A More Imperfect Union: A History of these United States
- Thread starter Planita13
- Start date
Ooh, this is cool! I love the idea of a 19th Century American Iron Curtain! You mentioned an American Cold War in an earlier post, so is this Cold War a series of proxy wars or is it just an arms race while tensions are high?
The beginnings of the American Internal Border, or simply The Border, were laid even before the war officially ended. The ceasefire declared on May 11th 1870 all but solidified the battlelines that scarred the landscape. In the waning days of the Civil War, the states themselves were divided between the forces of the North and the forces of the South. Nowhere the division was more stark, than in Pennsylvania. Occupied for the majority of the war and ravaged by devastating battles at its largest cities, the state was split in two. In occupied Pennsylvania, rebel activity was met with harsh reprisals; anyone suspected of supporting them were driven from their homes. Most returned after rebel forces retook most of the state, but in the territory that the Republic continued to control, their leave turned out to be permanent.
The ceasefire was declared after an arduous stalemate through the work of the Ohio Foreign Department. Few thought that the current map would last for long at first, until the two sides attempted to negotiate an armistice agreement. For nearly two months, delegations from the north and south haggled in Harrisonburg, over nearly all parts of the agreement, especially over the exchange of prisoners of war. It was only until the timely threat of Ohio intervention that the South would agree to the terms. From then on, few would believe that a formal peace treaty would ever be signed. And they would be right.
The Harrisonburg Armistice never explicitly established a demilitarized zone along the border. Instead it was an unintended consequence of a stalemate frozen in mid battle. Even before the ceasefire was declared, the frontline was stagnant for months as both sides. Basic earthworks were more than enough to repel the attacks of disorganized militia forces. When the ceasefire was declared in May, both sides took the opportunity to upgrade their defences in case. The uneasy ceasefire would largely remain untested until it was clear that a comprehensive peace treaty would never be signed. Then things really got tense.
In the months that followed, border incidents occurred almost weekly. Troops stationed at their significantly improved fortifications, would often open fire with muskets and the occasional cannon over any perceived provocation. While neither side trusted each other and fully expected a war at some point in the future, no one wanted another war at that moment. Tensions would slowly deescalate over time as professional trained troops with significantly better trigger discipline replaced the ragtag militias that had manned the trenches. Meanwhile their hastily constructed basic trenches were expanded upon and eventually replaced with larger wallsand elevated gun platforms, just out of range of enemy guns.
By the end of 1871, the North-South border was firmly established as the most militarized border on the entire continent. Along the entire stretch of the North-South border from the Ohio River in the west to Delaware Bay in the east, thousands of soldiers manned a complex system of walls, forts, artillery positions, and trenches facing their counterparts across the border. While the majority of the fortifications consisted of small walls and trenches, dozens of major forts were constructed along the border especially in the east. Between the lines was an effective no man's land, forbidden to large troop formations by agreement. The majority of the troops would remain in the hinterlands behind their border at military bases, ready to rush to the border to repel an invasion at a moment’s notice. As a peace deal was never signed, the war never truly ended and the troops that manned both fortifications were technically still in a state of war. However only major border skirmishes would occur; the majority resulting from escaping slaves crossing the Internal Border. Large-scale warfare would only resume with the beginning of the Great Crusade nearly 40 years later.
Do you have larger versions of the Northern and Southern flags? There are designs in the blue that I can't quite make out because of their sizes here.
EDIT: Ninja'd
So this Cold War is rather unique and very very different from the OTL. Not only it is a series of proxy wars
Thank you! This Cold War is very unique and different compared to the one in OTL. The most significant difference is that westward expansion of American settlers and the status of slavery will be the defining conflict of this Cold War. I don't want to reveal too much but the basic scenario is that the Southern Republic basically has the best opportunity to expand westward. There is a large amount of migration of settlers from the South to Northern Mexico and the Southwest in general. and they all support the Southern Republic and slavery as an institution. As a result, its open season for the South. Meanwhile the North like Ohio and the rest of the states are basically locked out from the South. In addition the Native Americans in the north, especially the Sioux have had time to update their arsenal and are an obstacle to settlers. The Sioux and the other Native Americans can be forced out but only through military force, and Ohio already has their hands full. As a result, the Coalition, led by Ohio will end up doing their hardest to hinder and stop the South's westward expansion.
Meanwhile the North will also support the Brotherhood, which continues to maintain the Liberty Trail as a way for slaves to escape north. The struggle of the slaves will become much more violent in the South. Its going to get nasty.
Last edited:
'In Distant Exile' & The Canadian Revolution
In his work, he paints a complete picture of the reign of King George and the British Revolution. He starts from the initial exodus of the British aristocrats to Canada who would effectively set up an United Kingdom in exile, but with the original monarch having abdicated the throne, it was a king without a kingdom. Pressured by them, the second eldest son of George IV, was crowned in a small ceremony on June 19th 1859 as George V, King of Great Britain and Ireland.
His reign would be defined by his Great Defection; his abdication and backing of the Patriot cause in 1866 before his sudden assassination by his former defenders. Historians had long argued at the time that King George was simply a pawn of the ruling class, unable and unwilling act without thier direction. His reign was marked by his various philanthropic activities for the common settlers which made attempts did little to relieve tensions. Historians had argued that King George did it simply to appease the poor and switched sides when it appeared that his Kingdom was at an end. However, drawing upon newly discovered private letters and government documents, Stokes argues that the King did these activities out of his own volition; at first mainly to spite the oligarchs’ poor rule but soon out of a concern for his citizens. Thus Stoke asserts that King George’s abdication and later support of the Patriots, occurred not to save his own life, but out of genuine support that had to be kept hidden.
Like many of his contemporaries at the time, Stokes agrees that the Canadian Revolution was inevitable due to the power struggles between the existing political cliques of Canada and the exiled aristocrats and the poor governance as a result of it. However unlike his fellow historians, Stokes claims that the complete Anglo-Québécois cooperation seen during the Revolution was not inevitable. Instead he argues that without the leadership of James Storrow and Louis Bourdages standing grievances between the Anglo settlers and the Québécois could have easily boiled over, causing a fracture in the Alliance of Patriots. While he doubts that the British Remnant would survive a revolution, Stokes contends that any overthrow would be much more bloody and result in a more contentious, anglo-dominated post war regime. He goes so far to contend that amiosity could easily spill over into ethnic violence, easily the book’s most controversial sentiment at the time.
Since its publication “In Distant Exile” has become one of the most widely read books on the subject. While his view of Anglo-Québécois relations is still disputed, his arguments over King George’s ‘Great Defection” have since become part of the historical mainstream. Today, his research has proved invaluable in changing the historical view of King George from an opportunistic turncoat to a prominent sympathizer of the Patriot cause and a tragic figure.
Last edited:
Holy fuckFirst published in 1952, Stoke’s “In Distant Exile” is considered one of the most authoritative works on George V, the last King of the United Kingdom, exiled in Canada from 1859 to 1872.
In his work, he paints a complete picture of the reign of King George and the British Revolution. He starts from the initial exodus of the British aristocrats to Canada who would effectively set up an United Kingdom in exile, but with the original monarch having abdicated the throne, it was a king without a kingdom. Pressured by them, the second eldest son of George IV, was crowned in a small ceremony on June 19th 1859 as George V, King of Great Britain and Ireland.
His reign would be defined by his Great Defection; his abdication and backing of the Patriot cause in 1866 before his sudden assassination by his former defenders. Historians had long argued at the time that King George was simply a pawn of the ruling class, unable and unwilling act without thier direction. His reign was marked by his various philanthropic activities for the common settlers which made attempts did little to relieve tensions. Historians had argued that King George did it simply to appease the poor and switched sides when it appeared that his Kingdom was at an end. However, drawing upon newly discovered private letters and government documents, Stokes argues that the King did these activities out of his own volition; at first mainly to spite the oligarchs’ poor rule but soon out of a concern for his citizens. Thus Stoke asserts that King George’s abdication and later support of the Patriots, occurred not to save his own life, but out of genuine support that had to be kept hidden.
Like many of his contemporaries at the time, Stokes agrees that the Canadian Revolution was inevitable due to the power struggles between the existing political cliques of Canada and the exiled aristocrats and the poor governance as a result of it. However unlike his fellow historians, Stokes claims that the complete Anglo-Québécois cooperation seen during the Revolution was not inevitable. Instead he argues that without the leadership of James Storrow and Louis Bourdages standing grievances between the Anglo settlers and the Québécois could have easily boiled over, causing a fracture in the Alliance of Patriots. While he doubts that the British Remnant would survive a revolution, Stokes contends that any overthrow would be much more bloody and result in a more contentious, anglo-dominated post war regime. He goes so far to contend that amiosity could easily spill over into ethnic violence, easily the book’s most controversial sentiment at the time.
Since its publication “In Distant Exile” has become one of the most widely read books on the subject. While his view of Anglo-Québécois relations is still disputed, his arguments over King George’s ‘Great Defection” have since become part of the historical mainstream. Today, his research has proved invaluable in changing the historical view of King George from an opportunistic turncoat to a prominent sympathizer of the Patriot cause and a tragic figure.
So, are we gonna hear more about the fall of monarchy in Britain? And what happened to the Royal Family after the Canadian Revolution?
Eventually I hope to, but because I am going chronologically if I cover everything it will take forever. I plan to cover as much as I can when I get to the modern world.
Okay so not all of the Royal family came from Britain after the Revolution there. Edward VII, the son of George IV abdicated after the British Revolution and lived in exile. However some of the British family fled to Canada like George V. The Royal Family (which wasn't much frankly) fled along with the British forces to the Maritimes. But without a King, they weren't really *Royal* anymore.
Yep! Things are crazy down south, but as previously mentioned I can't cover everything right now. However there will be a very important peak at Mexico the next update!
Lack of British monarchy makes AE sad.
Are the Maritimes still technically a monarchy, or do they end up as a republic as well?
Are the Maritimes still technically a monarchy, or do they end up as a republic as well?
Sorry :/
Well the Maritimes did in fact establish another monarchy, picking one of the prominent aristocratic families there. It isn't very impressive frankly
Well when the United Kingdom collapsed, the majority of their colonial administrations would basically collapse like the East India Company or the African colonies. In other places like Australia and the Caribbean islands, the colonial administrations would basically hang on for a while at least. The British in Canada didn't really have the time or ability to reconstitute the Empire because of all the political backstabbing and angry settlers. The British in the Home Islands were busy getting themselves sorted out (ie polticial instability) to worry about empire building.
That sucks.
However, I hope you manage to resolve whatever the issues are. Good luck.
Thanks! Its just like I've lost motivation and interest for this world, although I will be continuing to map and write about different things!