PDA

View Full Version : Forget the C.S.A.- Rivals to the U.S.


Strategos' Risk
November 13th, 2007, 05:48 PM
What other nations could have become powerful enough to be a rival to the U.S. by 1900, or at least a strong secondary power?

First, OTL's-

Canada: Ooh boy. They'll need more population and resources. Could the Great North have expanded south more? I know that expansion isn't really a Canadian thing, but...

Mexico: It's conceivable. They just need to hold together better. I don't think they would expand, but maybe they could have avoided any wars that would lose their northern territories. Though probably California, Utah, and/or Texas were destined to leave. Well, maybe not Texas.

ATL-

Texas: I was reading some stuff online about Texan nationalism (which is to say, I briefly skimmed the first few links on a Google search). Interestingly enough, Texan nationalism did exist in the 1800s, and even during the Civil War the Texans were always Texan, never truly "Southern." See this (http://books.google.com/books?id=Hz4T6pd6vLYC&pg=PA78&lpg=PA78&dq=texan+nationalism&source=web&ots=tp8cWsK4rD&sig=_oDYx5UHDocK8LFElb31KT62kEQ#PPA78,M1). Mirabeau B. Lamar, second President of the Lone Star Republic, was perhaps the country's greatest advocate for nationalism, envisioning a Texas that stretched to the Pacific, becoming a rival to the U.S. See here (http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/exhibits/annexation/part2/page2.html).

Deseret: Not outside of a Victoria game.

So yeah, any ideas? I like the idea of a Texan counter-republic, but it's probably really implausible.

Michael B
November 13th, 2007, 05:58 PM
Canada: Ooh boy. They'll need more population and resources. Could the Great North have expanded south more? I know that expansion isn't really a Canadian thing, but...
If the British had sent their convicts there plus occupied places like Chicago (which was originally founded by French traders) they could take over the northern Plains instead of the USA. That would route the trade from that area up the St Lawrence to Quebec etc and on to Great Britain. There would thus be no need for the British to invest so heavily in South America because they could purchase many of the same goods from Canada.

Silent Cal
November 13th, 2007, 05:59 PM
Uber-Mexico! Uber-Mexico! Uber-Mexico! ;)

Mexican California?! :cool::cool::cool:

Ambitious Gran Colombia sneaking into the Caribbean? :eek::cool:

sunsurf
November 13th, 2007, 08:03 PM
Canadians discover gold in Alaska/Yukon ca. 1820 and the gold rush starts. Spanish and Russian explorers participate, settling down in Canadian territory, and the butterfly effect kicks in, so expansion becomes a Canadian characteristic.

A while ago here I had a map with an uber-Manitoba. Some local Manitoban governor or somebody discovered gold in Alaska ca. 1830 and hurriedly declared independence. And he thought of himself as Manitoban, not Alaskan.

In 1741-2 Russian sailors were stranded near Sitka; they might have discovered gold, more Russians come for the gold rush and Alaska becomes independent.

Queen Victoria is never born, Britain suffers some terrible setbacks and plagues in the Napoleonic era, other bad things happen so Britain neglects Canada, so the Scandinavian countries experience a revival of Viking romanticism and move in on their old lands in Vinland/Newfoundland/etc., and start taking over the rest of OTL Canada. Britain fights tooth and nail but is defeated by the combined might of the US, France, Sweden, etc.
This results in the Unified Kingdom of Vinland and Newfoundland being established in 1875.

California becomes an empire under Emperor Norton, who is only a figurehead.

Some religious figure in Hawaii emerges, participates in the California gold rush, some of his disciples participate in the Alaska gold rush, they all get rich and start buying up land all along the coast from Alaska, W. Canada, California and Baja.

Texas stays independent, and the South is such a troublemaker for the North that the North agrees to let Texas annex the South...? Or maybe that's too unlikely.

A religious figure emerges in Cuba and encourages the unification of all the Caribbean islands into one united empire.

Brazil takes over the n. coast of S. America and expands northward into the islands...?

Uber-Panama takes over the rest of Central America, Mexico collapses in civil war and Panama takes that over too.

We talk about African kingdoms colonizing S. America before 1500, but is there any way S. Africa could get land in S. America after 1800?

Okay, I think I've exhausted the possibilities. :)

Thande
November 13th, 2007, 08:06 PM
Who says they have to be in North America? To be a rival to the US, you need a state in the Americas that is powerful and expansionist enough to grapple for a place as leading power in the Americas. Brazil could qualify, or a Gran Colombia that stays together.

Roberto
November 13th, 2007, 08:41 PM
Well, Iturbide's Mexican Empire could certainly become a major rival to the US if it manages to keep CA (central America, not california) and at least some of the American west (namely California for its gold).

Gran Colombia and Brazil are viable, too. Outside of the Americas, never forget the European empire and maybe Japan, or a modernized Qing China or Mughal India.

Going back to the Americas, other options include:

Uber-Araucania/Patagonia

British La Plata

United Federation of Central America

Walke's Nicaragua

Independent Louisiana

Burr's Southwest "empire"

One of many Indian nations that grow and modernize


That's about it that I can think of (at the moment). ;)

le.Singe
November 13th, 2007, 09:36 PM
Texas would be totally effing cool, but utterly implausible.

Mexico, on the other hand... What if Spanish-speaking Mexicans had the sense to settle scenic and fertile California early and rapidly? After all, they did lose both California and Texas mostly because the Anglo population in both territories exceeded the Spanish-speakers. The loss of Texas could cause Mexicans to freak out and embark on a large-scale migration to California, and voilà. All of a sudden the U.S. is denied a Pacific coast (unless they still manage to wrest part of Oregon from the Brits) and Mexico has the power to flourish economically (think of everything you can grow in California, not to mention the GOLD!).

Even more Earth-shattering would be if this large-scale migration (a sort of Destino Manifesto) happens earlier and involves the settling of Texas as well. Don't know what kind of POD would cause the Mexicans to just decide to get up and go North, though...

Ace Venom
November 13th, 2007, 09:39 PM
Could you imagine if instead of Louisiana being purchased by the US or conquered by the UK, it would have become an independent kingdom? I think that's been done before.

le.Singe
November 13th, 2007, 09:48 PM
Could you imagine if instead of Louisiana being purchased by the US or conquered by the UK, it would have become an independent kingdom? I think that's been done before.

Doubtful. Louisiana was sparsely settled and coveted by the US. If the Brits had it, that might be a different story. But, excluding sudden massive French immigration to the area, I can't see an independent Louisiana happening – the US would get their hands on it in the end because, nominally French or not, by 1840 there would be more Anglos in Louisiana than French speakers, and soon there would be talk of annexation.

But that raises an interesting possibility: what if massive amounts of French citizens suddenly packed their bags and headed for Louisiana? Could a continuation of the paranoid Revolutionary government cause the migration?

Dan1988
November 13th, 2007, 09:58 PM
^Well, that would dilute the Acadian culture in la Louisiane a bit, because now you have a version of French that gets "innovations" from Europe into a dialect that had been separated from mainland France since the beginning of la Nouvelle-France. But hey, a more French-speaking Louisiane - that could be interesting. I wonder if this means some changes in the parish system.

Dean_the_Young
November 13th, 2007, 10:28 PM
Doubtful. Louisiana was sparsely settled and coveted by the US. If the Brits had it, that might be a different story. But, excluding sudden massive French immigration to the area, I can't see an independent Louisiana happening – the US would get their hands on it in the end because, nominally French or not, by 1840 there would be more Anglos in Louisiana than French speakers, and soon there would be talk of annexation.

But that raises an interesting possibility: what if massive amounts of French citizens suddenly packed their bags and headed for Louisiana? Could a continuation of the paranoid Revolutionary government cause the migration?Three problems.

1. Why move to Louisiana? There was nothing there except New Orleans, which was a backwater. It wasn't even a moneymaker by any stretch except for the minimal west-of-Appalachians trade that went down river, and it wasn't exactly a good place to settle and build farms, what with the indians and swampy conditions and what not. Surely if one wanted to escape, they could either find a place closer to civilization, a colony with better environment/more subdued natives (perhaps in Africa), or a combination thereof.

2. Why put emphasis on the Western Hemisphere when France was close to shut out? The Caribbean colonies were far more profitable than Louisiana ever could be, and those were slipping away from France. Napoleon decided to cut his losses in a hemisphere he couldn't defend and move his attention elsewhere; what will a sparsely populated Louisiana do to change this social dynamic? A french settlement didn't keep Quebec independent.

3. How will the young US's geo-strategic needs be changed? Jefferson, an avowed Francophile, was prepared to form a military alliance with Britain, the country favored by his bitter political enemies, to seize New Orleans (which was the entire goal of the Louisiana Purchase in the first place). Perhaps Louisiana can be the American Quebec, but the US is still going to seek uninterruptable access to New Orleans and shipping west of the Appalachians, and short of completely butterflying away the British-French rivalry of whatever Napoleonic Wars equivelent there is, Britain will still likely be glad to simaltaneously give France a knock while making strong ties between the US and Mother Britain.

Strategos' Risk
November 13th, 2007, 10:49 PM
Who says they have to be in North America? To be a rival to the US, you need a state in the Americas that is powerful and expansionist enough to grapple for a place as leading power in the Americas. Brazil could qualify, or a Gran Colombia that stays together.

Because having a huge rival blob to the big blue blob on the map is more striking if you just look at North America.

And I'm pretty certain that Brazil never really had expansionist tendencies (too many non-Portuguese speakers?). A surviving Gran Colombia idea merits a whole new thread for itself.

Thande
November 13th, 2007, 10:59 PM
Because having a huge rival blob to the big blue blob on the map is more striking if you just look at North America.

Well the only real candidates for that are 'some sort of Mexico' and 'some sort of Canada', because none of the other potential states in North America are powerful enough to pose a serious threat to the US.

How about a scenario where Bolivar or someone manages to keep all the former Spanish America united as one country when it becomes independent? Unwieldy, but if it could get its act together through a highly federal system, perhaps, that would certainly be a serious rival for the US.

demonkangaroo
November 14th, 2007, 01:05 AM
Well, Iturbide's Mexican Empire could certainly become a major rival to the US if it manages to keep CA (central America, not california) and at least some of the American west (namely California for its gold).

Gran Colombia and Brazil are viable, too. Outside of the Americas, never forget the European empire and maybe Japan, or a modernized Qing China or Mughal India.

Going back to the Americas, other options include:

Uber-Araucania/Patagonia

British La Plata

United Federation of Central America

Walke's Nicaragua

Independent Louisiana

Burr's Southwest "empire"

One of many Indian nations that grow and modernize


That's about it that I can think of (at the moment). ;)
I like that idea. The Iroqouis move to Canada, subjagate the natives, make a new confederacy, modernize, go expansionist, and gain a resiliense to smallpox, and other European diseases, and make themselves a powerful opposing force to the manifest destiney.

(sorry about the spelling mistakes, I'm on a differant computer that does'nt have Internet Spellcheck)

67th Tigers
November 14th, 2007, 09:35 AM
A shift of the Canadian border around Minnesota south about 60 miles will put the mineral resources that drove US industrialisation in the 1870's + into Canada, and the massive industries of the old Northwest will never develop.

While this won't crimp US expansion west, the US will remain fairly agrarian, except for New England etc.

Canada meanwhile will benefit from considerably more industrialisation, and be more attractive to immigrants etc.

Superdude
November 14th, 2007, 10:43 AM
So the all the mineral resources in the USA are within 60 miles of the Canadian border in Minnesota.

Sgt Detritus
November 14th, 2007, 12:27 PM
Republic of New England

New England seceeds after a War of 1812 in which the Brits kick seven shades of s*** out of the Americans

Karlos
November 14th, 2007, 12:45 PM
What, nobody believes that Spain could win the 1898 war?

Grey Wolf
November 14th, 2007, 12:57 PM
Russia - if it manages to stretch down from Alaska, perhaps create footholds in California etc

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

67th Tigers
November 14th, 2007, 02:58 PM
So the all the mineral resources in the USA are within 60 miles of the Canadian border in Minnesota.

No, just the motherlode which drove US industrialisation (it's the very southern tip of the Canadian Shield):

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

Tyr
November 14th, 2007, 03:33 PM
I think you would need the CSA in many of these cases if at least to weaken the US and divert its attention.

California/west coast nation!

The Gunslinger
November 14th, 2007, 04:06 PM
Texas really isn't implausible, unlikely, but not implausible. If Houston dies from a heart attack or some such event Lamar will be the main leader in Texas politics. Texan politics revolved largely around individuals, not parties. And I think if he wanted to, he could have kept Texas independant.

Canada is possible too. If Canada can win in 1812, and takes control of the Northwest (Northwest at time anyways) a more northerly Oregon trail could be established firmly entrenching Britain/Canada there too. And while his state won't oppose America soon, it could by the mid 20th Century.

Dean_the_Young
November 14th, 2007, 04:25 PM
No, just the motherlode which drove US industrialisation (it's the very southern tip of the Canadian Shield):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_RangeI'm not going to say that you're full of shit, but I do want statistics and proof that this "drove US industrialization." That's a pretty wild claim, especially when there are numerous other iron deposits across the US. The biggest advantage of the Iron Range, based on the wiki, is its location to the Great Lakes for shipping. But by the time railroads came into being, that was much less of a problem, such as in Birmingham (which is based by a near mountain range of coal and iron).

Here's a map of American coal and iron deposits. Notice how there are numerous other iron depostis known as of 1910 near rivers and rail centers. I count five in Wisconsin alone, several in southwest Montana and New Mexico by major rivers, and plenty across the Appalachians, both north and South.

http://etc.usf.edu/Maps/pages/2000/2085/2085.htm

So would moving the border 60 miles south have given Canada a mountain of iron? Yes. But it would hardly have transformed Canada into an industrial and population behemoth (just look at the population density area of it now; hardly world-shattering), it would in no way have cut off the basic resource of American industry, and wouldn't have been enough to have made America an agricultural nation as opposed to what it is now.. Minissota is already agricultural, and many other parts of the US as well. If you fly over the central US, you don't see endless factories from horizon to horizon; you see endless farms.

So please, provide statistics or other proof that American industialization is dependent on a single iron source, and that without it the US could in no way have industrialized. Please. I'm very interested to see how you will explain that.

Dean_the_Young
November 14th, 2007, 04:35 PM
Texas really isn't implausible, unlikely, but not implausible. If Houston dies from a heart attack or some such event Lamar will be the main leader in Texas politics. Texan politics revolved largely around individuals, not parties. And I think if he wanted to, he could have kept Texas independant.Texas as a peer competitor? Excuse me while I laugh. Texas was perpetually on the edge of bankruptcy just trying to defend its borders from the occasional half-hearted raid from Mexico. Should Texas try to stay independent, the chances of it holding anywhere near all the territory it has today (and don't forget that it claimed much of New Mexico and Arizona as well) is effectively nil. Mexico could beat Texas if it set its mind to it, let alone the US.

Canada is possible too. If Canada can win in 1812, and takes control of the Northwest (Northwest at time anyways) a more northerly Oregon trail could be established firmly entrenching Britain/Canada there too. And while his state won't oppose America soon, it could by the mid 20th Century.A problem with this, though, is demographics. Britain didn't have any settlers to claim hold of Oregon. The US not only had settlers, but had also been fighting and beating off the indians. A "1812-that-goes-horribly-wrong" could see American concessions to Canada, but I'm willing to bet that they would be in the north (the Maine-Canada border dispute was a major tension for a good time because it could effect the movement of British troops to defend Eastern Canada) and not the North West, where Britain had a much weaker claim/presence/need. There is no historical hindsight, remember, to tell them that the North West is going to be industrial heartland for tanks and planes and cars at a time when there are no tanks and planes and cars to be built.

sunsurf
April 3rd, 2010, 01:29 AM
France holds/conquers Cuba; Louis XVII escapes to Cuba, which gets renamed Louisiana. He and his successors take over the rest of the Caribbean.

Another scenario: Maybe the southern states are threatening to secede over the slavery issue, and they are causing a lot of trouble and inconvenience for the north.

Under what circumstances could Mexico take over the Southern US states?

Mexico takes over Texas, Arizona and California, and the Northern US states are willing to let Mexico conquer/take over the southern US states. The US civil war becomes a war between the Southern states and Mexico, which the Northern states stay out of. This would cause decades of resentment against the North, I'm sure--but how plausible is it?

Leistungsfähiger Amerikan
April 3rd, 2010, 01:45 AM
There are a few possibilities. My first thought is essentially what people before have said, Canada and Mexico. Divided, they don't amount to much, but if there was some alliance between them, it would be tough for the USA to fight a two front war. You'd have to make some changes to Mexico, however, and knowing nothing about Mexican history, I wouldn't know where to start. But a Mexico that retains California is a Mexico that could rival the USA, along with some allies and foreign support.

We could have some other break-away American Republic. In the early America, there was a lot of open land that people could go to and claim, like Texas. If they could be recognized by Britain or France, it could cause trouble for the USA. Or, an alternate civil war, like some kind of Socialist uprising creates a Union of Socialist American States.

My favorite idea, however, would be a China-wank. China modernizes and discovers America(as IOTL), and then begins to colonize the California region. Eventually, the colony expands into the Pacific Northwest, Alaska, and Mexico, and begins to clash with the USA over the middle of the America. Now granted, this would probably need a really early POD, which could butterfly away the USA, but I know too little about Chinese history 1500-1800 to know if it's really doable.

sunsurf
April 3rd, 2010, 01:58 AM
Thanks. Other threads here have discussed a Chinese colonization of North America. Apparently it was considered too distant and uncivilized to bother with much. They might have established a few cities, but--according to others here--they didn't have the incentive to go expanding their frontiers all the way across the continent.
Apparently, even if they discovered gold, they wouldn't necessarily expand their colonies much. But then maybe there'd be a warlord doing what Genghis Khan did across the American plains...
William Sanders had a good alternate history novel about this...Journey to Fusang was the title.

Yelnoc
April 3rd, 2010, 03:07 AM
How about instead of one main rival several larger ones?

A Cherokee and Iroquois State, an independent Texas, a Mexico that hangs on to the "Mexican Cession" ('specially California) and a Canada that gets Oregon (technically Britain but it will become independent at some point.

I'm very fascinated by a surviving Indian state, particularly the Cherokees since I am part Cherokee.

DaleCoz
April 3rd, 2010, 03:16 AM
To be honest, I can't see it as a peer to the US, but what if the Bourbons administratively split New Mexico off from Mexico. By the time of Mexican independence, New Mexico has a tradition of independence and has probably progressed considerably faster economically without having to deal with the bureaucracy of Mexico City.

Probably wouldn't work. What I'm trying to get at with this is that the northern regions of Mexico were considerably more dynamic in many ways than the center. Maybe a split that went beyond New Mexico into northern Mexico, pulling in several of the frontier states. Give them a separate administration for several decades before Mexican independence and you could end up with a country that contained the most dynamic parts of Mexico but left the corrupt center as a separate state.

T3h_shammy
April 3rd, 2010, 03:32 AM
What, nobody believes that Spain could win the 1898 war?

Errr.... No, we don't

B_Munro
April 3rd, 2010, 03:50 AM
Probably wouldn't work. What I'm trying to get at with this is that the northern regions of Mexico were considerably more dynamic in many ways than the center. Maybe a split that went beyond New Mexico into northern Mexico, pulling in several of the frontier states. Give them a separate administration for several decades before Mexican independence and you could end up with a country that contained the most dynamic parts of Mexico but left the corrupt center as a separate state.

Would this independent New Mexico include California and Texas?

Bruce

B_Munro
April 3rd, 2010, 03:51 AM
Errr.... No, we don't

Not unless it gets some fairly muscular allies.

Bruce

B_Munro
April 3rd, 2010, 03:59 AM
Japanese west coast.

Napoleonic Imperial Mexico.

Super-Sweden's Canada (see GURPS ALTERNATE EARTH'S Shikoku-Mon).

British Louisiana.

Bruce

Wyragen-TXRG4P
April 3rd, 2010, 08:44 AM
Texas really isn't implausible, unlikely, but not implausible. If Houston dies from a heart attack or some such event Lamar will be the main leader in Texas politics. Texan politics revolved largely around individuals, not parties. And I think if he wanted to, he could have kept Texas independant.

Canada is possible too. If Canada can win in 1812, and takes control of the Northwest (Northwest at time anyways) a more northerly Oregon trail could be established firmly entrenching Britain/Canada there too. And while his state won't oppose America soon, it could by the mid 20th Century.

Would not do alone.

Things are calme in the 1830s and 1840s, much of the 1850s. Hovewer, things changes in the latter half of the 1850s.
The French conquers Mexico, with Texas opportunistically siding with them, they face guerilla warfare hovewer. In exchange for helping Maximilian maintaining control over Mexico, the Texans are granted California(1861) and soon after gold is discovered there (1862).
The south still attempt to become independent (1864) but Britain side with them this time, parts of the US North-East becomes part of Canada.
1867-1869, France intervenes in Spanish civil war and put in power pro-French regime there.
Napolean 3 attempt expansion into Germany but end up uniting many German states behind Prussia and is defeated, revolutionnary war in Mexico begin as a result, Texas expand borders south once more in 1875-1878 period.
The USA militarises under Lincoln, when Britain declares war to Greater Prussia over the seizure of Istanbule in 1881 by Greater Prussia and its balkanic allies, the US declares war in support and is assisted by a Russian expedition force.
CS forces are smashed quickly, gas and burning liquids are used to clear trenches and defensive positions, the British launch a serie of naval attacks on the US east coast.
In 1882, war with Prussia ends with Britain being granted its share of Constantinople and the harbour there(remant of the ottoman empire is less independent from London than Australia and India, becomes TTLs General Governement of Poland in the following decades), France and Spain declares war to the USA for an alliance with Britain.
The USA win against the CSA but the greater strenght of the Canadian/French/British empires eventually triumph and even more territories are gained in the North East. Remnants of the CSA prefer Texan influence over being a British puppet.
WW1 start with the USA discovering the Haber process(different name TTL), sign a non-agression pact with Texas (that takes control of the deep south) and attack Canada in full strenght, the canadians are beaten before the French-British-Spanish can come to their assistance.
US east coast faces a serie of attacks but the British fail to gain a foothold back on the continent.
The USA, once confident the allies are not a threat, demand return of all confederate territories to it and launch a massive attack before Texas gives its response.
The attack meet with prepared positions hovewer, allies comes to the assistance of Texas, while Russian Imperial forces strikes the US in the west, Cossacks rampages through much of the mid-west.
Finally, revolutionnaries begin strikes that breakes US ammunition production, major US offensive fail as a result, more strikes results from the ensuing defeats and the US navy personel begin revolting against the governement, junta is overthrowed and replaced with what historians would later call the The Pittsburgh Republic.
The USA is humiliated and reduced to a second-rate power by the peace treaty, France becomes enough confident due to the american campaigns to attack eastward, striking through Belgium (past fortifications in Alsace-Lorraine) and seizing the Rhineland.
Spain and Britain, seeing the sucess of the French and fearing a French defeat by Berlin and its allies would grant domination over the continent, joins.
Texas conserves the deep south, Amendement on religious tolerance(unless said religion is a source of civil disorder) means the Deseret state joins Texas.

Leistungsfähiger Amerikan
April 4th, 2010, 01:28 AM
Just brainstorming another idea: Perhaps an alt-Mormonism(or another religion) explodes in popularity, gaining huge amounts of followers. They then proceed to head over to the Uta and California territory, where they set up their own theocratic nation, unrecognized by the USA. This succeeds only because they get support from Britain, who was having one of those semi-annual spats with the USA. They gain a huge influx of people after the successful Taiping Rebellion in China sends a ton of refuges their way, and a huge influx of money after gold is discovered. After the Civil War, the USA finally comes around to this new threat, but by this point the new theocracy is too powerful to be considered a minor threat, and a war-weary USA backs down.

rjrrzube
April 5th, 2010, 09:43 PM
Japanese west coast.

Napoleonic Imperial Mexico.

Super-Sweden's Canada (see GURPS ALTERNATE EARTH'S Shikoku-Mon).

British Louisiana.

Bruce

I wanna hear more about this 'Bruce' nation ... ;P

Dathi THorfinnsson
April 5th, 2010, 11:02 PM
What other nations could have become powerful enough to be a rival to the U.S. by 1900, or at least a strong secondary power?

First, OTL's-

Canada: Ooh boy. They'll need more population and resources. Could the Great North have expanded south more? I know that expansion isn't really a Canadian thing, but...

Shameless plug....

B_Munro
April 6th, 2010, 12:26 AM
I wanna hear more about this 'Bruce' nation ... ;P

The nation of Bruce is inhabited by Bruce. Its government is of the Bruce, for the Bruce, and by the Bruce. It is currently suffering from some financial difficulties, but with the support of the Empire of Munro, the future of Bruce seems hopeful.

Bruce

Skokie
April 6th, 2010, 01:11 AM
Ohio-Illinois-upper Mississippi/Missouri.

If another entity controlled the Ohio and upper Mississippi valleys, you'd have an interesting situation. Damn near impossible, though. Too many damn Yankees from a very early date. ;)

wilcoxchar
April 6th, 2010, 01:27 AM
The United Republic of Caltexia. From sea to shining sea indeed.