The 13 states remain independent and do not form a union

[justfollowingtheelections]

I am curious, if this was the case, how do you think the map would have changed and look like now?
I think this is an interesting exercise and it's something I am doing my own research on, but would be very happy to hear what others think.

[justfollowingtheelections]

Massachusetts too.

Most of the unorganized territory belonged to Virginia before the Union was formed:


But MA and CT also had claims on that territory but when you look at the map it's hard to believe they would have been able to keep that land:


NY and NH were fighting over VT which was however an independent state.  There would have probably been some battles over each state's border, and there might also have been more spanish or french speaking "countries" west of the Mississippi River.

[justfollowingtheelections]

Here's how I think things would have turned out:
First of all, I agree that the southern states would have had an advantage in expanding westward, especially Virginia.  At some point, either the southern states would have formed an alliance/union in order to go to war against Britain and Spain in the west, or Virginia would have absorbed some of the more dysfunctional southern colonies (Georgia?), plus some spanish colonies and the southern part of the Louisiana colony, including MO, AR and LA.  Virginia or whatever the new state was called would probably have some of the same problems south american states such as Brazil or Mexico.  The state, which would probably extend all the way to Arizona, would have eventually given up on slavery, but the black and brown majority would still have lower standards of living than the very small white minority.

California and Nevada would probably still belong to Mexico, while Washington, Oregon and Idaho would belong to Canada.  Alaska would belong to Russia while Hawaii would be independent.  The Northern colonies would have been independent, since they would have had a hard time agreeing on certain things.  They wouldn't be facing any dangers from foreign powers due to their location, and they would be prosperous, yet powerless.   

[justfollowingtheelections]

Here's how I think things would have turned out:
First of all, I agree that the southern states would have had an advantage in expanding westward, especially Virginia.  At some point, either the southern states would have formed an alliance/union in order to go to war against Britain and Spain in the west, or Virginia would have absorbed some of the more dysfunctional southern colonies (Georgia?), plus some spanish colonies and the southern part of the Louisiana colony, including MO, AR and LA.  Virginia or whatever the new state was called would probably have some of the same problems south american states such as Brazil or Mexico.  The state, which would probably extend all the way to Arizona, would have eventually given up on slavery, but the black and brown majority would still have lower standards of living than the very small white minority.

California and Nevada would probably still belong to Mexico, while Washington, Oregon and Idaho would belong to Canada.  Alaska would belong to Russia while Hawaii would be independent.  The Northern colonies would have been independent, since they would have had a hard time agreeing on certain things.  They wouldn't be facing any dangers from foreign powers due to their location, and they would be prosperous, yet powerless.    

In this scenario you are forgetting France and its interests in Louisiana. "Virginia" would not be strong enough to defeat France, so if the French keeps Louisiana after 1803 things would turn out differently. Same thing if Britain gets it.
Do you except Spain to get Louisiama back at the Treaty of Paris?

I didn't forget Louisiana.  I just thought there was no more interest in this discussion and I didn't continue.
The Louisiana Colony is an interesting question.  France would have a really hard time IMO holding on to that landlocked area.  I think Canada and "Virginia" would have absorbed parts of that area, but I think there is also a small possibility some Native American states were established  in those areas which are still sparsely populated.  The scenario is highly unlikely but it is a posibility.  I find it hard to believe that France, who couldn't hold on to Quebec would be able to keep Louisiana.

[justfollowingtheelections]

Sorry, I meant France, not Spain.

Those are some interesting parameters I hadn't thought of.  So if France had held onto Louisiana (New France) what is the ethnic composition of that area?  Is Nouvelle Orleans still the capital?  Would it be possible to manage such a vast area from a capital that is in the Gulf of Mexico?

[justfollowingtheelections]

If the 13 former colonies became independent from Britain, regardless of whether they formed a union or not, the revolution would have been successful.  The anti-monarchy sentiment was the biggest influence from America on the French revolution, but that would still be true under this scenario.

[justfollowingtheelections]

They would most definitely go into war, over the areas around the Great Lakes, but Virginia would easily prevail as they happened to be the largest state (population-wise) and also the one with the easiest access to the Great Lakes.  There's no way any of the new states would have established monarchies because there were no royal families in America.