Another What If: These Fractured States of America

[OzzyKP]

Another historical what if for you guys, but this isn't just an intellectual exercise, I am making this into a Civ4 mod. I'd love to have people's take on setting up the mod and imagining a plausible unfolding for this alternative timeline.

My goal was to assume every independence movement and secession movement was successful in the United States. But I didn't want it to be pure fantasy, I wanted to imagine how that would be plausible. So, the basic setup:

The promise of a liberal democracy set forth in the Mexican Constitution of 1824 was brushed aside in 1835 by President Antonio López de Santa Anna who centralized power under his harsh rule. Such an autocratic move angered the people and ten Mexican states went into open rebellion in response. President Santa Ana went to war to put down the rebellions, but in 1836, Santa Ana was decisively defeated at the Battle of San Jacinto by Texan revolutionaries. Santa Ana was captured and forced to agree to Texan independence.

Following the defeat, the situation continued to worsen for the Mexican government. Defeat by France in 1838 and unstable leadership contributed to a substantial weakening of Mexican central authority. In 1840 the Republic of the Rio Grande declared its indepdence. In 1846 the California Republic declared its independence. In 1848, Mormon pioneers under the command of Brigham Young declare independence for their nation of Deseret.

Meanwhile, in the United States a close election in 1844 gives victory to Henry Clay by a razor thin margin, winning New York by less than 5,000 votes over James Polk. Unlike Polk, Clay is not a champion of Manifest Destiny and does not seek to annex Texas or assert United States control over Mexican territory to the west. Nor did he seek to acquire the Oregon territory, leaving the territory in limbo with competing claims from both the United Kingdom and the United States eventually the citizens of Oregon decide to found their own nation.

With the possibility of additional land gains in the south west stymied (as with the possibility of additional slave states) all attempts at a compromise between free and slave states in 1850 break down. With no compromise in sight, South Carolina, fearful that slave states will soon be outnumbered in the United States, takes the first, bold step of secession. Followed soon thereafter by the rest of the South the Civil War begins in 1851.



The 1844 election was a critical moment for this nation. Polk campaigned on the idea of Manifest Destiny and in his administration we annexed Texas, fought a war with Mexico and annexed Oregon. Huge territorial changes for the country. The 1844 election was also a very narrowly won election. The election came down to the electoral votes of New York. New York's electoral votes came down to just 5,000 votes. I simply assume those 5,000 voters went for Clay instead of Polk and thus none of Polk's Manifest Destiny goals were achieved.

Plus I figure if the Civil War occurred in 1851 instead of 10 years later that the North & South would be a bit more evenly matched as the North experienced a lot of industrialization that decade.

Anyhow I want this to all be playable and immerse people into late 19th century America. A lot more ideas for the mod (and some discussion of the history) are located here:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=237653

I'd love to have your feedback.

A real basic mod is set up and playable now if you wanted to try it out too.

[lord of the mark]

without analyzing in detail at this point, this looks pretty good. Plausible, and some good realistic points.

BUT - its not this:

"My goal was to assume every independence movement and secession movement was successful "

The first really serious secession movement was of course that of New England during the war of 1812. It failed, but it might have been pulled off. I beleive someone did that on SHWI under the title "decades of darkness" (cause a US without New England ends up hopelessly reactionary)

And theres an even earlier threat of secession - IIRC at some point during the 1790s there was an attempt to place some limits on slavery in the southwest territory (IE alabama, Missippi) and that was defeated by Georgia and South Carolina, in part by threatening secession. Id have to check up on that, I remember it from Ellis' "Founding Brothers".

[OzzyKP]

My scenario does have an independent Vermont. It was suggested that I go with an independent New England as well and I'm considering it. But I really wanted to keep the focal point on the 1840's-1850's with the 1844 election as a catalyst. A secession of New England in 1815 creates too many variables. But if those variables could be plausibly resolved I would very much like to include it. The more fractured the better.

The area I was hoping for the most assistance with was setting the Civil War in 1851. My trigger was a breakdown in the important Compromise of 1850, but I'm not necessarily convinced that my explanation of a lack of SW territory would be sufficient to break that down, or that secession would be a real outcome of failing to make that compromise. From what I read the real reason the issue came to a head in the first place in 1850 was because of the Mexican-American War. Without it, would it have been such a pressing issue? I dunno. But I really want to begin the mod in 1851 (ish) so if you can imagine it working, I'd love to hear it.

Also, do you think it would be possible/plausible for Lincoln to get elected a decade earlier (perhaps in 1852)? I'd really like to use Lincoln as the USA leader for technical reasons (nice animated leaderhead and other work is done for me).

[lord of the mark]

Re: Another What If: These Fractured States of America

[QUOTE] Originally posted by OzzyKP

The promise of a liberal democracy set forth in the Mexican Constitution of 1824 was brushed aside in 1835 by President Antonio López de Santa Anna who centralized power under his harsh rule. Such an autocratic move angered the people and ten Mexican states went into open rebellion in response. President Santa Ana went to war to put down the rebellions, but in 1836, Santa Ana was decisively defeated at the Battle of San Jacinto by Texan revolutionaries. Santa Ana was captured and forced to agree to Texan independence.

from my knowledge of the period, all true so far.

Following the defeat, the situation continued to worsen for the Mexican government. Defeat by France in 1838 and unstable leadership contributed to a substantial weakening of Mexican central authority. In 1840 the Republic of the Rio Grande declared its indepdence.

Is this the POD, or did something like this happen in OTL Im not aware of?

In 1846 the California Republic declared its independence. In 1848, Mormon pioneers under the command of Brigham Young declare independence for their nation of Deseret.

Just to keep things less confusing, Id avoid mentioning events post-POD till youve explained the POD. Maybe literary form demands otherwise, but I found this confusing, as I wasnt sure whether or not to match these to OTL events, or if any differences were consequences of the POD.

Meanwhile, in the United States a close election in 1844 gives victory to Henry Clay by a razor thin margin, winning New York by less than 5,000 votes over James Polk.

See now a close US election makes a fine POD by itself. But since Im not familiar enough with mexican history to know if there WAS an OTL "Republic of the Rio Grande" Im not 100% sure if this is the POD, or if its a result of an 1838 POD.

Unlike Polk, Clay is not a champion of Manifest Destiny and does not seek to annex Texas or assert United States control over Mexican territory to the west.

Clay was a violent expansionist early in his life, IIUC. Im thinking he changed later on, but I dont recall.

Nor did he seek to acquire the Oregon territory, leaving the territory in limbo with competing claims from both the United Kingdom and the United States eventually the citizens of Oregon decide to found their own nation.

That leaves me kind of skeptical. How many settlers were there in 1844? Not too many, I think. And Oregon very much needs sea trade. If UK wants the whole thing, and the US isnt actively opposing it, I dont see how anyone else can stop the UK. OTOH maybe the US and UK agree to set up a buffer state, as a compromise. But thats not quite the same as the citizens of Oregon deciding to found their own nation.

With the possibility of additional land gains in the south west stymied (as with the possibility of additional slave states) all attempts at a compromise between free and slave states in 1850 break down.

But there wont be more free states coming in either. Can you review the exact numbers of free and slave states in ATL 1850?

In OTL, it wasnt really realistic than any new state other than Texas was really going to be a slave state, even if New Mexico territory had received a slave code, given agricultural conditions (per McPherson, Battlecry of Liberty) It was more of an honor thing. The general view at the time was that "Mexico had poisoned us" IE that the new lands including Texas were what had reopened and intensified the slavery question. You are proposing the exact opposite, that no Mexican war means EARLIER secession. Im not saying thats not possible, but I think this part of the TL is weak, and needs at least a somewhat fuller explanation. Maybe some particular incidents, involving specific characters.

With no compromise in sight, South Carolina, fearful that slave states will soon be outnumbered in the United States, takes the first, bold step of secession. Followed soon thereafter by the rest of the South the Civil War begins in 1851.

If there IS going to be an early secession,SC will lead, of course.

The 1844 election was a critical moment for this nation. Polk campaigned on the idea of Manifest Destiny and in his administration we annexed Texas, fought a war with Mexico and annexed Oregon. Huge territorial changes for the country. The 1844 election was also a very narrowly won election. The election came down to the electoral votes of New York. New York's electoral votes came down to just 5,000 votes. I simply assume those 5,000 voters went for Clay instead of Polk and thus none of Polk's Manifest Destiny goals were achieved.

So 1844 IS the POD? Could you clarify that?

Plus I figure if the Civil War occurred in 1851 instead of 10 years later that the North & South would be a bit more evenly matched as the North experienced a lot of industrialization that decade.

That seems pretty plausible to me. Both sides will have less westward expansion. With fewer RRs, control of the Mississippi will be that much more important. And with fewer RRs northern movement into the south (other than along rivers and coasts) will be much more difficult. It would be worth checking on the state of UK politics at this time - is a UK intervention more likely in this period?

also, dont forget slavery wasnt the only issue. Immigration was a huge issue,especially in the north. How will that be different, (if at all) in this scen, and how will that effect the war?

A real basic mod is set up and playable now if you wanted to try it out too.

I dont have Civ4 yet.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by OzzyKP

The area I was hoping for the most assistance with was setting the Civil War in 1851. My trigger was a breakdown in the important Compromise of 1850, but I'm not necessarily convinced that my explanation of a lack of SW territory would be sufficient to break that down, or that secession would be a real outcome of failing to make that compromise. From what I read the real reason the issue came to a head in the first place in 1850 was because of the Mexican-American War. Without it, would it have been such a pressing issue? I dunno. But I really want to begin the mod in 1851 (ish) so if you can imagine it working, I'd love to hear it.

yeah, Im having trouble seeing this happening. No comp of 1850, but do you really need one? No north and south battering each other over the admission of Texas. No need to balance California. No Calif, means no push for transcon RRs and probably no Kansas-Neb act, and no bleeding Kansas.

So we need to start with something else.

Along these lines, maybe.

Warlike, expansionist southerners are enraged and betrayed by the refusal to annex Texas. Hotheaded South Carolinians do some really stupid act of violence, maybe trying to assasinate Clay. Or better, successfully assasinating Clay (who is Clays VP, BTW?) . yeah, thats good. Some kind of state of emergency is impose on So Car, heightening tensions. Then young John Brown (how old IS he at this point?) comes to South Carolina and launches a slave rebellion ("the slaver assassins themselves must be assasinated, by the slaves") This may not jive with OTL Browns bio, but maybe theres someone else who could pull this off? The slave rebellion does far better than the OTL Harpers Ferry rebellion before being put down (maybe having a leader other than Brown helps in this regard). The South is frightened and enraged. And is cracking down ever harder on blacks and "Whig sympathizers". Abolitionism is roaring ahead in the north. Now it just takes one more spark. Lincoln elected (as a Whig) in 1852? (does it have to be '51?). I dont know Lincolns bio well enough.

You still have to fit all this into the period from '44 to '51, or '52, so Im still not sure.

[OzzyKP]

Re: Re: Another What If: These Fractured States of America

I think we cross-posted. But I'll answer a few of your more direct poitns before I have to run off.

[QUOTE] Originally posted by lord of the mark

Originally posted by OzzyKP

The promise of a liberal democracy set forth in the Mexican Constitution of 1824 was brushed aside in 1835 by President Antonio López de Santa Anna who centralized power under his harsh rule. Such an autocratic move angered the people and ten Mexican states went into open rebellion in response. President Santa Ana went to war to put down the rebellions, but in 1836, Santa Ana was decisively defeated at the Battle of San Jacinto by Texan revolutionaries. Santa Ana was captured and forced to agree to Texan independence.

from my knowledge of the period, all true so far.

Yea, that is all true in OTL (Our Time Line or Original Time Line, right?)

Originally posted by lord of the mark

Following the defeat, the situation continued to worsen for the Mexican government. Defeat by France in 1838 and unstable leadership contributed to a substantial weakening of Mexican central authority. In 1840 the Republic of the Rio Grande declared its indepdence.

Is this the POD, or did something like this happen in OTL Im not aware of?

Yea, this is all OTL as well.

The war with France:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pastry_War

Republic of the Rio Grande:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_the_Rio_Grande

There was also a Republic of the Yucatan, that was actually more successful than Rio Grande, but the Yucatan is too far south for the scope of my map in this scenario so I decided not to include it.

Originally posted by lord of the mark

In 1846 the California Republic declared its independence. In 1848, Mormon pioneers under the command of Brigham Young declare independence for their nation of Deseret.

Just to keep things less confusing, Id avoid mentioning events post-POD till youve explained the POD. Maybe literary form demands otherwise, but I found this confusing, as I wasnt sure whether or not to match these to OTL events, or if any differences were consequences of the POD.

Yea I understand the confusion, and I sturctured it this way, as you correctly noted, because it flowed better from the point about Mexico despite breaking the time continuity. In OTL California did declare its independence from Mexico in 1846 but it was quickly decided to opt for annexation by the US instead of maintaining independence.

Deseret never really declared independence but it was strongly considered. I assume that if the USA hadn't already defeated Mexico by the time the Mormon settlers started setting up shop in Utah and if the option of annexation from the United States seemed like less of a possibility that the Mormons would have opted for independence. Certainly that would have been their first choice even in OTL but breaking away from the US is a far more difficult scenario than breaking away from Mexico. Plus in the ATL other independence movements were successful, so A. that would take a lot of the heat off of Deseret, but B. that momentum would influence a lot of decisions at that time to follow the crowd.

In the OTL the momentum was clearly behind USA annexation. It seemed clear that was going to happen regardless so everyone just joined in. If that possibility seemed a lot murkier then the independence factions would have been stronger and more vocal and ultimately successful.

Originally posted by lord of the mark

Meanwhile, in the United States a close election in 1844 gives victory to Henry Clay by a razor thin margin, winning New York by less than 5,000 votes over James Polk.

See now a close US election makes a fine POD by itself. But since Im not familiar enough with mexican history to know if there WAS an OTL "Republic of the Rio Grande" Im not 100% sure if this is the POD, or if its a result of an 1838 POD.

Yea, this is the POD (point of diversion?).

Originally posted by lord of the mark

Unlike Polk, Clay is not a champion of Manifest Destiny and does not seek to annex Texas or assert United States control over Mexican territory to the west.

Clay was a violent expansionist early in his life, IIUC. Im thinking he changed later on, but I dont recall.

Yea, I don't envision him as being necessarily anti-expansion, but it was clearly not a priority for him at that time. In a lot of cases, like Texas, the local leaders were pulling for both annexation and independence at the same time. Texas received an official recognition of independence from Mexico and an offer of annexation from the United States at the same time and the people ultimately decided to go with the US. If on the other hand they had the offer for independence and the US was dragging its feet or imposing additional requirements or just not being as eager about it, it would have influenced local opinion greatly. Plus in many ways the 1844 election was a referendum on the annexation of Texas, so if Clay won we assume it would be interpreted as a rejection of annexation by the voters (however narrowly) and he'd be even more hesitant to go forward with it.

Originally posted by lord of the mark

Nor did he seek to acquire the Oregon territory, leaving the territory in limbo with competing claims from both the United Kingdom and the United States eventually the citizens of Oregon decide to found their own nation.

That leaves me kind of skeptical. How many settlers were there in 1844? Not too many, I think. And Oregon very much needs sea trade. If UK wants the whole thing, and the US isnt actively opposing it, I dont see how anyone else can stop the UK. OTOH maybe the US and UK agree to set up a buffer state, as a compromise. But thats not quite the same as the citizens of Oregon deciding to found their own nation.

Oregon was very sparsely populated, but they did discuss indepdence:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champoeg_Meetings

There were several votes, follow the references for more info, but the decision was made to declare independence (which is what the British faction was actually pushing for because they felt there was no way they'd be able to make all of Oregon British with the number of American settlers there, so independence was the best option for them). An additional vote was taken, an amendment I guess, to postpone or delay independence until they had word from the United States or an offer of annexation or something like that. So assuming that doesn't come, or doesn't come quickly, I again assume that voices for continued independence become bolder and more persuasive.

Originally posted by lord of the mark

With the possibility of additional land gains in the south west stymied (as with the possibility of additional slave states) all attempts at a compromise between free and slave states in 1850 break down.

But there wont be more free states coming in either. Can you review the exact numbers of free and slave states in ATL 1850?

In OTL, it wasnt really realistic than any new state other than Texas was really going to be a slave state, even if New Mexico territory had received a slave code, given agricultural conditions (per McPherson, Battlecry of Liberty) It was more of an honor thing. The general view at the time was that "Mexico had poisoned us" IE that the new lands including Texas were what had reopened and intensified the slavery question. You are proposing the exact opposite, that no Mexican war means EARLIER secession. Im not saying thats not possible, but I think this part of the TL is weak, and needs at least a somewhat fuller explanation. Maybe some particular incidents, involving specific characters.

Yea I agree, and I pointed this out in our cross post.

Originally posted by lord of the mark

The 1844 election was a critical moment for this nation. Polk campaigned on the idea of Manifest Destiny and in his administration we annexed Texas, fought a war with Mexico and annexed Oregon. Huge territorial changes for the country. The 1844 election was also a very narrowly won election. The election came down to the electoral votes of New York. New York's electoral votes came down to just 5,000 votes. I simply assume those 5,000 voters went for Clay instead of Polk and thus none of Polk's Manifest Destiny goals were achieved.

So 1844 IS the POD? Could you clarify that?

It definitely is.

Originally posted by lord of the mark

Plus I figure if the Civil War occurred in 1851 instead of 10 years later that the North & South would be a bit more evenly matched as the North experienced a lot of industrialization that decade.

That seems pretty plausible to me. Both sides will have less westward expansion. With fewer RRs, control of the Mississippi will be that much more important. And with fewer RRs northern movement into the south (other than along rivers and coasts) will be much more difficult. It would be worth checking on the state of UK politics at this time - is a UK intervention more likely in this period?

also, dont forget slavery wasnt the only issue. Immigration was a huge issue,especially in the north. How will that be different, (if at all) in this scen, and how will that effect the war?

For the scenario I'm hoping to create a new in-game mechanism for diplomacy (modeled after the great person system currently in Civ4) where diplomacy points accrue for individual foreign civs (british diplo points, french diplo points) and then you can get bonuses with those countries (like intervention on your behalf in a war (free units) or a blockade against your enemy, etc). So the UK involvement would be handled in such a way.

I hadn't looked at immigration for this period.

Originally posted by lord of the mark

A real basic mod is set up and playable now if you wanted to try it out too.

I dont have Civ4 yet.

Definitely worth your time and dollars. Huge improvement for the franchise. I recommend it.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


yeah, Im having trouble seeing this happening. No comp of 1850, but do you really need one? No north and south battering each other over the admission of Texas. No need to balance California. No Calif, means no push for transcon RRs and probably no Kansas-Neb act, and no bleeding Kansas.

So we need to start with something else.

Along these lines, maybe.

Warlike, expansionist southerners are enraged and betrayed by the refusal to annex Texas. Hotheaded South Carolinians do some really stupid act of violence, maybe trying to assasinate Clay. Or better, successfully assasinating Clay (who is Clays VP, BTW?) . yeah, thats good. Some kind of state of emergency is impose on So Car, heightening tensions. Then young John Brown (how old IS he at this point?) comes to South Carolina and launches a slave rebellion ("the slaver assassins themselves must be assasinated, by the slaves") This may not jive with OTL Browns bio, but maybe theres someone else who could pull this off? The slave rebellion does far better than the OTL Harpers Ferry rebellion before being put down (maybe having a leader other than Brown helps in this regard). The South is frightened and enraged. And is cracking down ever harder on blacks and "Whig sympathizers". Abolitionism is roaring ahead in the north. Now it just takes one more spark. Lincoln elected (as a Whig) in 1852? (does it have to be '51?). I dont know Lincolns bio well enough.

You still have to fit all this into the period from '44 to '51, or '52, so Im still not sure.

Great start. It doesn't have to be 51, I proposed that mostly to be a point soon after a potential breakdown in the compromise of 1850. If we wanted Lincoln (and I do if it isn't too much of a stretch) it would have to be 1852 for obvious reasons.

[lord of the mark]

Re: Re: Re: Another What If: These Fractured States of America

[QUOTE] Originally posted by OzzyKP

Yea, that is all true in OTL (Our Time Line or Original Time Line, right?)

Precisely. Our time line OR Orginial time line.

Yea, this is all OTL as well.

The war with France:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pastry_War

Republic of the Rio Grande:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_the_Rio_Grande

There was also a Republic of the Yucatan, that was actually more successful than Rio Grande, but the Yucatan is too far south for the scope of my map in this scenario so I decided not to include it.

Ok, interesting period.

Yea I understand the confusion, and I sturctured it this way, as you correctly noted, because it flowed better from the point about Mexico despite breaking the time continuity. In OTL California did declare its independence from Mexico in 1846 but it was quickly decided to opt for annexation by the US instead of maintaining independence.

actually I think California needs work as well. IOTL (In our time line) US marines stopped reoccupation by Mexico, ISTR. Is calif in '46 as strong as texas in '36? Can they pull off independence with no assistance from the US?

Deseret never really declared independence but it was strongly considered. I assume that if the USA hadn't already defeated Mexico by the time the Mormon settlers started setting up shop in Utah and if the option of annexation from the United States seemed like less of a possibility that the Mormons would have opted for independence. Certainly that would have been their first choice even in OTL but breaking away from the US is a far more difficult scenario than breaking away from Mexico. Plus in the ATL other independence movements were successful, so A. that would take a lot of the heat off of Deseret, but B. that momentum would influence a lot of decisions at that time to follow the crowd.

In the OTL the momentum was clearly behind USA annexation. It seemed clear that was going to happen regardless so everyone just joined in. If that possibility seemed a lot murkier then the independence factions would have been stronger and more vocal and ultimately successful.

Mormons are fun, and its not in easy place to reconquer. Seems plausible.

Yea, this is the POD (point of diversion?).

Point of Departure, ISTR.

Yea, I don't envision him as being necessarily anti-expansion, but it was clearly not a priority for him at that time. In a lot of cases, like Texas, the local leaders were pulling for both annexation and independence at the same time. Texas received an official recognition of independence from Mexico and an offer of annexation from the United States at the same time and the people ultimately decided to go with the US. If on the other hand they had the offer for independence and the US was dragging its feet or imposing additional requirements or just not being as eager about it, it would have influenced local opinion greatly. Plus in many ways the 1844 election was a referendum on the annexation of Texas, so if Clay won we assume it would be interpreted as a rejection of annexation by the voters (however narrowly) and he'd be even more hesitant to go forward with it.

seems not only plausible, but likely.

Oregon was very sparsely populated, but they did discuss indepdence:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champoeg_Meetings

There were several votes, follow the references for more info, but the decision was made to declare independence (which is what the British faction was actually pushing for because they felt there was no way they'd be able to make all of Oregon British with the number of American settlers there, so independence was the best option for them). An additional vote was taken, an amendment I guess, to postpone or delay independence until they had word from the United States or an offer of annexation or something like that. So assuming that doesn't come, or doesn't come quickly, I again assume that voices for continued independence become bolder and more persuasive.

Okay, I dont know the history of Oregon that well. Im still skeptical that under the conditions playing out in this scenario, Oregon can gain and hold independence through 1851/1852. Once the US is in the midst of civil war the Brits should sweep it up fairly easily, but thats after the start date for you Civ Scen, I take it.

[lord of the mark]

Re: Re: Re: Another What If: These Fractured States of America

[QUOTE] Originally posted by OzzyKP

Yea, that is all true in OTL (Our Time Line or Original Time Line, right?)

Precisely. Our time line OR Orginial time line.

Yea, this is all OTL as well.

The war with France:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pastry_War

Republic of the Rio Grande:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_the_Rio_Grande

There was also a Republic of the Yucatan, that was actually more successful than Rio Grande, but the Yucatan is too far south for the scope of my map in this scenario so I decided not to include it.

Ok, interesting period.

Yea I understand the confusion, and I sturctured it this way, as you correctly noted, because it flowed better from the point about Mexico despite breaking the time continuity. In OTL California did declare its independence from Mexico in 1846 but it was quickly decided to opt for annexation by the US instead of maintaining independence.

actually I think California needs work as well. IOTL (In our time line) US marines stopped reoccupation by Mexico, ISTR. Is calif in '46 as strong as texas in '36? Can they pull off independence with no assistance from the US?

Deseret never really declared independence but it was strongly considered. I assume that if the USA hadn't already defeated Mexico by the time the Mormon settlers started setting up shop in Utah and if the option of annexation from the United States seemed like less of a possibility that the Mormons would have opted for independence. Certainly that would have been their first choice even in OTL but breaking away from the US is a far more difficult scenario than breaking away from Mexico. Plus in the ATL other independence movements were successful, so A. that would take a lot of the heat off of Deseret, but B. that momentum would influence a lot of decisions at that time to follow the crowd.

In the OTL the momentum was clearly behind USA annexation. It seemed clear that was going to happen regardless so everyone just joined in. If that possibility seemed a lot murkier then the independence factions would have been stronger and more vocal and ultimately successful.

Mormons are fun, and its not in easy place to reconquer. Seems plausible.

Yea, this is the POD (point of diversion?).

Point of Departure, ISTR.

Yea, I don't envision him as being necessarily anti-expansion, but it was clearly not a priority for him at that time. In a lot of cases, like Texas, the local leaders were pulling for both annexation and independence at the same time. Texas received an official recognition of independence from Mexico and an offer of annexation from the United States at the same time and the people ultimately decided to go with the US. If on the other hand they had the offer for independence and the US was dragging its feet or imposing additional requirements or just not being as eager about it, it would have influenced local opinion greatly. Plus in many ways the 1844 election was a referendum on the annexation of Texas, so if Clay won we assume it would be interpreted as a rejection of annexation by the voters (however narrowly) and he'd be even more hesitant to go forward with it.

seems not only plausible, but likely.

Oregon was very sparsely populated, but they did discuss indepdence:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champoeg_Meetings

There were several votes, follow the references for more info, but the decision was made to declare independence (which is what the British faction was actually pushing for because they felt there was no way they'd be able to make all of Oregon British with the number of American settlers there, so independence was the best option for them). An additional vote was taken, an amendment I guess, to postpone or delay independence until they had word from the United States or an offer of annexation or something like that. So assuming that doesn't come, or doesn't come quickly, I again assume that voices for continued independence become bolder and more persuasive.

Okay, I dont know the history of Oregon that well. Im still skeptical that under the conditions playing out in this scenario, Oregon can gain and hold independence through 1851/1852. Once the US is in the midst of civil war the Brits should sweep it up fairly easily, but thats after the start date for you Civ Scen, I take it.

[OzzyKP]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Another What If: These Fractured States of America

Originally posted by lord of the mark

Yea I understand the confusion, and I sturctured it this way, as you correctly noted, because it flowed better from the point about Mexico despite breaking the time continuity. In OTL California did declare its independence from Mexico in 1846 but it was quickly decided to opt for annexation by the US instead of maintaining independence.

actually I think California needs work as well. IOTL (In our time line) US marines stopped reoccupation by Mexico, ISTR. Is calif in '46 as strong as texas in '36? Can they pull off independence with no assistance from the US?

California isn't as strong in 46 as Texas in 36, but I presume that Mexico isn't as strong as in 36 either. There were many states that rebelled during this period, Wikipedia says San Luis Potosí, Querétaro, Durango, Guanajuato, Michoacán, Jalisco and Zacatecas were all in open rebellion, whereas the Republic of the Rio Grande and the Yucatan Republic both declared their independence. Check here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucat%C3%A1n#Independence_and_the_turbulent_1840s

Plus the Mexican government was incredibly unstable at this time. Go here and see the dates Santa Ana was in office:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_L%C3%B3pez_de_Santa_Anna

Furthermore I assume that if Texas and the Rio Grande, et al, are fighting for independence from Mexico they would be supportive of weakening their mutual enemy and finding more allies from other break away republics so they'd be likely to endorse and support independence for California as well. Add to that the fact that Mexico's northern states were never much of a priority for them, or heavily populated, I think California could definitely pull it off.

Originally posted by lord of the mark

Oregon was very sparsely populated, but they did discuss indepdence:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champoeg_Meetings

There were several votes, follow the references for more info, but the decision was made to declare independence (which is what the British faction was actually pushing for because they felt there was no way they'd be able to make all of Oregon British with the number of American settlers there, so independence was the best option for them). An additional vote was taken, an amendment I guess, to postpone or delay independence until they had word from the United States or an offer of annexation or something like that. So assuming that doesn't come, or doesn't come quickly, I again assume that voices for continued independence become bolder and more persuasive.

Okay, I dont know the history of Oregon that well. Im still skeptical that under the conditions playing out in this scenario, Oregon can gain and hold independence through 1851/1852. Once the US is in the midst of civil war the Brits should sweep it up fairly easily, but thats after the start date for you Civ Scen, I take it.

Yea, Canada will be playable in my scenario so if they wanted to snap up Oregon, they'd have to do it the old fashioned way.

Worthy of note perhaps is that the UK won't be an actual civ in the game, but there will be scripted diplomatic elements that will give the sense of UK foreign policy that will have an impact on the game, but will be different than a full civ owning territory on the map. This is complicated no doubt because Canada wasn't independent at the scenario start, though apparently they weren't truly independent till like 1931 or even 1982, so it is a tough call.

I think I'd rather have Canada be a playable civ independent of the UK, but with my proposed diplomacy system where Great Diplomats can be created to do certain diplomatic tasks with specific world powers I could just give Canada free diplomats with the UK (meaning they can call upon help from the UK at any time) and they would be stopped from getting diplomats with any other non-American powers (meaning they can't conduct foreign policy really). I think that would be a cleaner way of handling it. Wonders or projects could be built, or events could be made to introduce the Canadian Confederation or other progressions in this time.

[lord of the mark]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Another What If: These Fractured States of America

Originally posted by OzzyKP


California isn't as strong in 46 as Texas in 36, but I presume that Mexico isn't as strong as in 36 either. There were many states that rebelled during this period, Wikipedia says San Luis Potosí, Querétaro, Durango, Guanajuato, Michoacán, Jalisco and Zacatecas were all in open rebellion, whereas the Republic of the Rio Grande and the Yucatan Republic both declared their independence. Check here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucat%C3%A1n#Independence_and_the_turbulent_1840s

Plus the Mexican government was incredibly unstable at this time. Go here and see the dates Santa Ana was in office:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_L%C3%B3pez_de_Santa_Anna

Furthermore I assume that if Texas and the Rio Grande, et al, are fighting for independence from Mexico they would be supportive of weakening their mutual enemy and finding more allies from other break away republics so they'd be likely to endorse and support independence for California as well. Add to that the fact that Mexico's northern states were never much of a priority for them, or heavily populated, I think California could definitely pull it off.




Yea, Canada will be playable in my scenario so if they wanted to snap up Oregon, they'd have to do it the old fashioned way.

Worthy of note perhaps is that the UK won't be an actual civ in the game, but there will be scripted diplomatic elements that will give the sense of UK foreign policy that will have an impact on the game, but will be different than a full civ owning territory on the map. This is complicated no doubt because Canada wasn't independent at the scenario start, though apparently they weren't truly independent till like 1931 or even 1982, so it is a tough call.

I think I'd rather have Canada be a playable civ independent of the UK, but with my proposed diplomacy system where Great Diplomats can be created to do certain diplomatic tasks with specific world powers I could just give Canada free diplomats with the UK (meaning they can call upon help from the UK at any time) and they would be stopped from getting diplomats with any other non-American powers (meaning they can't conduct foreign policy really). I think that would be a cleaner way of handling it. Wonders or projects could be built, or events could be made to introduce the Canadian Confederation or other progressions in this time.

There is no Canada. There is upper canada, lower canada, nova scotia, etc all of which are british colonies. Its all British North America. Canada doesnt exist till 1867, or after the american civil war, if you want to use a WI trigger rather than an on rails trigger.

IIUC Canadian troops are no more independent of the British army than state militias are of the US army of the period.

and yeah, Canada follows british foreign policy till 1931, I guess. though by the 20s at least, London was listening to the dominions, who were represented in the Committee on Imperial Defence, UKs equivalent of the National Security Council.

But in 1852? Having Canada playable strikes me as silly.

[OzzyKP]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Another What If: These Fractured States of America

Originally posted by lord of the mark
There is no Canada. There is upper canada, lower canada, nova scotia, etc all of which are british colonies. Its all British North America. Canada doesnt exist till 1867, or after the american civil war, if you want to use a WI trigger rather than an on rails trigger.

IIUC Canadian troops are no more independent of the British army than state militias are of the US army of the period.

and yeah, Canada follows british foreign policy till 1931, I guess. though by the 20s at least, London was listening to the dominions, who were represented in the Committee on Imperial Defence, UKs equivalent of the National Security Council.

But in 1852? Having Canada playable strikes me as silly.

Hmmm... that complicates things, haha. I suppose it would be possible to script something where Canada starts as the UK and then the civ can build or invent or otherwise spawn the British North America Act in 1867. At which point I could spawn a new civ, Canada, that plays mostly independent from the UK except with my idea of limiting their foreign policy outside of North America.

It would require more work, but it is possible and could be a fun feature to add.