Dominion of Southern America - Updated July 1, 2018

[Glen]

Hmmm...interesting. Good to see Texas coming on board.

Thanks.

You say that New Mexico and California are simply "claims" at present?

To varying degrees, yes.

Who governs those territories currently?

Well....they're kind of on their own in some ways. Santa Fe in Mexico is in Texan hands, but the Apache control as much if not more of the New Mexico territory as anyone else. The Californias is even more complicated....

Will there need to be another war with Mexico to turn what the Texans believe is their hinterland into actual legal possession?

Quite possible.

 

[Glen]

I cant read those strange names on the ocean along the west coast.

Yeah, sorry about that. To get closer to UCS color scheme I inverted the colors and the island names didn't come out well. Here is the original map they're based on:

 

[Eurofed]

Will there need to be another war with Mexico to turn what the Texans believe is their hinterland into actual legal possession?

Texan/BSA-Mexican War, yes, yes. Northern Mexico all the way down to Mazatlan and Tampico totally belongs into BSA's Manifest Destiny, after the inevitable BSA-Texan union.

 

[JC Shurtleff]

Texan/BSA-Mexican War, yes, yes. Northern Mexico all the way down to Mazatlan and Tampico totally belongs into BSA's Manifest Destiny, after the inevitable BSA-Texan union.

California is to big a prize for USA not to make a move if a war over Mexico happens, at least to the bay area.

 

[Eurofed]

California is to big a prize for USA not to make a move if a war over Mexico happens, at least to the bay area.

I totally agree. So: all California and Baja to the USA, New Mexico and Northern Mexico to Texas/BSA in the great Aztlan gangpile ? It seems a fine compromise to me, and the USA don't have any special reason to love the Mexicans.

 

[stevep]

Glen

That deal sounds like a likely trigger for war. OTL Mexico warned the US not to annexe Texas and hence challenge its [Mexico's ] outstanding claim to it. Here both powers are effectively buying and selling a large section of territory that Mexico deems is its. As you say no one really has much say in New Mexico and sounds like even more vague situation in California but it would be very difficult for any country to swallow the implied insult without some complaint.

However quite a good move by Brown as it gets some funds and possibly if it triggers a Mexican attack he has an excuse to look for external allies, i.e. Britain, for defence and then to help reinforce the Texan campaign.

Steve

 

[Glen]

Texan/BSA-Mexican War, yes, yes.

And what about the British in all that?

Northern Mexico all the way down to Mazatlan and Tampico totally belongs into BSA's Manifest Destiny, after the inevitable BSA-Texan union.

Well, I'm not too sure how inevitable a BSA-Texan union is, though there certainly are forces trying to forge such a relationship. Why do you see that line and above as BSA's Manifest Destiny?

 

[Glen]

California is to big a prize for USA not to make a move if a war over Mexico happens, at least to the bay area.

A war by whom, when?

As for California, the US just bought out the Texan claim to all of it above 36-30, which includes the OTL San Francisco Bay area. Now all they have to do is convince the Mexicans to go along quietly....

 

[Glen]

I totally agree. So: all California and Baja to the USA,

That's an awfully big bite for the already expansive and underpopulated USA to take....then again, they haven't met a land acquisition they haven't liked yet, have they?

New Mexico and Northern Mexico to Texas/BSA in the great Aztlan gangpile?

Well, the Texans certainly are claiming New Mexico, and before it was Texas, Texas was Northern Mexico, or perhaps you mean OTL's present northern Mexico? That's a lot of Spanish speaking, Catholics to take in in the northeast, though not so much in the northwest.

And by Aztlan gangpile, do you mean calling it all Aztlan?

It seems a fine compromise to me,

Why is that? The US has no claim on the Californias other than what they have purchased, and acquisition of all that land would pretty much exclude Texas from the Pacific (yes, it is true they'd still have the Gulf of California as access, but it's a long way around an American Baja peninsula and there ports aren't the best there.

and the USA don't have any special reason to love the Mexicans.

Nor to hate them. A stable Mexico would aid the US in counterbalancing the British in the hemisphere, and they're also a free nation. Seeing it carved up by slaving British Southerners or their slaving Texan proxies wouldn't be looked upon happily by some quarters of the US population. Don't forget too that there are more Catholics in the US, so they're some commiserating with a Catholic nation in the hemisphere.

 

[Glen]

Glen

That deal sounds like a likely trigger for war. OTL Mexico warned the US not to annex Texas and hence challenge its [Mexico's ] outstanding claim to it. Here both powers are effectively buying and selling a large section of territory that Mexico deems is its. As you say no one really has much say in New Mexico and sounds like even more vague situation in California but it would be very difficult for any country to swallow the implied insult without some complaint.

Complaint yes, but the question of war is important. To get to the US in such a war, they'd basically also have to go to war with Texas, who after all are the ones who initiated the sale anyway so if you're going to declare against the US, you really would have to declare against Texas. While Texas is relatively small and weak, they've already beat the Mexicans once and they are close to the Mexican heartland compared to the US. Throw in a prosperous and much bigger (than Texas) USA as a co-belligerent, and the Mexicans are really biting off more than they can chew.

The other part of this that I haven't gotten to yet is the state that Mexico is in at the time of the sale....

However quite a good move by Brown as it gets some funds and possibly if it triggers a Mexican attack he has an excuse to look for external allies, i.e. Britain, for defense and then to help reinforce the Texan campaign.

Steve

Yes indeed. Canny bastard, that Brown. Have to be to get the better of Andy Jackson....

 

[JC Shurtleff]

A war by whom, when?

As for California, the US just bought out the Texan claim to all of it above 36-30, which includes the OTL San Francisco Bay area. Now all they have to do is convince the Mexicans to go along quietly....

The idea was floated that a Texas, BSA war Vs Mexico was likely, If this happens I would expect the USA to move in on its 36-30 claim, if not making a move for all California.

 

[Glen]

The idea was floated that a Texas, BSA war Vs Mexico was likely, If this happens I would expect the USA to move in on its 36-30 claim, if not making a move for all California.

I think the first is safe to say. Moving in to seize all California would likely be questioned by the Texans and BSA, and by association the British....

 

[stevep]

Glen

Sorry, didn't make this clear. While Mexico would be pissed-off at the US for buying 'its' territory from a 3rd power I think a dow on Texas would be far more likely.

In terms of the Mexicans doing something rash and declaring war on both powers isn't that pretty much what they did in 1846 OTL?

As you say a key point will be the status of Mexico at this point.

Steve

Complaint yes, but the question of war is important. To get to the US in such a war, they'd basically also have to go to war with Texas, who after all are the ones who initiated the sale anyway so if you're going to declare against the US, you really would have to declare against Texas. While Texas is relatively small and weak, they've already beat the Mexicans once and they are close to the Mexican heartland compared to the US. Throw in a prosperous and much bigger (than Texas) USA as a co-belligerent, and the Mexicans are really biting off more than they can chew.

The other part of this that I haven't gotten to yet is the state that Mexico is in at the time of the sale....



Yes indeed. Canny bastard, that Brown. Have to be to get the better of Andy Jackson....

 

[Glen]

Glen

Sorry, didn't make this clear. While Mexico would be pissed-off at the US for buying 'its' territory from a 3rd power I think a dow on Texas would be far more likely.

Then we agree on that point.

In terms of the Mexicans doing something rash and declaring war on both powers isn't that pretty much what they did in 1846 OTL?

Not exactly since the trigger was the annexation of Texas....at that point there was no option but to acquiesce or fight the USA (including Texas).

As you say a key point will be the status of Mexico at this point.

Steve

Yes, yes indeed....

 

[Glen]

After a few near things, it became abundantly apparent to the United States of America that the Electoral System used to select the President of the United States had one serious problem; the potential to elect as President a party's choice for Vice-President. The passage of an amendment changing the balloting of the Electoral College to the Condorcet Method utilizing ranked ballots, which had been recommended by the senator from Quebec who was a great admirer of Nicholas de Condorcet and his voting method. By the simple expedient of ranking the Presidential choice higher than the Vice-Presidential choice, a great deal of risk had been eliminated. The process was also more likely to deliver a majority winner without throwing the election to Congress. The tabulation methods required for the Condorcet method meant it was not immediately adopted for regular voting, but its use in the Electoral College spurred interest in this and other ranked voting systems in the United States.

 

[Eurofed]

That's an awfully big bite for the already expansive and underpopulated USA to take....then again, they haven't met a land acquisition they haven't liked yet, have they?

Exactly. But the bite is not so big in comparison to what they hold already. They bought northern California already, after all. Hmm, would it feel more plausible if it were just southern California ?

perhaps you mean OTL's present northern Mexico? That's a lot of Spanish speaking, Catholics to take in in the northeast, though not so much in the northwest.

This one. And relatively speaking, the Hispanic population in the northeast was not so big. They already got Cuba and Hispaniola, after all (of course, working from the PoV that Texas and BSa unite sooner rather than later).

And by Aztlan gangpile, do you mean calling it all Aztlan?

I mean nothing, I was just trying to make a smart bit with a fancy name.

Why is that? The US has no claim on the Californias other than what they have purchased, and acquisition of all that land would pretty much exclude Texas from the Pacific (yes, it is true they'd still have the Gulf of California as access, but it's a long way around an American Baja peninsula and there ports aren't the best there.

But it would have enforced the geopolitical divide between the West Coast to the USa, and the Caribbean Gulf to Texas/BSA. And as you say, they would still have the Gulf of California. Anyway, as I said, we may reduce the USA share and leave Baja to Texas.

Nor to hate them. A stable Mexico would aid the US in counterbalancing the British in the hemisphere, and they're also a free nation. Seeing it carved up by slaving British Southerners or their slaving Texan proxies wouldn't be looked upon happily by some quarters of the US population. Don't forget too that there are more Catholics in the US, so they're some commiserating with a Catholic nation in the hemisphere.

That's a good point. But my assumption about US attitude was more about opportunistic entitlement, i.e. "If it looks like Mexico is going to lose southern California, it should got to us, not BSA or its Texan proxy".

 

[stevep]

Exactly. But the bite is not so big in comparison to what they hold already. They bought northern California already, after all. Hmm, would it feel more plausible if it were just southern California ?

The problem with taking ever bigger bites is that sooner or later you bite off more than you can choose, especially when your desire exceeds your strength as it could do there.

That's a good point. But my assumption about US attitude was more about opportunistic entitlement, i.e. "If it looks like Mexico is going to lose southern California, it should got to us, not BSA or its Texan proxy".

The problem with that is that it breaks the agreement that the US has just signed. Which since it means effectively seizing lands it agrees belongs to Texas that country will be very upset. As with the BSA that sees a possible route of expansion cut off. Can guess how President Brown will respond to that. [What was that about you seeing Texas joining the BSA pretty quickly]. Quickly followed by the old call "Dad, that bullies stolen my toy!"

Steve

 

[Eurofed]

The problem with taking ever bigger bites is that sooner or later you bite off more than you can choose, especially when your desire exceeds your strength as it could do there.

The problem with that is that it breaks the agreement that the US has just signed. Which since it means effectively seizing lands it agrees belongs to Texas that country will be very upset. As with the BSA that sees a possible route of expansion cut off. Can guess how President Brown will respond to that. [What was that about you seeing Texas joining the BSA pretty quickly]. Quickly followed by the old call "Dad, that bullies stolen my toy!"

Steve

Your argument is compelling, even if seeing lovely California in the filthy hands of the slaveocracy always makes Eurofed a sad panda. At least, bickering between Texas and USA that eventually defuses in the favor of the former about the area could drive the union of Texas and BSA, which is a good thing of its own (the less the Balkanization, the better).

 

[Nivek]

Your argument is compelling, even if seeing lovely California in the filthy hands of the slaveocracy always makes Eurofed a sad panda. At least, bickering between Texas and USA that eventually defuses in the favor of the former about the area could drive the union of Texas and BSA, which is a good thing of its own (the less the Balkanization, the better).

Eurofed, sorry but i have to said this: You Americanphile start to Sick me(in general your concept of AH start to be a little cliched for me, someone must make a Wikin page for you and the eurofedism)

The POD of this TL is since the ARW, and the USA and extremly different than was suppose to be originally(taking away all the Deep South Culture, your change a big point in American Expansionism and Jingonist agenda since their birth but some butterflies can still want them have the warm pacific port and later the Fillbuster against Hawaii) and the British have their own expansionist agenda but their are more... refinated(in fact with their Dominon, they absolutily will advice them to NOT pushed away against another independant states besides those who the Motherland have a war or reason of hate) but if the mexican made the idiot mistake(they made it in OTL, the butterflies maybe are not too strong yet or the mexican are idiots by nature, sorry Dexter my mexican friend, but History them to support that thesis), in the Long Term... California will be a Integral of british souther america(with a partition/buy with the USA) or become a Dominon of their own...

The butterflies have a lot of power, is the abillities of choose was is the correct effect than separate a TL to be the history than never was or a big shit ASB

Att
Nivek von Beldo

P.S. Where are thou, EF(I always think on you like a Irredentia Italian, maybe form the old Yugoslavia, Ilyria or Trento)?

P.S.2. EF, you should read Jared Magnum Opus in AH: Decades of Darkeness(or will be so strong for you, because that have an Hansburg dominated grossdeutchland with having Venetia being integral part of Deutchland, a Divided Italy(north and south), and Slave-holder USA superpower, and a Russia Super power)

 

[stevep]

Nivek

Other than the divided Italy I suspect Eurofed might be quite happy with that TL as he has a preference for mega-states spanning continents. We only have one thing in common, in that we both believe Britain was very important, possibly vital in preventing Europe suffering that fate. I think its the main reason why he hates Britain so and is glad to see us conquered or degraded. Conversely its another reason why I love my country.

There may be a degree of racism in his world view. Or it could be that in his desire for such states he has a distinct dislike for democracy and people governing themselves. He prefers a US that conquers all of N America and often a lot of the south. Which is what I suspect is getting under your skin. However that could be because he thinks that's the only way such continental states could be established and for him that end seem more important than the means.

Steve

Eurofed, sorry but i have to said this: You Americanphile start to Sick me(in general your concept of AH start to be a little cliched for me, someone must make a Wikin page for you and the eurofedism)

The POD of this TL is since the ARW, and the USA and extremly different than was suppose to be originally(taking away all the Deep South Culture, your change a big point in American Expansionism and Jingonist agenda since their birth but some butterflies can still want them have the warm pacific port and later the Fillbuster against Hawaii) and the British have their own expansionist agenda but their are more... refinated(in fact with their Dominon, they absolutily will advice them to NOT pushed away against another independant states besides those who the Motherland have a war or reason of hate) but if the mexican made the idiot mistake(they made it in OTL, the butterflies maybe are not too strong yet or the mexican are idiots by nature, sorry Dexter my mexican friend, but History them to support that thesis), in the Long Term... California will be a Integral of british souther america(with a partition/buy with the USA) or become a Dominon of their own...

The butterflies have a lot of power, is the abillities of choose was is the correct effect than separate a TL to be the history than never was or a big shit ASB

Att
Nivek von Beldo

P.S. Where are thou, EF(I always think on you like a Irredentia Italian, maybe form the old Yugoslavia, Ilyria or Trento)?

P.S.2. EF, you should read Jared Magnum Opus in AH: Decades of Darkeness(or will be so strong for you, because that have an Hansburg dominated grossdeutchland with having Venetia being integral part of Deutchland, a Divided Italy(north and south), and Slave-holder USA superpower, and a Russia Super power)