Viable alternate North American nations

[Dean_the_Young]

Were I to give an exception, it would be that perhaps one or two other nations could have formed and coexisted with the OTL countries ITTL.

Sure, but it'd be tricky, especially if you don't want one of the new countries to be a puppet state.

One of the easiest ways is for a relative Mexico-wank TL, where Mexico has more control over its northern California territories. Then the Mormons in Utah could potentially play the US and Mexico against each other as a buffer state,
independent despite being insular. However, should Mexico and the US ever decide that it would be better to wipe off the abomination of Mormonism (tm), Deseret would be gone.

Another possible nation (and an indian one to boot) might be the Iroquois Confederacy. While it was split by the ARW, intact it was one of the strongest and most modern indian federations around. If rather than split all the tribes decide to support the US in exchange for territorial integrity, they could keep modernizing until the point where they are caught up to the US and Canada, at which point they can balance the US and Britain against each other.

However, in my opinion Texas makes a horrible independent nation. Not only is it far too big and empty (how does one keep an indefensible border?), as well as poor and scarcely populated, but under any condition it would be bordered by multiple expansionist nations who it could not defend against. Texas was broke defending against Mexican raids, let alone a real land grab. Any independent Texas would see itself nibbled away bit by bit.

 

[Strategos' Risk]

I think California could have made it, had the population been much higher than in OTL. And if the first thing they did after breaking from Mexico was to ask for protectorate status against the U.S.

 

[Dean_the_Young]

I think California could have made it, had the population been much higher than in OTL. And if the first thing they did after breaking from Mexico was to ask for protectorate status against the U.S.

From Mexico? That's pretty silly. From Britain? Why would Britain ruin Anglo-Mexican relations by immediately supporting a secessionist region when it didn't do so for Texas (which Mexico would have been more amiable towards)?

 

[Strategos' Risk]

There's always the French.

 

[Jared]

Mm, I think people are over-estimating the desire of *Americans to produce a nation which stretched from sea to shining sea. Manifest destiny wasn't a universal ideas, by any means. There was quite some serious talk about the US with a "natural border" at the Rockies for a while. Even if the USA takes Oregon, it doesn't follow that it'd automatically pick up Texas and California, either.

Consider the following scenario:

1) Clay is elected President, and rejects the attempted annexation of Texas in 1845. Or Congress rejects it; annexation of Texas was far more popular in Texas itself than it was in the USA at the time.

2) The defeat of the attempted annexation of Texas is likely to put off any other annexation bids for another 8 years. By that time, the Texans will have developed a more independent sense of themselves as a nation. And by the early 1850s, the slavery issue will have become predominant enough in American politics that admitting another slave state may not be that easy.

3) The Mexican-American War is now aborted. Mexico will continue to struggle with revolt in its northern reaches. California is almost certain to break away at one point; enough anglo settlers coming will ensure that. They tried it in OTL, although it became irrelevant because of the Mexican-American War. Without Texas, the USA is probably not going to push into California. Deseret becomes independent almost by default. The Republic of the Rio Grande may make it, too.

Now, will the USA take over all of these independent nations. Maybe, maybe not, but they don't have quite the same need to do so. They may settle for being the big power on the block (as they were close to doing for a while over Texas). As long as those nations keep friendly relations with the USA, it's possible to have a balkanized North America this way.

A lot of Americans will come to these nations, of course, but this doesn't mean that they'll insist on turning those nations into Americans, provided they have similar laws. Americans turned into Canadians quite willingly on a few occasions (in Ontario after the Revolution, and in British Columbia and Yukon later).

 

[Redem]

Am I the only who think that republic of california sound sexy

 

[Strategos' Risk]

The reason why I bring up California a lot is because of its Californio presence. Indeed, even Vallejo looked on at the Bear Flag Revolters with distate. Not everyone who wanted to leave Mexico wanted to have the Yankees take over.

To my knowledge, Texas, on the other hand, was heavily of American descent. Didn't most Texans want annexation into the U.S.?

Of course, we can always have an alternate group (the Tejanos?) revolting in Texas. Or we can have Mexico breaking apart or a few pieces at a time. Those pieces would be independent if the U.S. decides not to go all Manifest Destiny on them.

 

[Smaug]

I've often heard that California would rank somewhere in the top 10, or at least top 15 nations in the world if you took into account its gnp. Granted, its independence would separate itself, somewhat, from the enormous US economy, it would be very self sufficient at this time.

Mineral resorces, trade, and a quite surprising agricultural foundation, would make it a fairly strong economy at the time, with room for improvement in the future.

Than again, I'm from there....

 

[The Gunslinger]

Texan politics were largely individual oriented. If Sam Houston dies, Lamar might be able to swing towards a more independant approach and avoid annexation.

I always thought that the Mormons would would be quite benevolent towards Mexico if Mexico left them largely alone. Which I thought would make the gold rush interesting. A rebelling California with a largely docile Deseret.

If you felt that the butterflies were flapping especially hard you could try and go for an independant Louisiana.

The Oregon could happen too. If the joint occupancy falls apart but doesn't lead to open hostilities, maybe both sides agree to an Oregonian Republic.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

If California had become an independent state and managed to establish some form of working government that provided security, it could possibly have worked due to the presence of gold, which would solve the population problem. Population:

1850 92,600
1860 380,000
1870 560,200
1880 864,700
1890 1,213,400
1900 1,485,100

This doesn't include 200,000-250,000 native Americans who the Spanish/Mexicans put more effort into integrating.

The OTL gold rush brought in 300,000 people, but not all Americans - maybe half of them were. In an ATL where California is a Hispanic nation, that proporton might shift in favor of Latin Americans.

The Civil War happened at a good time for a Californian state, too.

I think this is really doable, if you change some Mexican history.

There's a problem with North American states, two of the biggest ones being terrain and population.

First, let's face it. The USA was able to expand so fast (and Mexico and Canada able to be their size) because the continent was nearly empty of people. To put a viable, independent state, you need people to defend it. The northern half of Mexico didn't have many people, which was why the US was willing to take what it did. Even if you had all those Mormon settlers go into CA (doubtful, because they'd have to walk through the pacific mountain ranges as well as do so without Mexican permission), CA still wouldn't have been populated enough to deter American expansion.

Second, terrain. Multiple states are hard to set up in the center of North America due to the relative lack of natural barriers preventing people from just walking over. And since nearly all rivers flow into New Orleans, whoever controls New Orleans can control all major shipping for commerce, as well as river settlement patterns. So when one follows the rivers, you get to the Oregon Territory. And when one gains control of the rest of the interior up to the Pacific Mountains, it's a relatively short hop just to the Pacific, making CA worth the investment to obtain.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

That's partly true. In 1846 when we got all that stuff, it was because it was really easy to take - because there were no Mexicans there. At that time it would have been very difficult to take anything populated or valuable from Mexico.

Later, when we began to develop preponderant military superiority, there was some debate about conquering and depopulating Mexico, but for the most part the feeling was as you decribe below.

Bingo. The US specifically avoided large Mexican populations, or else it would have taken much more land, perhaps some of the cotton growing Mexican states. As it was, while the US probably ended up with less than it wanted at the time it also avoided taking major Mexican population clusters.

 

[Dean_the_Young]

I've often heard that California would rank somewhere in the top 10, or at least top 15 nations in the world if you took into account its gnp. Granted, its independence would separate itself, somewhat, from the enormous US economy, it would be very self sufficient at this time.

Free and unrestricted interstate immigration of skilled and unskilled labor, immediate free-trade access into the other US states, federal projects, massive internal investments from American businessmen under the same protections/limits as in other US states (as opposed to the near-colonialism in other countries), not having to maintain a constant regular army and navy, not being bordered by at least two powers who could/would enjoy taking more Pacific coast space, not having to fight off the cultural influences of immigrants from the US and Mexico, etc.

California is hardly an inevitable prosperous region. Even independent, it could quickly turn into yet another banana republic or such. Resources alone don't make a state wealthy and healthy, or else Africa and Central/South America would be much better off.


That said, if I sound a bit harsh against the idea of a Californian state, right now it's because I'm remembering a really, really bad California-wank that ignored everything from population to economics.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

There is nothing anywhere in Africa and Central/South America that even begins to rival the richness of California and the advantages it holds to becoming a viable state.

Gold, incredibly fertile land, extremely healthy climate, and physical isolation are all very important assets. If a stable government can be set up with adequate security, you could see a large and diverse group of immigrants.

A 'wank' scenario would be silly - the best you could really imagine is that some of Nevada could fall into California - possibly Baha, and remotely, Hawaii - maybe Russia sells Alaska to California instead of the USA... though it's hard to imagine California wanting it.

No chance at grabbing Oregon and Washington.

Free and unrestricted interstate immigration of skilled and unskilled labor, immediate free-trade access into the other US states, federal projects, massive internal investments from American businessmen under the same protections/limits as in other US states (as opposed to the near-colonialism in other countries), not having to maintain a constant regular army and navy, not being bordered by at least two powers who could/would enjoy taking more Pacific coast space, not having to fight off the cultural influences of immigrants from the US and Mexico, etc.

California is hardly an inevitable prosperous region. Even independent, it could quickly turn into yet another banana republic or such. Resources alone don't make a state wealthy and healthy, or else Africa and Central/South America would be much better off.


That said, if I sound a bit harsh against the idea of a Californian state, right now it's because I'm remembering a really, really bad California-wank that ignored everything from population to economics.

 

[Dean_the_Young]

There is nothing anywhere in Africa and Central/South America that even begins to rival the richness of California and the advantages it holds to becoming a viable state.

Gold, incredibly fertile land, extremely healthy climate, and physical isolation are all very important assets. If a stable government can be set up with adequate security, you could see a large and diverse group of immigrants.

A 'wank' scenario would be silly - the best you could really imagine is that some of Nevada could fall into California - possibly Baha, and remotely, Hawaii - maybe Russia sells Alaska to California instead of the USA... though it's hard to imagine California wanting it.

No chance at grabbing Oregon and Washington.

Well that's pretty much what happened, and more, but I'll give you the point that resources and mountain ranges are a good start. And the gold won't hurt, even if it won't be sustainable long-term.

However...

How much of the state of California could this hypothetical nation reasonably have? The US is going to want as much Pacific Coast as possible, and will likely go as far south as possible. At the same time, unless it can secure the link between Baja and the Sierra-Nevada Mtns., this California is going to have a relatively open corridor from the Mexican west coast up through the interior of the state to watch out for. And since Mexico never stopped harassing Texas until the disastrous Mexican-American War, which doesn't seem likely to happen in this TL...

 

[Strategos' Risk]

Politically speaking, I wonder that if a Latin American California split from Mexico, future Mexican regimes would try to reconquer it. This would actually lead to the Californians seeking support from the U.S. That might cause the U.S. to turn CA into a client state, rather than a province-state.

I'm still trying to set this up. I don't think that California would necessarily be the first region to secede from Mexico, unless they had a huge influx of non-Mexican settlers. I'm also unsure what Texas' role would play.

And for a different scenario, if the northern provinces of Mexico were thinking of seceding at one point, I'm wondering if even if Texas, Utah, and/or New Mexico were more settled by Mexicans, they would try to secede at one point.

 

[AuroraBorealis]

There is nothing anywhere in Africa and Central/South America that even begins to rival the richness of California and the advantages it holds to becoming a viable state.

Gold, incredibly fertile land, extremely healthy climate, and physical isolation are all very important assets. If a stable government can be set up with adequate security, you could see a large and diverse group of immigrants.

A 'wank' scenario would be silly - the best you could really imagine is that some of Nevada could fall into California - possibly Baha, and remotely, Hawaii - maybe Russia sells Alaska to California instead of the USA... though it's hard to imagine California wanting it.

No chance at grabbing Oregon and Washington.

Chile comes to mind as a possible model that California could follow if it developped as a Hispanic nation. Another latin American state with plenty of fertile Agricultural land and vast resources. and yet its history is somewhat chequered to say the least. Thus a rich state is not necessarily a given from the outset...but it could develop over time. It will depend on the Political regime in place and the course of relations with its neighbours.

 

[Roberto]

On another note, I have two possibly TL that would result in many North American states. The first one starts with an independent Louisiana territory, followed by political turmoil in the US resulting in Burr successfully starting his southwestern empire in Texas and New Mexico. A French-led Louisiana ships all of its Spanish occupants to Florida, which rebels agaisnt Spain succesfully. US continues to fall into turmoil when the War of 1812 starts and NE and Tecumseh's Shawnee confederation split apart. The US forces wreck the British hold on Canada so much Quebec and a confederation of the northeast provinces form two more independent republics. The Nappy Wars in Europe end up with France winning, and earlier independence wars in Latin America. Mexico gets independent and goes similar to OTL. France invades when Santa Ana overthrows Iturbide, which ends up with a largely French occupied Mexico. The French attitude ends up with Yucatan, Sonora, and the Rio Grande splitting off to be independent. Settlers from the US creates Deseret in OTL Utah and Arizona. California splits off from Deseret due to a Latin influence. In the north, Russians discover gold in Alaska and settle it a lot more. Any thoughts?

PS It's kinda late and I'm gonna hold off on the second TL.

 

[Dean_the_Young]

On another note, I have two possibly TL that would result in many North American states. The first one starts with an independent Louisiana territory, followed by political turmoil in the US resulting in Burr successfully starting his southwestern empire in Texas and New Mexico. A French-led Louisiana ships all of its Spanish occupants to Florida, which rebels agaisnt Spain succesfully. US continues to fall into turmoil when the War of 1812 starts and NE and Tecumseh's Shawnee confederation split apart. The US forces wreck the British hold on Canada so much Quebec and a confederation of the northeast provinces form two more independent republics. The Nappy Wars in Europe end up with France winning, and earlier independence wars in Latin America. Mexico gets independent and goes similar to OTL. France invades when Santa Ana overthrows Iturbide, which ends up with a largely French occupied Mexico. The French attitude ends up with Yucatan, Sonora, and the Rio Grande splitting off to be independent. Settlers from the US creates Deseret in OTL Utah and Arizona. California splits off from Deseret due to a Latin influence. In the north, Russians discover gold in Alaska and settle it a lot more. Any thoughts?

PS It's kinda late and I'm gonna hold off on the second TL.

You may definitely want to rethink this. Three or more times. I won't get into a big issue over it, but a few simple threads about this will show a number of problems, especially dealing with butterflies and such. I'm especially touchy about Louisiana without a major POD much farther back.

For my first rant on the subject, https://www.alternatehistory.com/Discussion/showthread.php?t=58376&highlight=Louisianna+Purchase

 

[pa_dutch]

California is bound to have a very diverse population, whether it is Anglo or Hispanic. The Gold Rush will bring settlers from all over Latin America, Anglo America, Europe, and Asia.

 

[Alcuin]

How about a really early PoD at the beginning of the Tokugawa Shogunate? Angered by attempts by the Spanish and Portuguese to subvert Japanese society, instead of withdrawing and allowing only the Dutch on Deshima to trade (as in OTL), Ieyasu Tokugawa gets together with the Dutch (and maybe British) to intervene in Oregon/California to build a colony that could eventually destroy the Spanish presence in the Americas. This might eventually lead to a separate nation with a higher population base on the West Coast. It would be mainly Japanese in character, but somewhat different than OTL Japan because of the Dutch (and British?) influence.