A Plethora of Princes (11) - A Shock to the System

Grey Wolf

Grey Wolf

Othniel said:
For now on I'll just edit and delete What you tell me to do in PMs. Forgive me quibbles and squibbles in advanced.
Click to expand...

I hope you don't take any offence, I just wanted to keep the two issues separate, it seemed that this thread having become American-centric should remain that way And the new thread provide some of the summative notes you and others were requesting

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Grey Wolf

Grey Wolf

Othniel said:
What about the Transcontinental Railroad? Is that a project that the US will attempt to build?
Click to expand...

I'm thinking that yes there is one, and that the subjugation of the Dakota could be key to this

Its definitely going to be across a Northern route, with a terminus probably on the Columbus River

Grey Wolf
 
Grey Wolf

Grey Wolf

Othniel said:
What happened to the Policy of Manifest Destiny?
Click to expand...

To what degree is it a policy ? Its a philosophy - that the USA should dominate the Americas

On that line I don't think anything negative has happened to it - North Oregon is OTL British Columbia, the independent republics of Upper and Lower Canada exist, the USA has a vassal (at best) relationship with Central America in the UPCA, etc

Grey Wolf
 

Othniel

270px-Wpdms_oregon_washington_territory_1859.png

Wpdms_idaho_territory_1863_idx.png


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_Purchase is intresting stuff that is revelant to the Westward expansion. and I'm sure that most of these would be helpful as well.
 

Othniel

Grey Wolf said:
To what degree is it a policy ? Its a philosophy - that the USA should dominate the Americas

On that line I don't think anything negative has happened to it - North Oregon is OTL British Columbia, the independent republics of Upper and Lower Canada exist, the USA has a vassal (at best) relationship with Central America in the UPCA, etc

Grey Wolf
Click to expand...
Well it encouraged the flooding of US immaagrints into Spanish Territories, as well as the backing that the Louisanne purchase should have included that the boundaries were from the Rio Grande and the Rocky Mountains North.
 
Grey Wolf

Grey Wolf

Othniel said:
270px-Wpdms_oregon_washington_territory_1859.png

Wpdms_idaho_territory_1863_idx.png


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_Purchase is intresting stuff that is revelant to the Westward expansion. and I'm sure that most of these would be helpful as well.
Click to expand...

Well, the POD is in the 1840s, no treaty with Britain, later a taking of all of Oregon whilst Britain is too weak to resist it. Thus all of Oregon, Southern Oregon becomes a state first and Northern Oregon after the settlement of veterans there after 1871

Remember as an ATL, one cannot rely on OTL stuff after the POD washes up against the shore of the particular area

Grey Wolf
 

eschaton

I don't think that Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, etc were considered part of Lower Canada. My guess is they are still directly held by Britain. They wouldn't take kindely to being domated by Quebec anyway (which is all that lower Canada ever was).
 
Grey Wolf

Grey Wolf

Fuck, I think eschaton may be right - its amazing what mistakes my ignorance can make !

Look at :-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Brunswick

The colony of New Brunswick was created in 1784, when recently-arrived Loyalist refugees from the United States, who resented being governed from distant Halifax, Nova Scotia, petitioned the British Government to allow them to form a separate province consisting of the portion of Nova Scotia west of the Isthmus of Chignecto and north of the Bay of Fundy.[1] (http://webhome.idirect.com/~cpwalsh/nb/birth.htm) New Brunswick was named in honour of the British monarch, King George III, who was descended from the House of Brunswick. Fredericton, the capital city, was likewise named for George III's second son, Prince Frederick Augustus, Duke of York.

New Brunswick was one of the four originally provinces of Canada formed with Confederation in 1867

I just took it for granted that the twin revolts in Upper and Lower Canada in the late 1830s meant ALL of Canada that was not Rupertsland

I'm going to have to fudge it, as the land on the East coast is definitely NOT British controlled in this timeline

Grey Wolf
 

Othniel

I see a few problems about your map. Only half of New Mexico belonged to Texas, and 1/3rd of Colorado. Two, Grey Wolf are you sure that Lower Oregon is all of Oregon Territory? I mean that is a huge chunk of land that congress would pretty much split into smaller peices to keep the number of resources distribited. I can see that region spliting into smaller states over a period of years, much like Dakota territory did and much like the Carolinas did.
 
Grey Wolf

Grey Wolf

Othniel said:
I see a few problems about your map. Only half of New Mexico belonged to Texas, and 1/3rd of Colorado. Two, Grey Wolf are you sure that Lower Oregon is all of Oregon Territory? I mean that is a huge chunk of land that congress would pretty much split into smaller peices to keep the number of resources distribited. I can see that region spliting into smaller states over a period of years, much like Dakota territory did and much like the Carolinas did.
Click to expand...

Can you split a state once its created ? Basically if I recall my own timeline right (!!!) after the secession of the South and their subsequent reconquest, some existing territories were made into states. I didn't intend this to include the Indian Territory, but to include the Oregons where veterans from the war have been given land grants.

I guess maybe I fucked up here too. I don't have any statistics on the population levels and what they are going to be in the ATL differently. The populations are higher even before the US Civil War because of the gain of all of Oregon from Britain, and the additional settlement that went on there instead of to OTL conquests from Mexico, and especially with the 10 year delay over OTL of the Gold Rush.

Basically, I wanted the whole area to have statehood and thought the only way to do it was to create two super-states. Could this have been an interim measure ?

Grey Wolf
 

Othniel

Grey Wolf said:
Can you split a state once its created ? Basically if I recall my own timeline right (!!!) after the secession of the South and their subsequent reconquest, some existing territories were made into states. I didn't intend this to include the Indian Territory, but to include the Oregons where veterans from the war have been given land grants.

I guess maybe I fucked up here too. I don't have any statistics on the population levels and what they are going to be in the ATL differently. The populations are higher even before the US Civil War because of the gain of all of Oregon from Britain, and the additional settlement that went on there instead of to OTL conquests from Mexico, and especially with the 10 year delay over OTL of the Gold Rush.

Basically, I wanted the whole area to have statehood and thought the only way to do it was to create two super-states. Could this have been an interim measure ?

Grey Wolf
Click to expand...
They did it with Kansas. Plus their were several instantances when they broke territories into several others...plus secession with West Virgina happend. You could divide upper and lower Oregon into 5 different states if you choose to...
 

eschaton

Territories can be split up. It becomes much harder once a state is established. From what I remember, if part of a state wants to form a new state, the majority in the entire state legislature has to vote in favor of it, not just the majority in the part that wishes to leave. This is why, aside from Maine leaving Massachusetts, it did not happen historically.
 
Grey Wolf

Grey Wolf

Othniel said:
They did it with Kansas. Plus their were several instantances when they broke territories into several others...plus secession with West Virgina happend. You could divide upper and lower Oregon into 5 different states if you choose to...
Click to expand...

While I could see over time a movement to perhaps split South Oregon into two states, perhaps later three, I don't really see this for North Oregon (OTL British Columbia). The land there is not conducive to mass settlement, is going to see settlements mainly on the coast (*eg the Klondike, or that part obtained from Russian in 1776) with only a few major settlements in the interior. There may be a fair number of small-plot farmers, but these would be scattered. Whilst it might be argued that Vancouver might secede, the North would not allow it.

I think we'll go with the two states for now. Later, and who knows what will happen later, South Oregon may see moves to split it up

Grey Wolf
 

Othniel

Couldn't you just post a thing I like to call a pracital edit? Just allow for Idaho to become its own territory before the Oregons become their own states. For one thing thats barely under a thoasand people not being Oregons. Just go back to the thread were you first posted it, and change it so that Idaho was not included in the original ...it changes little I assure you.
 
Grey Wolf

Grey Wolf

Othniel said:
Couldn't you just post a thing I like to call a pracital edit? Just allow for Idaho to become its own territory before the Oregons become their own states. For one thing thats barely under a thoasand people not being Oregons. Just go back to the thread were you first posted it, and change it so that Idaho was not included in the original ...it changes little I assure you.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's OK split Idaho off. I'm quite happy for South Oregon to be OTL Washington state and most of OTL Oregon state

Grey Wolf
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top