A More Imperfect Union: A History of these United States
- Thread starter Planita13
- Start date
I can think of two things:
1) They are the remnant of the former BNA
2) Baaaaaaaaaaaad things have happened in Britain.
Imagine the French Revolution, but it happening one after the other in Spain, western Germany, and Britain between 1820s to the 1850s.
Yikes.
Will we get more detailed information (maps, wikiboxes etc.) outside of North America eventually?
Yeah of course, but I'm debating whether to save it for the end or post it in an interlude.Yikes.
Will we get more detailed information (maps, wikiboxes etc.) outside of North America eventually?
Okay so little status update. I will be heading back to university on the 21st, but until then I would like to push out a few more updates. The 2nd Civil War will be covered, but at the recommendation of some of my peers, I will cover two more topics beforehand to provide more context to the 2nd ACW. They will be the rise of Ohio as a major power, the economy of Ohio, the Republic, and Confederation, and all of their politics.
Aww thanks!
Anyways I hope to push out the American politics update at some point.
Very good question! The answer is rather complicated which is pretty much can be said for this whole mess. All the American states more or less recognize that they all have a common origin before the split. The Republic and the Confederation directly claim to be the successor to the original United States which reflects a lot of the tension between the two states. Ohio meanwhile is the successor of the Northwest Territory formed by the original United States. To answer a part of your question, Ohio does not officially claim to be a successor of the United States and has its own national identity. However many of its people and leaders consider themselves to be how the United States was supposed to be, as in how the U.S. was supposed to grow. So yes Ohio has its own separate identity, but the ideals of the American Revolution are pretty strong, and often an American identity is often brought up in idealistic arguments. So Ohioan first, American second basically.
I am now wondering what happens in Louisiana during the Second Civil War.
Does it end up with both the Republic and Confederation settlements having conflicts between pro- and anti-slavery factions?
Do the pro- and anti-slavery factions in both the Republic and Confederation side with their fellows in the other nation?
Do they just go "we're out, peace", forming their own country/countries, with optional blackjack and hookers? Is an independent Louisiana and/or Texas on the cards?
Does it end up with both the Republic and Confederation settlements having conflicts between pro- and anti-slavery factions?
Do the pro- and anti-slavery factions in both the Republic and Confederation side with their fellows in the other nation?
Do they just go "we're out, peace", forming their own country/countries, with optional blackjack and hookers? Is an independent Louisiana and/or Texas on the cards?
Yeah its a bit hard to show on the map, but Ohio has large influence along the Mississippi. However the Republic more or less has natural control over the river, by having control over New Orleans and bordering the outlet. However you are right that they are having significant influence over the northern and central parts of the river.
Also about Williamsburg, you could be right except for the 2nd American Civil War.
Well I can't say much right now, but you are right on several things. There are a lot of settlements in the west where slavery is common especially in Texas. Meanwhile there are quite a few abolitionists who settled along the Mississippi so yes its war time. Also you have noticed a very important point about politics in America now, and that is slavery has brought another dimension to the Confederalist/Federalist dispute. By the 1860s, the abolitionist ideals of Sojourner Christianity have appealed to many in the North, while the slave owners in the south are terrified by it. So I think you can figure out what could happen
And yes this fucks up westward expansion even more which is already far behind OTL.
Yeah its would depend on the particular tribes. The Osage are pretty friendly and they could be treated well, of course that would depend on how much they want their land. For the Lakota and the Sioux as a whole, they are a massive obstacle to American settlement as they have the will and the ability to defend their land. Without government support, settlers cannot take them on.
However, there is precedence for native states in Ohio, so at least some would be interested in statehood, provided that they are treated well. Perhaps some others might be "persuaded" to "condense" their population into a more compact area for statehood.
