JC> So, make the year 1776... Would you have simply said: "O.K., there won't
  > be a United States. All the colonies are on their own."?
I think I like Orson Scott Card's idea of having a country reserved for
the Cherokee and the Creek in the south; and the entire Mississippi
River covered with an inpenetrable thick fog, that no white man could
get through, so the Indian nations on the other side would be forever
secure. Now, the question would have been how to succeed in creating
that scenario.
JC> Let's assume for the sake of discussion that the result was two separate
  > countries. Would either have succeeded in "revolution"? Assume they both
  > did. What would happen in later years? Let's say some slaves escaped from
  > the South U.S. and fled to the North U.S. Would the South U.S. attack the
  > North U.S. to get them back? How about the territory to the west? Which
  > country would expand and control the "new" territory to the west?
Actually, I think we did need all thirteen colonies working in unity to
make the revolution succeed.  And I think that a series of small nations
spread throughout the continent would have created a situation like
Europe has had for most of its existence: a constant onslaught of small
and big wars.
                 Sondra
-*-
 þ SLMR 2.1a þ When the chips are down, the buffalo's empty.
--- Opus-CBCS 1.7x via O_QWKer 1.7 
---------------