American Theocracy TL

[Eckener]

Okay, so here's a rough TL that I'm working on as a backdrop for a story I'm wanting to write.

I will put this out here now that this TL is really rough, especially at the beginning. And yes in some places it could possibly come across as ASB. My goal was to set a story in a 21st century American Theocracy, and I'm the kind of detailed person that has to have a decent backstory before I can write in an alternate setting, even if there are details that won't be used in the story.

I'm putting this out here for some constructive criticism and new ideas. I've hot somewhat of a writers block so I'm hoping this will help jump start this TL and the story.

Here's the TL. I apologize in advance for any spelling mistakes. This was typed one iPad and I'm uploading it from my phone.

Background TL for "Joshua's Wall"

Catholic revolution in England in the 1640s or 50s
- this forces thousands upon thousands of Anglicans to flee persecution and settle in America

In 1681, the Bishop of Boston is declared, at a colonial church council, as the Archbishop of Boston, leader of the Anglican Communion-in-exile.*

In 1718, the ACex is renamed as the Church of North America.*

In 1729, the first major reforms of the CNA are adopted, brining into the church certain congregations of non-Anglicans under special Bishoprics.*

As of 1740, all 15 of the English colonies have declared the CNA as their official church.*

In 1759, the English King dies and his Protestant son ascends the throne, starting off three years of civil war in which the Protestant faction wins. During this war the colones ban together and take French Canada. Despite occupation that area becomes a haven for English Catholics after the war.*

In 1771, the King is killed by his catholic brother and war again erupts. With French aid the catholic monarchy is restored.*

On April 1, 1772, the 15 colonies declare their independence from the "catholic tyranny in London"

Peace of Hamburg: Great Britain recognizes the independence of the Holy Union of American States, August 12, 1775.*

On July 2, 1776, the 15 states, having had delegates in Boston for several months, approve of the Articles of Union for *the American States.*

On March 1, 1777, the 1st Congress of the Holy Union of American States opens in Boston. Horace McNab is elected as Speaker, and former general Samuel Whittaker (53), as head of the majority Unionist faction, is named Chancellor. On March 3, he is given and audience with the Archbishop of Boston, where is formally appointed as Chancellor and given the right to form a government.*

France and Great Britain sign the Paris Accords in 1779, recognizing continued British control over Canada, with France retaining Louisiana.*

In the 1782 elections, Chancellor Whittaker announces that he will resign as head of the Unionist faction, allowing new blood to take over. William Wallace becomes the new leader, and in march of 1783 becomes the new chancellor.*

In 1785, the HUAS Congress approves a bill calling for the creation of a special capital city to be built in its own special district. Providence, District of St. George is born.*

On July 9, 1787, Samuel Whittaker dies. His state funeral on July 20 is a massive affair in Boston, where he placed to rest inside St. George's Cathedral.*

In 1789, Markus Brown becomes Chancellor.*

On April 1, 1790, Chancellor Brown and his family move into the newly completed Union Chancellory in Providence, DSG. One week later, the congress holds its first session in the new Capitol building.*

Controversy erupts in 1791 as to whether or not the Archbishop of Boston, as head of the CNA and default Head of State should move to Providence and change his title. The Archbishop is against the idea, but it is popular amongst the opposition Regionalist faction and a number of unionists. The idea is rejected by Chancellor Brown, and will cost the unionists a majority in congress for the first time.*

On March 1. 1792, regionalist leader Quincy James is named Chancellor. However the Archbishop will not receive him for nearly a month. He is finally confirmed as Chancellor on March 29.*

In a letter to the Archbishop, signed by most regionalist and a few unionists in congress, the Chancellor informs the Archbishop that if the seat of the church does not move to Providence, then the congress will amend the Articles to remove the church from the government. Members of the Council of Bishops, which had only met 7 times since the signing of the articles in 1776, convenes to discuss the matter in Boston.*

After meetings with the Archbishop, the Council of Bishops, and the Cabinet, an agreement is reached. The Archbishop will move to Providence and change his title to the Archbishop of Providence. In exchange, the congress is reorganized into two houses: The House of Commons and the House of Bishops. The Constitutional Reorganization Act of 1792 is passed on June 29. The Archbishop will remain in Boston until the completion of New St. George's Cathedral in Providence, in 1809.*

In 1798 the unionists retake the House of Commons, and unionist leader Alfred Miller becomes chancellor.*

In 1799, the Act to Gradually Abolish Slavery, introduced by the House of Bishops, narrowly passes the House of Commons. It bans the transatlantic slave trade in 5 years (1804), *the internal slave trade in 1809, that all children born to slaves after 1809 would be free, and established a mandate to start freeing slaves.*

In 1800, Alfred Miller dies, and so the new party leader George Rains becomes Chancellor in 1801.*

The regionalist party wins the 1806 election. Leader Heinrich Bauer becomes chancellor in 1807.*

In 1809, the catholic King of England is assassinated. civil war erupts, with three factions emerging: the protestants (Georgists), the Catholics, and the republicans. The HUAS and Canada will see a huge influx of refugees from the fighting.*

In 1811, the King of France, fearing the unrest that led to the chaos in Britain, institutes sweeping reforms, establishing a permanent parliament along with other democratizing reforms.*

In 1813 the unionists return to power. Henry Carmichael becomes Chancellor*

In 1819, Blaine Morse, unionist, becomes Chancellor.*

On May 7, 1820, the Republic of British Isles is declared, and the civil war comets to a close. Britain secularizes. France refuses to recognize the republic.*

The Union of Canada declares its independence from Britain on June 25, 1820.*

France and Britain go to war in September of 1820.*

January 12, the HUAS declares war on France, making an informal alliance with the British Republic

March 8, 1821: Battle of New Orleans. In a surprise attack, the HUAS takes the city, crippling the economy of New France.*

May 18, 1821 Battle of the Channel. Britain defeats France.*

July 17, 1821: France sues for peace.*

August 11, 1821: Britain and the HUAS invades Canada.*

September 1, Beginning of the Brussels Peace Conference

October 11, 1821: Montreal falls. The Canadian government is captured.*

October 15, 1821: Canada's Army surrenders.*

October 30, 1821: Treaty of Brussels signed. France recognizes the legitimacy of the British Republic, New France is ceded to the HUAS.*

May 9, 1823, Act of Territorial Organization of Louisiana and New France is adopted by the Congress. Louisiana is admitted as a state, and the Territory of Mississippi is established. The rest of New France is declared unorganized territory.*

Elections of 1824. Regionalists take control of the HoC, and in 1825 Dietrich Bauer (son of the late Heinrich Bauer) becomes Chancellor.

May 1, 1825, Mexico declares independence from Spain. The HUAS declares neutrality.*

1828: New Bishoprics are added to allow several large Christian sects outside the CNA to be incorporated into the church. This move is not popular with all, however. There is a growing number of people who tire of the church's prominence in politics and want greater religious freedoms.*

April 10, 1829. Cease fire in Mexican war for independence.*

May 12, 1829, Peace Treaty of New Orleans signed. Mexican independence recognized.*

April 19, 1831: the HoC passes the Westward Colonization Act, offering essentially free land to anyone who could homestead in the unorganized territory for three years. This creats a wave of migration west of the Mississippi for the first time.*

December 27, 1831: House of Bishops passes the Non-organized Sect Removal Act, requiring that those members of small unrecognized sects be removed from the eastern seaboard to the unorganized territory. This is followed three days later by the Native Removal Act, moving the Amerindians living in the south *to a specific location in the unorganized territory.*

January 12, 1832: in response to the actions of the HoB, a new political faction forms, the Reformist Faction.*

After the 1832 elections, *the Regionalist remain the largest faction, but the Reformists made a huge showing, followed by the Unionists which suffered many losses.*

March 12, 1833: for the first time ever, no one party has a majority in the HoC. A coalition must be formed. The Regionalists and Reformists make a coalition, headed by Regionalist Mark Grey. *However, the Archbishop of Providence sees the new coalition as a threat to the power of the church and refuses to allow Grey an audience.*

June 9, 1833: after months of waiting for an audience with the Archbishop and not receiving one, Grey announces the dissolution of the coalition with the Regionalists. It is suggested to make a coalition with the unionists, but this is rejected. In the end, Grey announces a minority government, including a few members from Unionists and 1 Reformist Ina minor post. On June 20, Grey is received by the Archbishop and appointed Chancellor.*

July 19, 1833-December 8, 1833: debate to remove the archbishops power requiring his approval of chancellors. A bill is passed in the HoC, but is squashed by the HoB.*

March 4, 1834: formation of the Tejas Colonial Company, by Richard Jackson and Thomas Fulton. Makes agreement with the Mexican government to settle in parts of Tejas that are sparsely populated. Settlers must swear allegiance to Mexico. Original agreement calls for religious tolerance. Catholicism *will not be forced.*

June 9, 1834: in a vision, Gregory Daniels of West Ohio has a vision, claiming to have heard from God a out a "forgotten testament" which is supposedly given to him in a second vision by the "Angel Vestria". Becomes known as the Book of Vestra, central to what would become Vestrianism.*

October 12, 1834: the Vestrians, known popularly as Danielites, are forced to leave West Ohio to the unorganized territory under the NOSR Act. Will ultimately settle at the base of the Rocky Mountains in mid 1835, establishing Daniels Town (now Danielston).*

May 1, 1835: Havensport is recognized as America's first city-state in the Union, with the cities of Havensport, New Jersey, and Manhattan, St. Marks, and New Liverpool, New Albion coming together to form the City-State. The city's administrative center is in Manhattan. Kingston, Kings Island, was also a part of the original plan for the City-State, but voters turned it down.*

Election of 1836. Regionalists regain actual majority (many Reformists who had been elected in 1832 opted not to run and support the Regionalists instead, due to hostility from the Archbishop and the HoB).*

March 7, 1837: Mark Grey reappointed by the HoC as Chancellor. Accepted two days later by the Archbishop.*

June 1, 1837: Mexico's Supreme Councilor, head of the High Council of Governors, decrees that Catholicism will be the only legally recognized religion in the Mexican states.*

August 19, 1837: Mexican government gives ultimatum to the Anglo settlers in Tejas: convert by the end of the year or be evicted from Mexico

December 26, 1837: Richard Jackson, Thomas Fulton, and two dozen other Anglo settlers sign the Tejan Declaration of Independence in Jacksonville (largest settlement).*

February 12, 1838: Battle of Pueblo San Pedro. Mexicans win.*

February 28, 1838: First Battle of Jacksonville. Mexicans take the town.*

March 5-19, 1838: Siege of Fultonsburg. The Anglo settlers are able to survive the siege and push the Mexicans away from the city on the 19th.*

March 29, 1838: the HUAS extends diplomatic recognition to the Republic of Tejas. Officially calls on the United States of Mexico to end the war.*

April 3, 1838: Second Battle of Jacksonville. Mexicans are defeated, fall back to Pueblo San Pedro.*

April 11, 1838: HUAS declares a blockade of all Mexican ports in the Gulf.*

April 19, 1838: Siege of Pueblo San Pedro begins*

April 27, 1838: off the coast of Veracruz, Mexican forces attempt to attack one of the HUAS blockade ships, the UNV William Wallace. 25 sailors are killed.*

May 3, 1838: Battle of San Pedro Fields. Mexican reinforcements arrive, attempting to lift the siege. They are able to break through the Tejan lines and enter the settlement, but are then surrounded. The siege continues.*

May 18, 1838: HUAS declares war on Mexico

May 27, 1838: HUAS troops sail from New Orleans, planning on landing at Veracruz.*

May 30, 1838: Second Battle of San Pedro. Mexican Ar,y breaks out of the settlement, only to be pushed further south back into Mexico.*

June 12, 1838: HUAS troops land at Veracruz, and quickly take the city.*

June 18, 1838: *Battle of San Marcos. Mexican Supreme Councilor is killed in battle. His deputy and two senior generals are captured.*

June 22, 1838: Battle of Veracruz. Americans keep hold of the city, Mexicans are defeated.*

June 24, 1838: Mexican High Council of Governors declares a peace with the HUAS and Tejas

July 21, 1838: Treaty of Veracruz is signed. Mexico recognizes the independence of Tejas, and cedes control of Veracruz to the HUAS for 100 years. Also agrees to pay damages to both countries, mainly Tejas for the destruction of property during the war.*

October 18, 1838: The Tejans approve their constitution. It is such more secular government than that of the HUAS, with an elected president and a bicameral Congress, with a House of Representatives and a House of Clergy (representing all recognized faiths).*

March 3, 1839: Matthew Davidson, of New Providence, Mississippi a pastor of an unrecognized church, "reveals" to his congregation that he is the second son of God, sent to return the Church of Christ to its true teachings. His church congregation grows and grows. .*

July 11, 1839: the Davidite congregation moves out of New Providence and sets up the town of New Zion. Davidites now umber around 3,000

July3 1, 1839: Mississippi Territory applies for statehood. The archbishop tells the territory that before statehood is granted, the Davidite heresy must be stamped out. Davidson has stated that the Archbishop is corrupt, along with the government in providence.*

August 12, 1839: the army arrests Davidson and his six prophets, on charges of heresy and treason.*

August 27, 1839: Davidson is sentenced to death by hanging, his 6 prophets are to be sent to separate prisons back east.*

September 1, 1839: Davidson is executed. Before he dies, he prophesies that the judge, governor of Mississippi, and the archbishop himself will all die within the next year. The citizens of New Zion, some 4500 people, flee west, first to the Danielite region, then on into Mexican Montaña, settling around the Great Salt Lake, where they establish New Bethleham.*

October 1, 1839: Mississippi is granted statehood. The following day, the governor dies in a carriage accident.*

October 19, 1839: The judge who sentenced Davidson to death dies of pneumonia.*

November 1, 1839: the British Federal Parliament passes the Australia Act, establishing an Australian Parliament for all 8 Australian colonies to participate in. Creates a loose federation on the continent.*

January 6, 1840: The Archbishop of Providence dies of a heart attack. This sends shockwaves throughout Mississippi. Thousands of secret Davidites come out of the woodwork. Martial law is declared and hundreds of the Davidites are killed. The rest are driven from the state into the unorganized territories. Some will settle there, but some 6,000 trek to New Bethlehem.*

April 20, 1840: citing the high amount of non recognized sects living in the Unorganized Territory, declares a 10 year moratorium on the establishment of new territories and states from the unorganized territory.*

Election of 1840: the unionists make a huge comeback in this election, but not quite a majority.*

March 12, 1841: *Jethro Richards, head of the unionists, is appointed head of the first official coalition government, made up of Unionists and Regionalists. He is accepted as Chancellor 3 days later by the Archbishop.

July 2, 1841: The British Republic signs a treaty of the Kingdom of Hawaii, along Britain to establish a naval base at Pearl Harbor. King Kamehameha III also invites the British to help modernize his country.*

November 12, 1841: The HUAS and the Republic of Tejas signs the Treaty of Friendship and Union. Tejas is still independent, but the HUAS will establish military bases to help defend against Mexico. Tejas and the HUAS also establish free trade between their two nations. *

March 19, 1842: the HoC passes the Union Police Act, *establishing the Union Police Force, officially aimed at enforcing all national laws. The Archbishop intends to use the UPF to crack down on the unrecognized sects, and Chancellor Richards wants to crack down on the reformists.*

July 18, 1842: with a royal wedding, Bavaria is joined to the Austro-Hungarian Empire, as Austro-Bavaria Hungary.*

February 15, 1843: Gold is discovered in Northern Alta California. This marks the beginning of the Great California Gold Rush. An estimated 250,000 Anglo settlers, mostly from the Unorganized territory, and an additional 100,000 Mexican settlers all pour into the region within the next year. By 1845, it is estimated that more than half a million people had migrated to California to strike it rich.*

Election of 1844: unionists are still the largest single party, but do not have a majority. There is discussion of forming a coalition government between the Regionalists and t Reformists, but this is again quashed by the Archbishop. The previous government is retained.*

May 1, 1846: The Mexican government, in an effort to quickly repay their debt incurred during the Tejan Independence War, passes the California Gold Act, which declares that one half of all Gold mined in California is property of the Mexican government, and that local banks are to make sure the gold is handed over to the authorities.*

September 12, 1846: The Second California Gold Act is passed, closing all existing banks in California and only Authorizing the new Banco Central de California (BCC). The act also orders 2,000 soldiers to San Francisco to help enforce the Gold Laws. *

September 30, 1846: The California Miners Association forms, *consisting of a wide variety of settlers. Plan on organizing protests to then Gold Laws.*

October 17, 1846: first (of many) major protest marches in SF against the Gold Laws. Dispersed by the Army.*

October 22, 1846: The first underground gold bank, Free Bank of San Francisco, opens up.

December 2, 1846: the third and final Gold Law is passed by the Mexican government. States that non-Mexican citizens are no longer allowed to mine for gold in California, and sets a deadline of March 31, 1847, for all non-citizens to become citizens (including convert to Catholicism), or be forcibly evicted and deported from Greater Mexico. Also states that the operation and patronage of the underground banks would be punishable by a lengthy prison sentence. This will spark much outrage among many in California.*

December 15, 1846: The California Miners Association, California Settlers Council, and the Libre de los Colonos de la Asociación Minera all call for a Pan-Californian Congress to meet in the settlement of New Boston, on the far side of San Francisco Bay, on January 20, 1847.*

January 20, 1847: the first meeting of the Pan-Californian Congress meets in New Boston. Elects Manuel Richards as its President.*

January 28, 1847: The PCC issues the New Boston Demands, which calls for a repeal of the California Gold Acts, a removal of the soldiers from San Francisco, and the establishment of a democratic territorial government to represent the people of California.*

February 12, 1847: *Mexican government rejects the New Boston Demands. Sends orders for the troops innSan Francisco to break up the PCC.*

February 27, 1847: New Boston uprising begins. Mexican troops attempt to disperse the PCC. Not expecting resistance they are overwhelmed by local militia resistors. Shots fired. Casualties on both sides.*

March 1, 1847, the Presidio in SF is overrun by local California militia

March 3, 10,000 Mexican troops land at Monterey, and begin to march on SF.

March 9, 1847: The PCC sets up a committee to draft a statement of independence to be considered by the whole congress.*

March 12, 1847: Battle of San Francisco. With heavy casualties, the Mexican army takes the city.*

March 14, 1847: seeing Mexico distracted with events in California, Tejas convinces its ally the HUAS to back an invasion to retake Tejan Lands still ruled by Mexico. *The HUAS agrees.*

March 24, 1847: *the PCC declares that California is an independent Republic, free of Mexican rule.*

Well, tell me what you all think.

The goal is that by the 21st century, California dominates the Pacific coast of north America, and that the HUAS dominates everything east of the Rockies and south of Canada and north of Mexico.
California serves as a contrast to the Theocracy in the HUAS, being a very good example of modern liberal democracy.
The story is going to take place in California, and the main character is the son of the newly appointed HUAS Ambassador to Califorina.

Looking forward to the feedback and input. Thanks!

[Prime Minister]

Several issues. But I'll stick to the biggest one.

After the American Revolutionary War, Canada became extraordinarily loyal to Great Britain. So much so that our becoming a "Nation" in 1867 which was really just a glorified colony, was very controversial with a lot of people across Canada and the Maritime colonies.

I cant see why the colonies would possibly rebel in 1820.

Also, was it just the Colony of Canada that rebelled? Because in 1820 Canada had nothing at all to do with New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, PEI or Newfoundland.

[Eckener]

Originally Posted by Prime Minister

Several issues. But I'll stick to the biggest one.

After the American Revolutionary War, Canada became extraordinarily loyal to Great Britain. So much so that our becoming a "Nation" in 1867 which was really just a glorified colony, was very controversial with a lot of people across Canada and the Maritime colonies.

I cant see why the colonies would possibly rebel in 1820.

Also, was it just the Colony of Canada that rebelled? Because in 1820 Canada had nothing at all to do with New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, PEI or Newfoundland.

First off, keep in mind with a POD in the mid-1600s, settlement patterns in the NewWorld will look different. So the "Canada" of TTL will look different than IOTL.

The reason this Canada breaks away is bc of its support for the Catholic monarch of Great Britain, who is overthrown in the civil war, where Britain becomes a republic.

[Eckener]

No other takers?

A few places I want to take this TL:

-California will gain it's independence by around 1850.
-During the mid 1860s, the tensions building in the HUAS will come to a head, while the HUAS goes on a crusade to invade California. Civil War will erupt, and the it will ultimately result in the Archbishop being overthrown and a Military dictatorship will take over for a time.
-California will ultimately get control over most of the Pacific Northwest. Around the turn of the century, it will reorganize itself into the Union of Pacific States. (transforming the colonies north of California into equal partners in the country).
-In the 20th century there will be a few world wide wars, and the HUAS and the UPS will end up on opposite sides of those conflict.
-Also, around the turn of the century, a "counterrevolution" will occur in the HUAS that restores the Archbishop to power, albeit under a new constitution that solves some of the pre-Civil War issues.

[Eckener]

*bump*

Could definitely use some input on this. Especially in the wider world. I do have some vague ideas for Europe but everything else is pretty wide open.

I'm curious for people's opinions on what this type of society developing in America will look like in the 21st Century.
Also...could use some suggestions for place-names in the Midwest. I think I may make a map of North America sometime this weekend.

[Eckener]

Okay..one more bump....

[Eckener]

OKay, so still working on this.

Here's new events that I've added to the timeline:

January 20, 1847: the first meeting of the Pan-Californian Congress meets in New Boston. Elects Manuel Richards as its President.

January 28, 1847: The PCC issues the New Boston Demands, which calls for a repeal of the California Gold Acts, a removal of the soldiers from San Francisco, and the establishment of a democratic territorial government to represent the people of California.

February 12, 1847: Mexican government rejects the New Boston Demands. Sends orders for the troops in San Francisco to break up the PCC.

February 27, 1847: New Boston uprising begins. Mexican troops attempt to disperse the PCC. Not expecting resistance they are overwhelmed by local militia resistors. Shots fired. Casualties on both sides.

March 1, 1847, local California militia overruns the Presidio in SF

March 3, 10,000 Mexican troops land at Monterey, and begin to march on SF.

March 9, 1847: The PCC sets up a committee to draft a statement of independence to be considered by the whole congress.

March 12, 1847: Battle of San Francisco. With heavy casualties, the Mexican army takes the city.

March 14, 1847: seeing Mexico distracted with events in California, Tejas convinces its ally the HUAS to back an invasion to retake Tejan Lands still ruled by Mexico. The HUAS agrees.

March 24, 1847: the PCC declares that California is an independent Republic, free of Mexican rule.

April 8, 1847: The Mexicans lay siege to Veracruz, but the HUAS forces are able to keep the Mexicans out of the city.

April 30, 1847: Mexican army takes New Boston, but fails to capture the PCC, which evacuated to Sacramento.

May 2, 1847: 10,000 American soldiers arrive in Veracruz, along with 3,000 Tejan Soldiers. This combined army, under American General Samuel Prescott, will secure the Veracruz region by the end of the month, and then plans to strike out at Mexico.

May 21, 1847: Californian rebels blow up the armory at the Presidio in San Francisco, killing the General overseeing the Mexican forces in California.

June 7, 1847: Californians retake New Boston. The Mexicans are holding Monterrey and San Francisco.

June 19, 1847: the British Consul to Hawaii hears firsthand reports of the Second Battle of New Boston, is convinced that Britain could gain much from an independent California, and writes several dispatches to London asking for military action.

June 29, 1847: A second Tejan army crosses the border into what they refer to as "Mexican Occupied Tejas", aiming to drive the Mexicans further south over land. Under the command of Tejas general William Brady.

July 16th, 1847: Third Battle of New Boston. The Mexicans are unable to take the town, but much of the city is destroyed by fire.

August 2, 1847: Brady's Tejan Army takes the city of Nuevo Laredo.

August 17, 1847: Prescott's forces march out from Veracruz, planning to go out and face some 6,000 Mexican troops under the command of Mexico’s President General Miguel Lopez.

August 22, 1847: Prescott’s troops are ambushed on their path to reach Lopez, who soon joins in the attack that forces a retreat of the American-Tejan forces.

September 1, 1847: Prescott’s army falls back into Veracruz. The Mexican army will lay siege to the city for months.

September 16, 1847: Tejan army takes Monterrey, N. Leon.

September 22, 1847: The British government decides to extend recognition of the Republic of California, and declares war on Mexico. They will dispatch troops and warships to the Gulf of Mexico to assist the Americans and the Tejans, and send ships from Australia and Hawaii to assist in California.

October 3, 1847: Mexicans take the fort and New Boston. (City itself is in ruins and largely abandoned).

October 31, 1847: 4,000 American troops arrive at Veracruz. Prescott says they will wait until troops from Britain arrive before they try to march on Mexico City.

November 17, 1847: First British troops arrive in Veracruz. By Christmas, they will number nearly 4,000, bringing the total Anglo Forces in Veracruz at about 19,000.

November 30:1847: London’s orders reach Hawaii. The Consul orders a ship to sail to California to connect with the Republic’s government in Sacramento, to discuss joint action.

December 12, 1847: Britain’s “ambassador” to California makes it to the coast, and will meet with the government in Sacramento in a matter of days, before sneaking out of the country by Christmas.

January 1, 1848: British ships set sail from Hawaii to blockade San Francisco and Monterey.

January 12, 1848: Prescott’s army marches out from Veracruz.

January 14, 1848: the British fleet arrives in San Francisco bay, cutting the city off from the sea.
January 19, 1848: Fourth Battle of New Boston. It is a stalemate, but Californian President Manuel Richards is captured and taken back to San Francisco.

January 21, 1848: Manuel Richards is executed on charges of treason by Mexican authorities in San Francisco. News of this enrages the rebel army, and within days they retake New Boston.

January 29, 1848: San Diego erupts in violence and declares itself part of the Republic of California. Richards was from San Diego, and though the region didn’t initially join the revolt, is enraged at his death.

February 2, 1848: The Mexican Army suffers a massive defeat at Pueblo. President Lopez is injured and evacuated to Mexico City.

February 19, 1848: The rebel army, with assistance from the British who bombard the Presidio, retake San Francisco. The Mexican’s retreat to Monterey.

February 23, 1848: Prescott’s army lays siege to Mexico City.

February 27- March 2, 1848: Battle of Monterey. The rebels and the British place Mexican forces under siege, before the Californians break through and take the city on the 2nd.

March 3, 1848: The Mexican commanders in California formally surrender to the Californian Republic.

March 12, 1848: President Lopez dies in Mexico City. The Mexican government agrees to a cease-fire with Prescott’s forces, which end up occupying the city.

April 1, 1848: New Orleans’ Peace Accords begin, between The HUAS, Tejas, California, the British Republic, and Mexico.

April 22, 1848: New Orleans Treaty signed. Mexico agrees to recognize California’s independence, and agrees to the boundaries as set by the Californian government. All remaining land claimed by Tejas is given over to the Tejan government. Veracruz and a larger surrounding area are also permanently given over to the HUAS. The land between California and Tejas is surrendered jointly to the HUAS, California, and Tejas, do be divided at a later date.

May 20, 1848: Reception held for General Prescott in Providence. He has become a national hero.

Election of 1848: The Regionalists, who have the support of the popular General Prescott, make a huge showing in this election, campaigning to start the admittance of several new states and territories in the Unorganized Territory. Regionalists now have a firm majority in the HoC, followed by the Reformists and then the Unionists.

January 22, 1849: Marcus Humboldt, chairman of the Regionalists, is elected as Chancellor of the HUAS. The Archbishop confirms him two weeks later.

March 3, 1849: Chancellor Humboldt meets with the Archbishop to discuss lifting the moratorium on new states entering the union. First of several meetings.

May 11, 1849: The Archbishop announces an end to the moratorium on statehood and creation of new territories from the unorganized territory.

July 31, 1849: The State of Bauersland (OTL Northern Missouri, Iowa, and Southern Minnesota) is admitted as the 27th State of the Union.

October 1, 1849: The HoC passes the Western Territorial Organization Act, which establishes the Territory of Asher (OTL Western Minnesota, eastern North Dakota), the Indian Reserve Territory (OTL Oklahoma and Southern Kansas), the Territory of The Great Plains (OTL Central Kansas, Nebraska, the rest of the Dakotas, and Eastern Montana), and the Rocky Mountain Territory (OTL Eastern Wyoming and Colorado). IRT, GPT, and RMT are all to be governed by military governors; where as the Territory of Asher is being fast-tracked for statehood.

January 3, 1850: The State of Asher is admitted as the 28th State of the Union.

May 4, 1850: The Oregon Colonial Company is established in San Francisco, with the aim of colonizing the Oregon Country for California.

April 30, 1851: The Rocky Mountain Territory is divided, and what is OTL Wyoming becomes the Territory of Montanya.

July 1, 1851: The Pacific Colonial Company is established in Missouri, aimed at sending settlers to claim territory for the HUAS in the Oregon Country.

March 3, 1852: The OCC established the settlement of Richards Town (approx. OTL Portland, Oregon), and claims the around the mouth of the Oregon River (OTL Colombia River), for California.

Election of 1852: The Regionalists maintain their majority in the HoC, with the Reformists making small gains mainly at the expense of the Unionists. There is talk of establishing a coalition government with the Reformists, but this is abandoned when it becomes clear that the Archbishop wouldn’t accept Humboldt’s government with the reformists. The previous government is retained.

April 6, 1853: the PCC establishes the settlement of St. George (approx. OTL Seattle) and claims the area for the HUAS.

May 2, 1853: The citizens of the Davidite settlement of New Bethlehem establish the “Republic of New Zion”

August 14, 1853: Riots break out in Danielston, Rocky Mountain Territory (OTL Denver, CO), after the military governor attempts to shut down the Vestrian (Danielite) Church. Troops are sent from the territorial capital in Fort Richards (approx OTL Fort Morgan, CO). The riots are put down after a few days, and much of the city is damaged. The territorial governor rescinds his edict against the Vestrians, but a number of them decide to flee to the Republic of New Zion.

September 1, 1854: A number of high ranking Vestrians secretly establish the “state of New Zion”, a sort of shadow government that exists in the Rocky Mountain Territory.

Conflict will ultimately erupt between the HUAS and California over the Oregon Country. Early on, the HUAS will have the upper hand. However, Britain is a big backer of California and the increasingly secular government of the British Republic is becoming ever more wary of the theocratic government of the HUAS. In addition, the frustrations of the Reformers and the Regionalists in the HUAS will reach a boiling point during the war, and will see the military force the archbishop from power and the war will end in California's favor with the HUAS under a military dictatorship of sorts that will last for a good 40 to 50 years.

The church will eventually gather it's strength, regroup, and regain power using the discontent with what many people see as the corrupt military regime. Will ultimately result in a "counterrevolution" that will restore the Archbishop and the Church, albeit under a new, reformed constitution that tries to alleviate the problems that led to the military coup in the first place. This will occur in the 19-teens or twenties, not exactly sure.

Also, came up with a naming system for *some* of the new states....since the country is in some ways much more religious, some of the midwestern states end up being named after the 12 tribes of Israel.

[Avitus]

Allot of info here. I think that Britain enforcing Catholicism after the reign of Elizabeth I is a pretty hard thing to justify. I would also ask, why is the HAUS a dominant power, and why would the colonies, which became a hotbed of liberalism despite being settled by Anglicans OTL would be willing to accept, of all things, a theocracy loosely based on a Catholic bishopric. If they wanted to emphasize their differences from Catholicism they would be more likely to do away with organization in their religion than to copycat Catholicism directly.

Also, why is Mexico happening more or less exactly as OTL even though in this world Britain has been too busy to antagonize Spain? The butterflies from Britain being weakened by a period of civil war like this would be massive within one century. Also, why would this Britain be able to defeat the French navy and free New France? Before the revolution France and England were on similar levels in terms of their navies, and TTL Britain just experienced something very similar to the French revolution, which would presumably weaken their navy, while France has experienced peaceful reforms and long periods of stability. In all likelihood this leads to a new world that is much more heavily influenced by France.

Lastly, I think you've ignored the rest of the world a bit. No British empire is huge no matter what. Does this mean France gets India? Do the Dutch fair better or worse? Has Prussia come to dominate Germany, or the Habsburgs, or is Germany just fragmented? Does the fall of Catholic Britain hhave an effect on Ireland? And, what the heck happens to the Spanish Empire? Don't get me wrong, your stuff is well written, but the details are sparse, especially outside of the HAUS.

[zoomar]

Good, and nicely detailed TL (would I expect anything else from the man who gave us the Airship President?) A few comments and suggestions.

I think you may be underestimating the degree of religious pluralism that already existed in the American colonies by the 17th century. A mass migration of Anglicans to the americas - especially one that would lead to formal establishment of the CoE (CNA) in all the colonies - would be strongly resisted in New England, where various radical congregationalist churches had already been established as the state churches and very few if any people were Anglican.

My own guess is that such a mass Anglican exodus would be to the southern colonies, where the Anglican Church would have greater success (in OTL the CoE did become in effect and de jure the established church of several southern colonies). This could create the kind of regional hostility similar to that which led to the US civil war, but with the difference that the South, not the North, was perceived as the center of political power. The South would be home to a poweful heirarchical church tied to the state and the local aristocracy, while New England, at least, would be skeptical of state power and anything that smacked of a hiearchical and liturgical Papist-lite religion tied to it. Rather than have the CoE archibishopric established in New England after a reactionary Roman Catholic restoration in Britain, it makes much more sense for this to be in a place like Charleston or Savannah.

I see the makings of an early north-south civil war in America, possibly before the colonies become fully independent in your basic time line

Also, by the 1700's, Anglican seminaries and churches (both in Britain and the colonies) would be be dominated by the sort of line-and-let-live Deist thought characterized by men like Washington and Franklin. While colonies with a large and dominant established Angican Church might exist, where being a member of the CoE would be a requirement for membership in parliaments and assemblies, having them become "theocracies" really goes against the Anglican grain. Even when dominant and backed by state power, the CoE was fairly tolerant of other protestant sects.

If you want to pursue the idea of an American theocracy, I think it makes more sense to have it develop from the Puritain/Congregationalist strain associated with the so-called "Great Awakening" - a revitalization movement based on a return to old-time fundamentalist religion. If you further develop the idea of an actual conflict between an individualist/congregationalist North and a more powerful and more heirarchically organized Anglican South, you could set the stage for the eventual victory of fundamentalism and then any sort of anti-Catholic theocracy you want - I just don't see how and Anglican-descended CNA could be major part of this.

Anyway, that's my two cents.

[zoomar]

Originally Posted by Avitus

... and why would the colonies, which became a hotbed of liberalism despite being settled by Anglicans OTL would be willing to accept, of all things, a theocracy loosely based on a Catholic bishopric. If they wanted to emphasize their differences from Catholicism they would be more likely to do away with organization in their religion than to copycat Catholicism directly....

No, they would simply remind everyone that they were the true "catholic" church. The Anglican church simply couldn't have existed without maintaining the episcopal structure of Roman catholicism. That was an essential part of Anglicanism - as was a degree of moderation and a religious liberalism. Which is why I suggested in my own post that basing an American Theocracy on an Anglican base is hard to swallow. Better have it stem from more hard-core protestants.

[Eckener]

Originally Posted by Avitus

Allot of info here. I think that Britain enforcing Catholicism after the reign of Elizabeth I is a pretty hard thing to justify. I would also ask, why is the HAUS a dominant power, and why would the colonies, which became a hotbed of liberalism despite being settled by Anglicans OTL would be willing to accept, of all things, a theocracy loosely based on a Catholic bishopric. If they wanted to emphasize their differences from Catholicism they would be more likely to do away with organization in their religion than to copycat Catholicism directly.

Also, why is Mexico happening more or less exactly as OTL even though in this world Britain has been too busy to antagonize Spain? The butterflies from Britain being weakened by a period of civil war like this would be massive within one century. Also, why would this Britain be able to defeat the French navy and free New France? Before the revolution France and England were on similar levels in terms of their navies, and TTL Britain just experienced something very similar to the French revolution, which would presumably weaken their navy, while France has experienced peaceful reforms and long periods of stability. In all likelihood this leads to a new world that is much more heavily influenced by France.

Lastly, I think you've ignored the rest of the world a bit. No British empire is huge no matter what. Does this mean France gets India? Do the Dutch fair better or worse? Has Prussia come to dominate Germany, or the Habsburgs, or is Germany just fragmented? Does the fall of Catholic Britain hhave an effect on Ireland? And, what the heck happens to the Spanish Empire? Don't get me wrong, your stuff is well written, but the details are sparse, especially outside of the HAUS.

Originally Posted by zoomar

Good, and nicely detailed TL (would I expect anything else from the man who gave us the Airship President?) A few comments and suggestions.

I think you may be underestimating the degree of religious pluralism that already existed in the American colonies by the 17th century. A mass migration of Anglicans to the americas - especially one that would lead to formal establishment of the CoE (CNA) in all the colonies - would be strongly resisted in New England, where various radical congregationalist churches had already been established as the state churches and very few if any people were Anglican.

My own guess is that such a mass Anglican exodus would be to the southern colonies, where the Anglican Church would have greater success (in OTL the CoE did become in effect and de jure the established church of several southern colonies). This could create the kind of regional hostility similar to that which led to the US civil war, but with the difference that the South, not the North, was perceived as the center of political power. The South would be home to a poweful heirarchical church tied to the state and the local aristocracy, while New England, at least, would be skeptical of state power and anything that smacked of a hiearchical and liturgical Papist-lite religion tied to it. Rather than have the CoE archibishopric established in New England after a reactionary Roman Catholic restoration in Britain, it makes much more sense for this to be in a place like Charleston or Savannah.

I see the makings of an early north-south civil war in America, possibly before the colonies become fully independent in your basic time line

Also, by the 1700's, Anglican seminaries and churches (both in Britain and the colonies) would be be dominated by the sort of line-and-let-live Deist thought characterized by men like Washington and Franklin. While colonies with a large and dominant established Angican Church might exist, where being a member of the CoE would be a requirement for membership in parliaments and assemblies, having them become "theocracies" really goes against the Anglican grain. Even when dominant and backed by state power, the CoE was fairly tolerant of other protestant sects.

If you want to pursue the idea of an American theocracy, I think it makes more sense to have it develop from the Puritain/Congregationalist strain associated with the so-called "Great Awakening" - a revitalization movement based on a return to old-time fundamentalist religion. If you further develop the idea of an actual conflict between an individualist/congregationalist North and a more powerful and more heirarchically organized Anglican South, you could set the stage for the eventual victory of fundamentalism and then any sort of anti-Catholic theocracy you want - I just don't see how and Anglican-descended CNA could be major part of this.

Anyway, that's my two cents.

Originally Posted by zoomar

No, they would simply remind everyone that they were the true "catholic" church. The Anglican church simply couldn't have existed without maintaining the episcopal structure of Roman catholicism. That was an essential part of Anglicanism - as was a degree of moderation and a religious liberalism. Which is why I suggested in my own post that basing an American Theocracy on an Anglican base is hard to swallow. Better have it stem from more hard-core protestants.

Thank you guys so much for your feedback! I was quick to admit in the first post that my PoD was very weak and that was due to lack of knowledge.

This TL was started with an end goal already in mind: a 21st century setting where North America is dominated by 2 main powers, one that stretched from the Rockies to the Atlantic and was a conservative, Protestant theocracy, and another that went from the Rockies to the Pacific and was a liberal, free democracy. What started me writing this TL was that I started coming up with ideas for a story in this setting, and when I decided that it was something I ultimately wanted to pursue, I knew I needed a proper timeline, bc the detail oriented person in me wouldn't allow me to just Wong it and not worry about the details of the backstory.

The wholes in this TL go largely to my lack of knowledge. I knew the Anglican Church had the catholic-esque hierarchy so that seemed a worthy vessel to act as a powerful state-caked religious structure. I really didn't take into account their exact beliefs (though, coincidentally, I did have the church incorporating some non-Anglican sects under special bishoprics that allowed them to keep their special beliefs but be under the larger organization of the state church)

As Avitus pointed out, this TL so far is VERY N. America centric, and that's due first and formost because the story I want to end up writing is set in California, and so stuff going on outside N. America would be background to that. In addition....I honestly didn't know what I wanted to go on too much outside N. America. I did see Germany getting split along Protestant/catholic lines, with Prussia coming to dominate the Protestant states and Bavaria (which I had becoming tied into Austro-Hungary) dominating the Catholic states.
I really liked the point Avitus made about France being much more dominant ITTL due to a weakened Britain. That's lee a lot of sense and is setting I hadn't considered.

As for Mexico/New Spain....big area I don't know a whole lot about, so I went with what little knowledge I had and tried to apply that to my ultimate end goal, with California independent and a Great N. American Power.

Zoomar, I liked your ideas/points about having an Anglican South and more fundamentalist/Puritan North and that being the source of an early civil war.
The only thing is, the Puritan sects tended not to have the large, powerful heirarchies that, at least in my mind, seem almost necessary for a powerful state church that runs the theocracy.

One thought that had occurred to me was that, due to the differing events that have occurred in Britain, there would have been different settling patterns that could have broke the hold that the anti-CoE puritans had on New England. On top of that, exile in the colonies for the CoE establishment could have altered Anglican theology and philosophy to the point that it could have been better fitting for the type of theocracy I'm among for?
Not for sure on that, it's just a thought. I'm not actually sold on the national church HAVING to be based out of Anglicanism.

Anyway, thanks again you two for the feedback. Hope to possibly hear more. I appreciate the constructive criticism. :-)

[zoomar]

Originally Posted by Eckener

Zoomar, I liked your ideas/points about having an Anglican South and more fundamentalist/Puritan North and that being the source of an early civil war.
The only thing is, the Puritan sects tended not to have the large, powerful heirarchies that, at least in my mind, seem almost necessary for a powerful state church that runs the theocracy.

One thought that had occurred to me was that, due to the differing events that have occurred in Britain, there would have been different settling patterns that could have broke the hold that the anti-CoE puritans had on New England. On top of that, exile in the colonies for the CoE establishment could have altered Anglican theology and philosophy to the point that it could have been better fitting for the type of theocracy I'm among for?
Not for sure on that, it's just a thought. I'm not actually sold on the national church HAVING to be based out of Anglicanism.

An idea might be to use a vicious conflict between northern congregationalists and southern Anglicans lead to sort of an "Anglican fundamentalism". The religion loses its warm and fuzzy tolerance and liberalism in the face of a hated enemy. It reinforces its heirchical structure and seeks to eliminate any differences of opinion that might support the enemy. Its theology focuses more and more on the biblical interpretation that heaven and god's kingdom are heirchical. Forget that "Jesus as a protector of the weak" stuff. Human societies should model how heaven is run! God is all powerful, he sits on a throne, and he is served by increasingly less powerful beings in a heirarchy. Just like a Bishop! The Catholics had the right idea there but they were wrong about who should be incharge of church and state. Not some Italian Bishop, but Englishmen, by God! Englishmen now in America who are the true descendents of Henry and Elizabeth! The people of Shakespeare! Church and State must be one! No differences of opinion must be tolerated! Tie this Theocracy up with a dollop of ethnocentric racism that puts people of English background on the top and maybe this theocracy might work

[Eckener]

Originally Posted by zoomar

An idea might be to use a vicious conflict between northern congregationalists and southern Anglicans lead to sort of an "Anglican fundamentalism". The religion loses its warm and fuzzy tolerance and liberalism in the face of a hated enemy. It reinforces its heirchical structure and seeks to eliminate any differences of opinion that might support the enemy. Its theology focuses more and more on the biblical interpretation that heaven and god's kingdom are heirchical. Forget that "Jesus as a protector of the weak" stuff. Human societies should model how heaven is run! God is all powerful, he sits on a throne, and he is served by increasingly less powerful beings in a heirarchy. Just like a Bishop! The Catholics had the right idea there but they were wrong about who should be incharge of church and state. Not some Italian Bishop, but Englishmen, by God! Englishmen now in America who are the true descendents of Henry and Elizabeth! The people of Shakespeare! Church and State must be one! No differences of opinion must be tolerated! Tie this Theocracy up with a dollop of ethnocentric racism that puts people of English background on the top and maybe this theocracy might work

Sounds quite plausible. And given the circumstances of the exile, I could see some of those attitudes taking rotor rather early, and whatever conflict ensues between the Congregationalists and Anglicans would cement the more rigid fundamentalism I'm shooting for. There would be *some* leeway for dissenting sects as long as the agreed to be brought under the church hierarchy.

Under this method, what happens with slavery? In my original version the Bishops push through anti-slavery legislation fairly early on...probably not the most realistic....

[Eckener]

And another thing to consider would b the political development. I really want to keep the parliamentary style that I went with on the union/federal level.
As for the political parties, I really liked the unionist vs. regionalist split that starts early (almost analogous to the OTL federalist vs. anti-federalist/dem. repub split in early America), and then adding the (at first minor) reformist party in the mid 1800s that shows dissatisfaction with the power of the church and wants more religious and political freedom (inspired, no doubt, by the British republic and later California).

[Avitus]

Originally Posted by zoomar

An idea might be to use a vicious conflict between northern congregationalists and southern Anglicans lead to sort of an "Anglican fundamentalism". The religion loses its warm and fuzzy tolerance and liberalism in the face of a hated enemy. It reinforces its heirchical structure and seeks to eliminate any differences of opinion that might support the enemy. Its theology focuses more and more on the biblical interpretation that heaven and god's kingdom are heirchical. Forget that "Jesus as a protector of the weak" stuff. Human societies should model how heaven is run! God is all powerful, he sits on a throne, and he is served by increasingly less powerful beings in a heirarchy. Just like a Bishop! The Catholics had the right idea there but they were wrong about who should be incharge of church and state. Not some Italian Bishop, but Englishmen, by God! Englishmen now in America who are the true descendents of Henry and Elizabeth! The people of Shakespeare! Church and State must be one! No differences of opinion must be tolerated! Tie this Theocracy up with a dollop of ethnocentric racism that puts people of English background on the top and maybe this theocracy might work

Now that sounds like a deliciously wicked America

@Eckener, yeah, I think that France and Spain both would be stronger without British naval supremacy and the Seven Years War. Perhaps make the theocracy's fight for Louisiana a much more difficult conflict that serves to unify them as a people and turns them more religiously conservative. As for Mexico, I think that you could have a similar conflict go on even if Mexico is still part of the Spanish Empire (though it isn't really necessairy), and California break away in the aftermath. One thing I would like to know though is if California is still primarily Spanish in culture. Even today OTL it has a large hispanic minority, and TTL without becoming a part of the U.S. I find it hard to believe that they are anything less than a hispanic majority. Since it is the area where your story takes place, I imagine that the language and religion of the area is pretty important stuff, and while I can imagine California being a liberal democracy without the U.S., I would caution that it would most likely be Spanish speaking and Catholic. Of course, that could be even more fun for your main character to deal with when the outside world comes to shake up his point of view

[Eckener]

Originally Posted by Avitus

Now that sounds like a deliciously wicked America

@Eckener, yeah, I think that France and Spain both would be stronger without British naval supremacy and the Seven Years War. Perhaps make the theocracy's fight for Louisiana a much more difficult conflict that serves to unify them as a people and turns them more religiously conservative. As for Mexico, I think that you could have a similar conflict go on even if Mexico is still part of the Spanish Empire (though it isn't really necessairy), and California break away in the aftermath. One thing I would like to know though is if California is still primarily Spanish in culture. Even today OTL it has a large hispanic minority, and TTL without becoming a part of the U.S. I find it hard to believe that they are anything less than a hispanic majority. Since it is the area where your story takes place, I imagine that the language and religion of the area is pretty important stuff, and while I can imagine California being a liberal democracy without the U.S., I would caution that it would most likely be Spanish speaking and Catholic. Of course, that could be even more fun for your main character to deal with when the outside world comes to shake up his point of view

I like your suggestions on Louisiana. Especially if the Anglican vs. Congregationalist showdown occurs rather early as was suggested by Zoomar, a unifying conflict over Louisiana might be a good thing.

As for the demographics of California....I would say that the Hispanic population has a good plurality, shared with Anglos from the HUAS (mostly descendants of this fleeing religious or political perseveration east of the Rockies, with some having gone in search of gold), along with various immigrants from Canada, Europe, and Asia. Probably 40% Hispanic, 30% Anglo/HUAS, 15% Anglo/Britain, and 15% Asian or European.

Southern California will be very Spanish, very Catholic. Northern California will be a mix, thanks to the Gold rush, with a moderate lean on favor of the Hispanics (though San Francisco, despite a Hispanic heritage, will be thoroughly cosmopolitan as the capital of the United Pacific States). Oregon Country (a few different states, don't have their names/exact boundaries yet) will be more Anglo (with a few areas of more Hispanic flair mixed in), and the Alaska will have a European bent, with more Russians having settled there. Asians would most likely be settled throughout.

At least that's kinda how I have it working out on my head.

My story will be set in the San Francisco area, and the main character's new found circle of friends will reflect Californian diversity. One will come from the Oregon country and is very Anglo, liberal, and an atheist. Another comes either from the interior or Northern California and is also Anglo, but Protestant (one of the sects that fled the HUAS most likely). And the third friend-turned-love-interest is from Southern California, Hispanic, and Catholic.

[Avitus]

Sounds interesting, though I may have to ask some things about the story itself to satisfy my curiosity.

1. Are these people trying to accomplish anything in the story, or are they just living life and exploring society's diversity?

2. Purely out of curiosity, homo or hetero love interest? If the former, I guess that would be a big reason for the protagonist being happy to leave the HAUS, although the latter would probably better allow your audience (and me) to empathize with your main character, and serve to add a female lead.

3. Is the HAUS the bad guy in the story, or is it morally ambiguous?

4. What is the technology level at the time of the story? Has the more conservative HAUS slowed the pace of technological advancement as compared to the OTL U.S.'s contributions, or has the world moved at a similar pace. Also, are automobiles still prevelant, or are railroads more successful TTL?

[Eckener]

Originally Posted by Avitus

Sounds interesting, though I may have to ask some things about the story itself to satisfy my curiosity.

1. Are these people trying to accomplish anything in the story, or are they just living life and exploring society's diversity?

2. Purely out of curiosity, homo or hetero love interest? If the former, I guess that would be a big reason for the protagonist being happy to leave the HAUS, although the latter would probably better allow your audience (and me) to empathize with your main character, and serve to add a female lead.

3. Is the HAUS the bad guy in the story, or is it morally ambiguous?

4. What is the technology level at the time of the story? Has the more conservative HAUS slowed the pace of technological advancement as compared to the OTL U.S.'s contributions, or has the world moved at a similar pace. Also, are automobiles still prevelant, or are railroads more successful TTL?

1) They're more or less just living life. There are some politics involved because the main character is the son of the HUAS Ambassador to the Pacific States, but mostly all of that sort of thing is just the in the background. In this project, the timeline/alternate history is NOT the story, but the backdrop.

2) you're very perceptive. :-) yes it's the former

3) that's a really good question that I haven't quite made up my mind on. When a friend of mine and I started brainstorming this story, the HUAS was a clear bad guy. I think it might be better if there were some moral ambiguity there though. Something to think about.

4) tech level over all will feel similar to OTL present day. In some areas, things lag behind. Cell phones are newer and less common. I think we decided that there wasn't a global Internet. National nets, with some international links, but no WWW. Cars are still prevalent but rails are still in heavy use (there are more rail lines than roadways connecting the HUAS and the Pacific States).
(Zoomar will chuckle at this) Air travel lags to some degree. Prop planes still comon. Jet tech still primarily military or HIGH end passenger service out of reach of most.

Any more questions? :-)

[Avitus]

Originally Posted by Eckener

1) They're more or less just living life. There are some politics involved because the main character is the son of the HUAS Ambassador to the Pacific States, but mostly all of that sort of thing is just the in the background. In this project, the timeline/alternate history is NOT the story, but the backdrop.

2) you're very perceptive. :-) yes it's the former

3) that's a really good question that I haven't quite made up my mind on. When a friend of mine and I started brainstorming this story, the HUAS was a clear bad guy. I think it might be better if there were some moral ambiguity there though. Something to think about.

4) tech level over all will feel similar to OTL present day. In some areas, things lag behind. Cell phones are newer and less common. I think we decided that there wasn't a global Internet. National nets, with some international links, but no WWW. Cars are still prevalent but rails are still in heavy use (there are more rail lines than roadways connecting the HUAS and the Pacific States).
(Zoomar will chuckle at this) Air travel lags to some degree. Prop planes still comon. Jet tech still primarily military or HIGH end passenger service out of reach of most.

Any more questions? :-)

And here I thought I was taking a stab in the dark with #2. I would be careful not to hang the whole story on their homosexuality, and to make it a plot device rather than an overwhelming theme, since a gay love story on it's own would be fairly white noise, and it is the alternative universe that would give the story its hook.

Does the love interest share those feelings, or is the main character pursuing someone heterosexual or still in the closet? And, is the main character strictly homo, or bi? Do you also have a female lead in mind? How out there is the friend from an expelled religion's faith?

[Eckener]

Originally Posted by Avitus

And here I thought I was taking a stab in the dark with #2. I would be careful not to hang the whole story on their homosexuality, and to make it a plot device rather than an overwhelming theme, since a gay love story on it's own would be fairly white noise, and it is the alternative universe that would give the story its hook.

Does the love interest share those feelings, or is the main character pursuing someone heterosexual or still in the closet? And, is the main character strictly homo, or bi? Do you also have a female lead in mind? How out there is the friend from an expelled religion's faith?

The love story is part of it, but in my mind the story is more focused on a more general "coming of age" kinda thing where the protagonist, and others as well, are forced to reevaluate their beliefs and such.
The story itself is still in rough outline stage so I'm open to suggestions.
Was considering upping the political stakes a bit. The ambassador's son gets found out by the Californian press, makes a scandal, and this happens just ahead of a planned historic summit between the Cali president and the HUAS chancellor....I don't know still fleshing out that part if the idea.
Open to input there as I said.

The love interest shares the feelings and is out. 21st century Cali is a step or so ahead of OTL when it comes to equality. Movement starts a little earlier.

Working on concepts for a female lead but don't have anything particilar nailed down yet. Suggestions welcome lol.