Utah War delayed?

[Zioneer]

So what would happen if the Utah War was delayed; suppose that news of the Mountain Meadows Massacre (yes, I acknowledge it happened, and that high-ranking Mormons were involved; but not that Brigham Young ordered it) was delayed for a time (or the crime itself delayed), about several months to a year of delay?

What happens then, if the problems from this event are moved closer to the 1860 election? How do the candidates respond, and how does the winner (I'm assuming Lincoln still wins) react? Since Buchanan would still be in power for a few months or so, how would he act?

[Zioneer]

*bump*

So is anyone interested in this idea? I think it's a good PoD for an independent Utah, or even simply a larger Utah state; the Union may have to make concessions to keep the Mormons within the Union during the Civil War if the circumstances of the Utah War are delayed.

[Oba]

I do not think that Utah could remain independent for several reasons: Look at the Republic of Texas and how it had far more resources and much earlier but could not remain independent for long from Mexico and then the USA. Utah has a great paucity of resources, especially arable land which would be needed to support a large population and thus a large standing army.

Second, Utah had no major powers backing it as a colony, unlike Florida with the Spanish or California with the Mexicans.

Third, why would the USA permit a, relatively tiny, enclave exist in the middle of its vast land? Lesotho survived because South Africa permitted it to, the Vatican survived because of the huge religious following of the Catholic Church.

For the above reasons, I simply cannot see an independent Utah being possible.

[Oba]

On Utah being a larger State: I think, and I know very little about LDS history, that the largest Utah could reasonably be in 2011 is the entire Utah territory (that is, the actual states of Utah and Nevada.) I just do not see any significant support in the, then mostly Hispanic, other parts of the Proposed State of Deseret for Mormons.

On the Civil War: It might actually hurt the CSA more if Utah joined them due to their having to supply the former from the distant southeast. Besides, no battles took place in Utah territory during the war and the USA moved troops from Utah to the CSA. I just do not see it as being a significant bargaining chip for the Mormons.

[Plumber]

It's possible that Utah is admitted during the Civil War like Nevada was, to give Lincoln more EV. But not very plausible.

[Zioneer]

Originally Posted by Oba

I do not think that Utah could remain independent for several reasons: Look at the Republic of Texas and how it had far more resources and much earlier but could not remain independent for long from Mexico and then the USA. Utah has a great paucity of resources, especially arable land which would be needed to support a large population and thus a large standing army.

Second, Utah had no major powers backing it as a colony, unlike Florida with the Spanish or California with the Mexicans.

Third, why would the USA permit a, relatively tiny, enclave exist in the middle of its vast land? Lesotho survived because South Africa permitted it to, the Vatican survived because of the huge religious following of the Catholic Church.

For the above reasons, I simply cannot see an independent Utah being possible.

During the Civil War, the Union wouldn't have the resources or will to take Deseret (which would be bigger than just OTL Utah) back, but you do have a point if you're talking about after the Civil War. Deseret could stay independent during the Civil War, but afterwards, the full fury of the Union military could probably take back Utah (with fairly heavy losses, considering Utah's climate).

More likely though, Utah will go peacefully back.

Originally Posted by Oba

On Utah being a larger State: I think, and I know very little about LDS history, that the largest Utah could reasonably be in 2011 is the entire Utah territory (that is, the actual states of Utah and Nevada.) I just do not see any significant support in the, then mostly Hispanic, other parts of the Proposed State of Deseret for Mormons.

On the Civil War: It might actually hurt the CSA more if Utah joined them due to their having to supply the former from the distant southeast. Besides, no battles took place in Utah territory during the war and the USA moved troops from Utah to the CSA. I just do not see it as being a significant bargaining chip for the Mormons.

Well, considering how widespread the Mormon colonies were, I think Utah could have nibbled a few dozen (or a hundred or so) miles off each surrounding OTL state, along with, of course, Nevada.

As for the Civil War, I didn't mean that the Mormons would join up with the CSA, but that they could simply declare independence from the Union as their own nation. They didn't, but could have. You are correct in assuming that Utah joining either side (it was technically Union, but stayed largely neutral) wouldn't help the Union or the Confederates.

Originally Posted by Plumber

It's possible that Utah is admitted during the Civil War like Nevada was, to give Lincoln more EV. But not very plausible.

That could be an interesting idea, yeah. But then again, the Republican Party's motto back then was eliminating slavery AND polygamy, so I don't think they'd go along with it if Lincoln decided to admit Utah.

[Wendell]

This should be your Utah-related timeline.

[Zioneer]

Originally Posted by Wendell

This should be your Utah-related timeline.

Well, I'm just throwing out possibilities and seeing how plausible they could be. That's why I had the "Jews going to the Mountain West" thread; I'm just looking for good PoD ideas.

[Sift Green]

Originally Posted by MormonMobster

That could be an interesting idea, yeah. But then again, the Republican Party's motto back then was eliminating slavery AND polygamy, so I don't think they'd go along with it if Lincoln decided to admit Utah.

Actually, the Original Republican Platform had no mention of polygamy. The Republican party didn't make polygamy an issue until after the Civil War. I think it had something to do with the fact that the GOP started out as an issues party, and after the war was over they need to find a new issue now that slavery had been taken care of.

[Zioneer]

Originally Posted by Sift Green

Actually, the Original Republican Platform had no mention of polygamy. The Republican party didn't make polygamy an issue until after the Civil War. I think it had something to do with the fact that the GOP started out as an issues party, and after the war was over they need to find a new issue now that slavery had been taken care of.

Are you sure? This source says that the original Republican platform was anti-polygamy.

[Sift Green]

Originally Posted by MormonMobster

Are you sure? This source says that the original Republican platform was anti-polygamy.

Here is the Republican's 1860 national platform. The issue of slavery had taken such a prominent position in the parties platform that all other issues were ignored in favor of it.

[Zioneer]

Originally Posted by Sift Green

Here is the Republican's 1860 national platform. The issue of slavery had taken such a prominent position in the parties platform that all other issues were ignored in favor of it.

Hmm... Fair enough. But if the Utah War was delayed, couldn't it become a larger issue for the election?

[Oba]

I found a way for an independent Utah-like country to exist; here it is.

The Mormon settlers are given their own country during the late 1850s in exchange for allying with the USA in a potential war against a, in this TL, much more expansionist Russia, whose empire includes territory all the way down to far southern OTL Oregon, which they might do in an attempt to gain independence. The USA does not want to fight an unnecessary war with the Mormon settlers, is glad to get rid of the Mormons due to the great prejudice against their religion at that time, and is certain that they can be forced into the Union when the hostilities die down between the Russian Empire and the USA.

But the American as Civil War seems inevitable for the USA, the indigenous peoples of what was once Utah Territory, now the State of Deseret, wanting their territory back from the Mormon settlers, ally under the leadership of a Washoe chief and confederate into a grand alliance of all the indigenous nations of the Great Basin in Deseret with the goal of forcing the Mormon settlers to give their land back to and stop the violence against the indigenous peoples in the Great League.

Due to an embargo against Deseret by the USA and the ongoing American Civil war, which completely surrounds the country, the greatly outnumbered Mormon settlers are forced into war with the Great League from mid 1862 to early 1863, by which time the Great League had won the Deseret War.

No longer Deseret, the multicultural Democratic Republic of the Great Basin (or the DRGB for short) forced the Mormons into a reservation system unless they assimilated into DRGB society.

The USA, due to being impressed with the success of the DRGB and carfull DRGB diplomacy with the USA, ends the embargo in exchange for a permanent treaty of neutrality between the 2 countries. The USA sees no need for another war.

To make a long story short, by WWI all the Mormons had become assimilated with the DRGB's rightful inhabitants. Mormonism died off as a religion by the 1930s and today the Democratic Republic of the Great Basin is a relatively prosperous, developed country.

[Sift Green]

Oba,

1. Mormons and natives had very good relations. Mormon settlers went out of their way to keep their end of any treaty they signed with the natives, and all problems that arose between the two groups were peacefully resolved until the U.S. federal government started to assert its authority there. The natives of the region even used different terms for Mormons and other white settlers, because the Mormons kept their end of the bargain, and the other settlers didn't. Their will be no grand war between Mormon settlers and natives.

2. The U.S. government will not take kindly to natives killing off white settlers on their border, even if the settlers are people they are not to fond of. The U.S. will side with the white settlers if they look like they are going to be over run by "savages," and will very likely go in their and kill off any natives on "principle." Anyway, in your scenario Deseret is allied with the U.S. against Russia, so why is the U.S. embargoing them? And now that we are on the issue of Russia....

3. How is Russia getting itself to Oregon? The more stringent believers in the Butterfly effect will tell you that a point of departure that allows for a Russian Oregon would be far enough back to remove the main causes of the American Revolution, let alone any Mormon settlement patterns. But ignoring the butterfly effect for a moment, Russia was America's best friend in Europe, why would Russia be expansionist towards the one land power that can threaten the UK's north american colonies? It would make more sense for Russia to play nice with the U.S. so the UK won't be in a position to take away Russia's north american colonies.

4. I hope you realize the OP is Mormon. Wiping out his ancestors and his faith will not make him take kindly to your scenario.

[Zioneer]

Sift Green is essentially completely correct in all his responses to you, Oba. Especially with the "Mormonism dying off" bit. That particularly annoys me.

[Lemont Elwood]

"Great Basin" is not Deseret. Deseret is a hypothetical Mormon nation. That's like having Hindu Israel.

[Zioneer]

Originally Posted by Lemont Elwood

"Great Basin" is not Deseret. Deseret is a hypothetical Mormon nation. That's like having Hindu Israel.

Or a Norse Italy.

[mrmandias]

I don't see how this scenario leads to an independent Deseret or Utah.

Honestly, it probably leads to pretty much nothing much. The Utah War was mainly the result of miscommunications on both sides. Nothing very important was at stake, so if the USG has more pressing issues, they won't push and Brigham Young will call the Saints back to their homes, a more acceptable set of territorial officials will be sent, the end.

[DuQuense]

I think No Utah war would let the other Mormon Settlement around the West survive a lot longer.

off subject

1820's
beginning of Navoo Wars.
Several sub leaders realizing what is coming, and knowing they can't win, pack up and with their followers Head West.
They end up in the Carson City Area.

After the Navoo Wars.
Joesph Smith packs up and the Mormons leave Illinois, heading West.
They end up on the Shores of the Great Salt Lake , & establish Salt Lake City as per OTL.
Meanwhile the CC Group has Discovered Silver, But keeps it Quiet.
They begin Minting US & Mexican Coins.
Question about the Silver are brushed off with talk about getting Silver when selling their Illinois Properties.

1836
After the Texicans win, the Mormons send a mission to Mexico, and purchase the Great Basin/Nevada/western Colorado, for X tons of Silver.

1838
Mormon Diplomats arrive in DC, London, and Paris. There they are accepted and establish Embassies.

1848
The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo
In addition to the US & Mexican Delagates, there are Mormon Delagates that get a extra line added.
This states that both Mexico & THE US, accept the independence of the Republic of Deseret.

1850's
The Mormons are careful of living up to the Treaties they sign with the Natives,
Several small poor Native Tribes in Texas/New Mexico having lost most their Men, To the Americans, pack up and Merge with tribes in the Deseret territories.
By the end of the '50's some of the tribes north of Deseret, are doing the same.

The Independence of Deseret, also helps the Missionaries in Europe, leading to a increase in New Immigrants.

1860's
Deseret stays clear of the ACW,
Following the ACW, sees the start of the Indian Wars in the late 1860's. Deseret has become the Craftmen for the Native tribes in the Territory.
Deseret gunsmiths repair Indian Rifles, and teach the Importance of Cleaning.

1870's
American Soldiers Ignore the Deseret Borders when chasing Indians just as they Ignore the Mexican and Canadian ones.
This leads to a few minor Border Incidents, and lots of Nasty Notes from the Diplomats.
However the US is still focused on Reconstruction, and is not ready for any new War.

The completion of the Southern Pacific from Santa Fe to San Diego, and the Northern Pacific from Chicago to Portland, also takes a lot of pressure off Deseret in the middle.

1880's
Proposals for a Salt Lake - Santa Fe railroad Line keep getting postponed over Mormon fears of a Mass Gentile Invasion.
As the Indian Wars come to a close, it is discovered that the US is trying to push some of the Indian Tribes into Deseret, in order to clear the plains for Settlers.

This leads to a Conference where Great Britian mediates a final settlement of the Deseret Borders.
While there will be calls in the US to take Deseret and put a end to Polygamy.

1890's
Deseret begins construction of a railroad net connecting the towns and cities inside the Nation.

1902/1905
New Mexico & Arizona join the Union.

1908
Salt Lake - Santa Fe Railroad is finally built.

[Oba]

Fair enough and good points to all who criticized me; however, the Great Basin was in integral part of the Deseret proposal and in my scenario I talked about the Utah Territory, not the hypothetical state of Deseret

Like I said, I know very little about LDS history and I, ignorantly, just assumed that the Mormon migrants treated the indigenous peoples the way the other occidenals did: As if they were less than human "Savages." it is surprising to me that the Mormons, who, from what I know, believe that the first Indigenous Americans were Hebrews and historically treated people of African descent worse than those of Western Eurasian descent, would be described differently by the indigenous peoples they encountered due to their greater honesty.

Finally, I did not know that the USA and Tsarist Russia had such good relations in the 19th century, probably because my mind was thinking of their wretched relations in the 20th and that I thought that the PNW coast could easily stay Russian into the late 19th century and possibly beyond, given that Fort Ross in California was established in 1812, after the American Revolution, and abandoned in OTL in the early 1840s.