three hundred...

1890-1950 The Kingdom of Norfolk conquers the rest of Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky and Tennesee.

Why have Kingdoms formed? Most Americans are mostly very Republican, and would likely not like a monarchy. Perhaps the smaller states could end up with a de facto hereditary President or something (This existed in Nepal for a time, with Prime Minister) but I don't see monarchies being established.

 

[Brilliantlight]

First off, I don't see your Confederacy collapse as very likely. You give no reason for secssions, and some seem implausible.

1865 Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina secede from the Confederacy while Deleware and New York secede from the Union.

Why do Delaware and New York secede? I can somewhat understand the earlier Maryland (Though Lincoln would most likely ban secession, and would simply re-occupy Maryland to keep Washington, DC in Union hands) secession, but Delaware and New York seem out of the blue. Both were Free States, and the war would have helped coesion between the Union states. New York was talked about in earlier threads, but I don't think those reasons are enough. New York was a Free State, so slave traffic wouldn't be affected, as it was gone. And Delaware?

Pretending that the last event was plausible...

1866 Both the Confederacy and the Union disolves due to a wave of secesions.

Why? You give no reason. Throughout pre-war American history, secession was mostly seen as allowed, but never happened. What makes secession more likely now? Also, what happens to the large amounts of US territories?

Alright, so you don't give reasons for secession.. Going on to other events..

1878-1900 The states break down more and more. There are no less then 300 independent countries and autonomous regions. About a quarter of the former country is absorbed by Canada and Mexico. North America has no more then 3/4 of the population it had in 1860. Most of North America is in a semi-feudal state.

The counties in America have never had enough cohesion to form independent states. And if you make the towns indepednet, you have way more than three hundred...

1890-1950 The Kingdom of Norfolk conquers the rest of Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky and Tennesee.

Why have Kingdoms formed? Most Americans are mostly very Republican, and would likely not like a monarchy. Perhaps the smaller states could end up with a de facto hereditary President or something (This existed in Nepal for a time, with Prime Minister) but I don't see monarchies being established.

With the precedent that states can secede for any flimsy reason and get away with it does three things 1) Weakens the federal government to such an extent that it is useless. The government is so worried about future secessions that it doesn't do ANYTHING. Why would people want to pay taxes to a government that is a mere debating society? So in the end it hastens its own end.

2) The states decide they have to take any interstate problems into their own hands as the central government is too weak to do anything. States squabble about a lot of things and without a central government it is very likely to lead to war.

3) The chaos of this time period causes unstable and militant governments.

States break down at the county level largely due to the chaos at the state level. The newly independent state governments don't know what the hell they are doing because none of them had to deal with diplomacy, warfare etc. before. People stop trusting government altogether and thus are willing to help only people they know.

When countries are in chaos people tend to look for strong leaders, which means monarchs or other dictators. The title may be "First Citizen" or something but sementics aside it is a king.

 

[Nicole]

With the precedent that states can secede for any flimsy reason and get away with it

What do you mean, and get away with it? The south, and even your timeline has them winning a war, proved that you have to fight for secession. As I've said, Lincoln will most definately push for an anti-secession admendment, and it will most likely pass, along with an anti slavery admendment.

1) Weakens the federal government to such an extent that it is useless. The government is so worried about future secessions that it doesn't do ANYTHING. Why would people want to pay taxes to a government that is a mere debating society? So in the end it hastens its own end.

The states, in the past where secession was basically considered allowed, were willing to put up with quite a bit for the unity of the nation. New England, a place with many merchants, put up with a COMPLETE EMBARGO, with only threatening to leave after putting up with it for several years. And now the people have just given their lives for the idea that the Union is indivisible. The survivors won't want to divide it anymore.

2) The states decide they have to take any interstate problems into their own hands as the central government is too weak to do anything. States squabble about a lot of things and without a central government it is very likely to lead to war.

Name a state boundary dispute that existed at the time of the Civil War. If the states are independent, they won't need to have common plans for anything, other than perhaps the borders. I don't see many states disputing the borders often enough...

3) The chaos of this time period causes unstable and militant governments.

I simply don't see enough disagreements among independent states that can lead to the chaos required.

States break down at the county level largely due to the chaos at the state level. The newly independent state governments don't know what the hell they are doing because none of them had to deal with diplomacy, warfare etc. before. People stop trusting government altogether and thus are willing to help only people they know.

I don't think that the states would be as disorganized as you think. There are experienced politicians in all the states, as it's not like the workers from the Federal government simply evaporated. They'd go home.

The title may be "First Citizen" or something but sementics aside it is a king.

Makes sense. No problem with that.. A de facto monarch, just as I said would be more likely.

And you still don't mention the former United States territories, which at this point formed most of the Mexican Cession, and I believe Washington and Idaho. I'd guess that Maryland would claim DC, which would make a Virginia-Maryland War likely if Virginia wanted it.

 

[Brilliantlight]

With the precedent that states can secede for any flimsy reason and get away with it

What do you mean, and get away with it? The south, and even your timeline has them winning a war, proved that you have to fight for secession. As I've said, Lincoln will most definately push for an anti-secession admendment, and it will most likely pass, along with an anti slavery admendment.

1) Weakens the federal government to such an extent that it is useless. The government is so worried about future secessions that it doesn't do ANYTHING. Why would people want to pay taxes to a government that is a mere debating society? So in the end it hastens its own end.

The states, in the past where secession was basically considered allowed, were willing to put up with quite a bit for the unity of the nation. New England, a place with many merchants, put up with a COMPLETE EMBARGO, with only threatening to leave after putting up with it for several years. And now the people have just given their lives for the idea that the Union is indivisible. The survivors won't want to divide it anymore.

2) The states decide they have to take any interstate problems into their own hands as the central government is too weak to do anything. States squabble about a lot of things and without a central government it is very likely to lead to war.

Name a state boundary dispute that existed at the time of the Civil War. If the states are independent, they won't need to have common plans for anything, other than perhaps the borders. I don't see many states disputing the borders often enough...

3) The chaos of this time period causes unstable and militant governments.

I simply don't see enough disagreements among independent states that can lead to the chaos required.

States break down at the county level largely due to the chaos at the state level. The newly independent state governments don't know what the hell they are doing because none of them had to deal with diplomacy, warfare etc. before. People stop trusting government altogether and thus are willing to help only people they know.

I don't think that the states would be as disorganized as you think. There are experienced politicians in all the states, as it's not like the workers from the Federal government simply evaporated. They'd go home.

The title may be "First Citizen" or something but sementics aside it is a king.

Makes sense. No problem with that.. A de facto monarch, just as I said would be more likely.

And you still don't mention the former United States territories, which at this point formed most of the Mexican Cession, and I believe Washington and Idaho. I'd guess that Maryland would claim DC, which would make a Virginia-Maryland War likely if Virginia wanted it.

This is clearly a worst case scenario and isn't meant to be anything different. Is it the most likely scenario? No Is it possible? I think so or I wouldn't have come up with it.

 

[Othniel]

A US Afaganstan or unified germany? Either way I don't like the idea...I mean it gives rise to a sect that think they will become gods and the indians are the lost tribes of jews....

 

[Brilliantlight]

A US Afaganstan or unified germany? Either way I don't like the idea...I mean it gives rise to a sect that think they will become gods and the indians are the lost tribes of jews....

It would be a nasty mess to be sure.