Affiliated States of Boreoamerica thread

[Kulkasha]

So have you covered slavery at all yet?

 

[B_Munro]

Possibly Boreoamerica has a wider "sphere of influence" beyond its actual member states? Perhaps there are post-giant-Mexico-collapse Spanish and Indian states west of the Mississippi [1] (Along with British Oregon country) which while not actually part of the system are closely tied to it by economics or treaty, and the Boroamericans are simply not desirous of bringing in new members to the club which might upset the complex balance of power between different states, nationalities and ethnic groups. Might Boreoamerica be seen as a series of concentric circles of weakening influence, with the ASB being just the "inner circle" and the outermost perhaps a loose influence over all of North America and the Caribbean, with a couple intermediate levels...

[1] Unless Mexico diverges widely from OTL, I have trouble seeing it successfully settling and holding onto the entire vast area of the remaining bits of the Mississippi purchase plus Texas and the US SW, especially give how bad communications between most of the area and Central Mexico were until fairly late.

 

[B_Munro]

Come to think of it, given how loose a union it is and that some of its states still have ties to former colonial powers, it might be said that Boreoamerica might have multiple and non-overlapping "spheres of influence" elsewhere in the world. Any of the major states try their hand at African colonies or some such while it was all the rage?

 

[Turquoise Blue]

Leaders of the Socialist Party up to 1980.

Julius Wayland (1889-1895)
Lucien Boucher (1895-1899)
Victor DuBois (1899-1923) - 1st leader to be a MP and first Socialist to become Opposition Leader. Died in office.
Gwilym Forrester (1923-1929)
Urban Stendahl (1929-1947) (CM 1932-1946) - first ever Socialist Chief Minister.
Norman Thomas (1947-1955) (CM 1951-1955) - abruptly resigned after the 1955 election results came in.
Francois P. Segal (1955) (interim)
Adrien St. Martin (1955-1961) - Tried to keep in power, but forced out by the far-left.
Arvo Halberg (1961-1965) - The face of the sharp turn left, he proved a disastrous leader and so was shoved out at the 1965 convention.
Lindon B. Jordan (1965-1973) (CM 1970-1973) - First Socialist Chief Minister to die in office.
Michel Herriot (1973-1980) (CM 1973-1979) - First Socialist leader nominated unanimously.
Jack Reagan (1980-1988) (CM 1983-1988)
Valentin Michaud (1988-1993) (CM 1988-1992)

 

[Gian]

Well, mind if we see the list for Maryland Governors (or something akin to it)?

@Turquoise Blue - I sent some PMs regarding politics in the SLNA, but it seems like you didn't respond to it.

 

[Turquoise Blue]

Leaders of the Democratic Party up to TBD.

Armand Linville (1865-1871) (CM 1864-1871) - Founded the Democratic Party when in office.
Joseph-Adolphe Chapleau (1871-1875) (CM 1871-1875)
William Walker (1875-1884) (CM 1875-1882) - First Democrat to lose an election.
Samuel Tylden (1884-1893) (CM 1886-1893)
Steven Cleveland (1893-1899) (CM 1893-1899)
John Carlisle (1899-1904) (CM 1899-1903)
Robert Borden (1904-1911) - First Democratic leader to fail to become Chief Minister.
Charles Henderson (1911-1917) - First Democratic leader from the South (Muscogia).
Gamaliel Harding (1917-1929) (CM 1922-1929)
Henri Voclain (1929-1933) (CM 1929-1932) - Considered one of the worst leaders the party ever had.
Jean Garneau (1933-1937) - Stodgy and unpopular, he failed to lead the Democrats to recovery.
Marius Lucas (1937-1942) - Father to future Democratic leader Anika Lucas. Also, first Dutch leader of the Democrats.
William Martin (1942-1951) (CM 1946-1951)
Carlo Juarez (1951-1953) - Died of a heart-attack. One of history's great "what-ifs" as he was the first Spanish leader of a major party.
Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr. (1953-1966) (CM 1955-1966)
David Gambrell (1966-1971) (CM 1966-1970)
Colin Wallace (1971-1976) - One of the most bipartisan leaders the party ever had, he sided with Jordan on civil rights, but disagreed with his actions.
Anika Lucas (1976-1984) (CM 1979-1983)
Dorien Romilly (1984-1989)
Rhein Paul (1989-????) (CM 1992-????) - The incumbent.

 

[Turquoise Blue]

The Turbulent 1980s

Anika Lucas entered power hoping to reform government and come to a compromise with the states regarding national government's power.

However, the growing power of the unions proved a hindrance to her plans as they opposed giving states their powers back. Some in her Democratic Party advocated crushing unions in order to balance government, but she recalled the fact that Jordan's actions regarding segregationist governors caused a controversy because it was seen by half of the country as the national government being dictatorial and overriding state governments.

She tried balancing the hard anti-union faction and realistic politicking together, but in the end, some hard anti-unionists defected to form the Conservative Party and the voters went to the rising right-wing populist People's Party. After a general strike that massively affected the Boreal economy, Lucas called a general election in 1983, hoping that she would get away with a minority.

The voters returned a hung parliament, but with the Socialists leading. The Socialist leader and new Chief Minister "Jack" Reagan, came from an Illinoian trade union background and was charismatic. He worked feverishly to soothe tensions between unions and the people. The People's Party lost voters as the Democratic Party, now under a more conservative leader, bit into their votes.

The economy recovered from the hit that the General Strike of 1982 dealt and in 1984, Reagan called a new election, which returned a Socialist majority, but with Democrats gaining from former People's Party voters as the PP fell from third to fifth behind the Progressives and Greens. The Green Party was adapting to the new voters that it sucked off the Earth Party and so gained seats that barely three elections ago, nobody would have even thought they had a chance.

Jack Reagan's "Reaganomics" (as the Democrats jeeringly labelled it) was classic *Keynesianism, with higher tax and higher spending. In the era of Reagan, the Chief Minister reached its peak of importance as even the President (who was the first Socialist to get that office) and state governors was overshadowed by the CM. People who advocated giving power back to the states was afraid of this growth of national power that started in Stendahl's time and now was at a high under Reagan.

After a victory in 1987 over the Democrats under Dorian Romilly (who also led his party in the 1984 election), Jack Reagan's government seemed to on a roll, having created the "perfect formula" for success. However, the revelation that Reagan was funding foreign armies without Parliament's knowledge led to the successful move for impeachment, only passing by 3 votes.

The impeachment of Jack Reagan in 1988 shattered the "feel-good" era of 1983-1988 and led to rising strife. Reagan's successor Valentin Michaud lacked Reagan's charisma and ability to soothe labor-capital relations. That got worse in the 88-92 period as the general strike of 1989 brought the economy down and gave more credibility to hardline anti-unionist "New Right". Dorien Romilly was forced to resign by them who then successfully elected a leader from their caucus.

Michaud's government by the 1990s was on the ropes, with a Socialist majority long gone (due to the defections of the soft-left to the Progressives and Greens and also due to opposition victories in by-elections) and in 1992, the Socialist Party entered what many feared would be its last election as a major party. Thankfully, an unusually healthy margin of 69 seats spared them this humiliation.

After the turbulence of the Lucas years, the "mirage" of the Reagan years and the chaos of the Michaud years, the people turned to someone who offered law and order and a hardline approach to the trade unions (which were slowly losing popularity as a result of the strikes).

Nobody can deny that the 1990s was the decade of Rhein Paul.

List of Chief Ministers up to this point.
Armand Linville (Democratic-Illinois) 1864-1871 Dem maj.
Joseph-Adolphe Chapleau (Democratic-Canada) 1871-1875 Dem maj.
William Walker (Democratic-Huronia) 1875-1882 Dem maj.
James Garfield (Whig-Upper Connecticut) 1882-1886 Whig maj.
Ely Parker (Whig-Iroquoia) 1886-1887 Whig maj.
Samuel Tylden (Democratic-Massachusetts) 1887-1893 Dem maj.
Steven Cleveland (Democratic-Maryland) 1893-1899 Dem maj.
John Carlisle (Democratic-Upper Virginia) 1899-1902 Dem maj.
Pascal Chastain (Whig-Allegheney) 1902-1917 Whig maj.
Wilfrid Laurier (Whig-Canada) 1917-1921 Whig maj.
Dougal McAdoo (Whig-New Scotland) 1921-1922 Whig maj., then Whig min.
Gamaliel Harding (Democratic-Ohio) 1922-1928 Dem maj.
Henri Voclain (Democratic-Illinois) 1928-1932 Dem maj.
Urban Stendahl (Socialist-Christiana) 1932-1946 Soc maj.
William Martin (Democratic-Plymouth) 1946-1951 Dem-Whig coalition
Norman Thomas (Socialist-Ohio) 1951-1955 Soc maj.
Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr. (Democratic-Massachusetts) 1955-1966 Dem maj.
David Gambrell (Democratic-Carolina) 1966-1970 Dem maj, then Dem min.
Lindon Jordan (Socialist-Muscogia) 1970-1973 Soc maj.
Michel Herriot (Socialist-Upper Louisiana) 1973-1979 Soc maj.
Anika Lucas (Democratic-Dakota) 1979-1983 Dem maj.
Jack Reagan (Socialist-Illinois) 1983-1988 Soc min, then Soc maj.
Valentin Michaud (Socialist-Dakota) 1988-1992 Soc maj, then Soc min.
Rhein Paul (Democratic-Allegheney) 1992-???? Dem maj.

 

[fernerdave]

How wide spread is State to State migration? Like OTL southerners moving north after factory jobs and vice versa once they invented air conditioning and found oil?

 

[Turquoise Blue]

The Nineties: A Baptism of Fire.

The Nineties started with the election of the Democrats with a radical manifesto, written by the New Right, and with a new radical leader by the name of Rhein Paul. After the chaos of the 80s, people turned to the Democrats who seemed to offer actual ideas.

Rhein Paul announced his first budget, which had serious cuts to certain departments, explaining this by arguing that the growth of the national government hurt the economy and that the states needed to pick up the slack. He met with state governors, including the one that led what many mocked as the "People's Republic of Lower Louisiana" (such mocked because the Socialist affiliated party, the Commonwealth Party, dominated the political theatre there).

Paul had fellow New Right ministers in his cabinet to back him up with his meeting with the state governors and he managed to convince them (even the Lower Louisiana Governor-General Felix Mathieu) that the states needed to take back more power from the overburdened national government.

This was the first stage, he announced, of his Covenant with the People. Having successfully decreased national spending and handing some power to the states by 1994, reversing much of the Jordan-Michaud years, he moved on to the second stage, that of dealing with the unions.

Unions since Urban Stendahl's day and even before that, were continuously growing in power and by Paul's time, they threatened the national government itself, having arguably brought down Lucas' government. Paul promised to end this "tyranny of the minority" in his famous "Second Covenant with the People" speech.

After that speech, which electrified his Democratic Party in backing him and dividing the Socialist, Progressive, Green and even Whig parties, he promised to pass a national "right-to-work" bill, labelling it "right-to-work" as it defended the average Borealian's right to work by making all types of strikes illegal.

In early 1995, the ABTU held a meeting and its leader Bernie Severin argued that a mass General Strike was the right type of attack against the "anti-labor" Paul ministry. The General Strike, after a ballot by the workers (Severin wanted the backing of the members first), went ahead in July 1995.

The events of the General Strike of 1995 proves a watershed that massively transformed Boreoamerica. Severin hoped to force Paul to the table and negotiate a compromise that would let unions keep their power and ensure the government would not have any chance to ban strikes.

However, by the time winter came, the Strike proved a failure and when Severin finally got Paul to the table, Paul had the advantage.

The compromise weakened unions and strengthened the governments, but did not ban non-wildcat strikes or any form of unions. Severin after haggling this with Paul, who proved a firm negotiator, went back to the ABTU who after a solemn and silent vote, voted to agree with the compromise.

Paulism was now ascendant as the unions was now weakened enough to offer few resistance to his final stage of the Covenant.

That final stage had to be confirmed by the people, Paul thought, and called a new election in 1996. With the Socialists' main base of support weakened, Paul hoped that another party would surpass them. However, the General Strike polarised the country and saw gains for both the Democrats and Socialists, at the expense of the other parties. With the Socialists' moderate-reformist branch starting to be ascendant with Svend Robinson of the Upper Country becoming the party's leader in 1997, Paul started to lose his appeal and discontent within the Democratic Party started to appear.

In 1998, the final stage in the Covenant was announced. It was a proposal for a new Constitution that would make the current set-up set in stone. This time, Paul's radicalism went too far as even his Democratic Party opposed it. The set-up was a compromise that nobody much liked, but to have it be set in stone was one that everybody opposed.

Sensing the controversy, Paul withdrew it but then cut the budget further, appeasing his libertarian base but making the leftist parties (Socialists, Progressives and the new Parti Francophonie) unhappy. Calling another election in 1999, his majority was cut as Robinson's Socialists gained.

2000 was an uncertain year. The leader of the Democrats, the leader of the country, was losing popularity with important statesmen who saw him as a radical buffoon who were starting to lose the plot. Speaking of plots, there were a lot of them swirling around, mainly focused at the possible deposing of Paul. In 2001, Paul decided to throw the dice once more and called a leadership election, promising to resign if he lacked a majority on the first ballot.

He lacked that by a big margin, and he resigned as leader. The convention elected his successor, a fairly religious man, but very much a moderate.

Martin Harman of Arques was the new Chief Minister, for a new millennium.

List of Chief Ministers up to this point.
Armand Linville (Democratic-Illinois) 1864-1871 Dem maj.
Joseph-Adolphe Chapleau (Democratic-Canada) 1871-1875 Dem maj.
William Walker (Democratic-Huronia) 1875-1882 Dem maj.
James Garfield (Whig-Upper Connecticut) 1882-1886 Whig maj.
Ely Parker (Whig-Iroquoia) 1886-1887 Whig maj.
Samuel Tylden (Democratic-Massachusetts) 1887-1893 Dem maj.
Steven Cleveland (Democratic-Maryland) 1893-1899 Dem maj.
John Carlisle (Democratic-Upper Virginia) 1899-1902 Dem maj.
Pascal Chastain (Whig-Allegheney) 1902-1917 Whig maj.
Wilfrid Laurier (Whig-Canada) 1917-1921 Whig maj.
Dougal McAdoo (Whig-New Scotland) 1921-1922 Whig maj., then Whig min.
Gamaliel Harding (Democratic-Ohio) 1922-1928 Dem maj.
Henri Voclain (Democratic-Illinois) 1928-1932 Dem maj.
Urban Stendahl (Socialist-Christiana) 1932-1946 Soc maj.
William Martin (Democratic-Plymouth) 1946-1951 Dem-Whig coalition
Norman Thomas (Socialist-Ohio) 1951-1955 Soc maj.
Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr. (Democratic-Massachusetts) 1955-1966 Dem maj.
David Gambrell (Democratic-Carolina) 1966-1970 Dem maj, then Dem min.
Lindon Jordan (Socialist-Muscogia) 1970-1973 Soc maj.
Michel Herriot (Socialist-Upper Louisiana) 1973-1979 Soc maj.
Anika Lucas (Democratic-Dakota) 1979-1983 Dem maj.
Jack Reagan (Socialist-Illinois) 1983-1988 Soc min, then Soc maj.
Valentin Michaud (Socialist-Dakota) 1988-1992 Soc maj, then Soc min.
Rhein Paul (Democratic-Allegheney) 1992-2001 Dem maj.
Martin Harman (Democratic-Arques) 2001-???? Dem maj.
​

 

[False Dmitri]

Hello all. It has been a hell of a fortnight for me. Not any new content, but I finally have time to read and respond.

So have you covered slavery at all yet?

No, that's a work in progress. Here are some things that are known for sure:
- The earliest communities of emancipated Africans were Maroons (escapees) on the islands of Cuba and Dominica (Hispaniola). Later, prominent Maroon villages appeared in Louisiana.
- The Black Seminoles were a particularly large community of escapees that joined an existing Indian chiefdom. They have existed since the late 17th century and were crucial in the emergence of Seminol as a modern state.
- The earliest large-scale emancipation took place in West Dominica (Haiti) following a successful rebellion in the late 18th century, similar to OTL. The difference was that in TTL the rebels managed to form alliances with some of the northern states of the emerging ASB and ultimately become a member.
- West Dominican and Seminol members of the Congress of Nations were influential in persuading most of the northern states to abolish slavery before 1820 or so.
- In Maryland, the Jacobite King himself, a devout Catholic influenced by Jesuit teachings, persuaded the government to enact a gradual emancipation earlier than other southern states. (Eventually I plan to make a list of kings and Lords Proprietor for Maryland - it will be quite different from OTL).
- In some of the mid-latitude states like Illinois, Ohio, and Upper Louisiana (formerly labeled "Mississippi"), a lively abolition movement arose that succeeded in passing anti-slavery laws by 1850-ish.
- Slavery was present in the interior, Indian states of the South (Chicasaw, Choctaw, Muscogia, and Cherokee). Traditions of captive slavery and adoption made this slavery look a little different from that practiced in Louisiana and Carolina, but full-blown chattel slavery existed as well, both among White newcomers and local leaders who acquired slaves through trade with the Europeans. Here slavery persisted a long time (longer than OTL), but nevertheless died a relatively slow death through a series of reforms.
- The great holdouts were Lower Louisiana, Carolina, East Florida, and Cuba - full fledged slave societies, all of them, where the elite's control of captive labor was the basis of economic and political life. Here, things got bloody - but we need to delve into the specific histories of all four states before saying just how bloody, and how it all happened.

Possibly Boreoamerica has a wider "sphere of influence" beyond its actual member states? Perhaps there are post-giant-Mexico-collapse Spanish and Indian states west of the Mississippi [1] (Along with British Oregon country) which while not actually part of the system are closely tied to it by economics or treaty, and the Boroamericans are simply not desirous of bringing in new members to the club which might upset the complex balance of power between different states, nationalities and ethnic groups.

The maps I have made of the land outside the ASB are very rough indeed. There is definitely room for fragmentation, but you're right - the more fragmented the far West and North become, the more likely they would be simply to join in the system of alliances, something I do not want. At the same time, after c. 1820, you're right, the limits of the ASB became better defined, and the balance of power was extremely delicate. At that point expanding the size of the confederation would have been less a matter of assimilating existing alliance networks, more a matter of admitting new members outright - something that would obviously face opposition with the exception of innocuous outliers like the Cayman Islands.

Might Boreoamerica be seen as a series of concentric circles of weakening influence, with the ASB being just the "inner circle" and the outermost perhaps a loose influence over all of North America and the Caribbean, with a couple intermediate levels...

Now that would be a world with a very different concept of sovereignty - which is exactly what I want.

In my mind I have been trying to imagine if there is a way to have the ASB coexist with my other, less developed mega-commonwealth, this Ruso-wank that was originally inspired by a silly title I invented for myself in this thread. I go back and forth. On the one hand, merging the two universes would require a massive change in the concept of the nation-state and sovereignty, something I want. And the inclusiveness (the PIC is authoritarian in places, but inclusive) fits fairly well with the ASB concept. On the other hand, it's a bit more silly and over-the-top, maybe a Type IV alternate world rather than a Type III, and I'm afraid the styles would clash.

[1] Unless Mexico diverges widely from OTL, I have trouble seeing it successfully settling and holding onto the entire vast area of the remaining bits of the Mississippi purchase plus Texas and the US SW, especially give how bad communications between most of the area and Central Mexico were until fairly late.

True. I based the border with Mexico on one of the Spanish proposals in 1819. as explained earlier in this thread. So it's perfectly plausible that Mexico once included all that land. But whether Mexico could keep it in the long term is a different question. Certainly settlers from ASB territory would enter that territory; on the other hand, part of the essential premise of this world is that Anglo-Americans were never the demographic juggernaut that they were in OTL.

Come to think of it, given how loose a union it is and that some of its states still have ties to former colonial powers, it might be said that Boreoamerica might have multiple and non-overlapping "spheres of influence" elsewhere in the world. Any of the major states try their hand at African colonies or some such while it was all the rage?

Huh. I like that! At the very least there would have been at least one Liberia-type colonization project. It makes me wonder what its relationship would be today with the mother country... would adding a Liberia as a 51st state improve or detract from this project? Something to think about.

How wide spread is State to State migration? Like OTL southerners moving north after factory jobs and vice versa once they invented air conditioning and found oil?

Excellent question - it gets to the heart of what makes the ASB different in my mind from OTL. One of the key differences is a greater sense of rootedness in the states and regions. In OTL, Pennsylvanians and Wisconsinites and Texans might laugh about their different foods and accents, but they don't consider themselves to be part of essentially different
populations or ethnicities. In the ASB, this is not the case. The child of Pennsylvanians who had moved to Massachusetts to find work would still think of herself as having a Pennsylvanian background. Her family still cooks local foods and celebrates local holidays in an attempt to teach their daughter about her Pennamite heritage. That heritage would not be seen as so different as, say, something from a truly foreign country, but it is still distinct.

So there is a lot of state-to-state migration - this is the modern world, after all, and globalization and mobility are features of life. But it feels rather more like migration within the Schengen Area than within the United States. Those who move feel a stronger sense of conenction to their former homes than people who move within the US or Canada in OTL.

 

[False Dmitri]

@Turquoise Blue - I wish I had something more intelligent to say, but I really like what you have for the 80s and 90s. Class conflict feels about right for that era in the ASB, at least at the Confederal level. At the local level this would play out very differently in different states. But I'm afraid that I've spent all morning reading these posts and need to move on!

 

[Turquoise Blue]

@Turquoise Blue - I wish I had something more intelligent to say, but I really like what you have for the 80s and 90s. Class conflict feels about right for that era in the ASB, at least at the Confederal level. At the local level this would play out very differently in different states. But I'm afraid that I've spent all morning reading these posts and need to move on!

Thank you. I feared that you wouldn't like them as they tend to be a little more "federalist" than the original concept. I picked up on that and so made the 90s the decentralisation period where the states were empowered at the expense of the national government After the 90s, the national government is weaker than the states due to Paul's Convenant with the People still affecting the way government works in the ASB, which is more state-oriented than how it was before.

And TBH, after the Socialist Party adapted to this new "state-oriented" politics, it is very unlikely things will go back to the "quasi-federalist" era.

 

[False Dmitri]

Thank you. I feared that you wouldn't like them as they tend to be a little more "federalist" than the original concept. I picked up on that and so made the 90s the decentralisation period where the states were empowered at the expense of the national government After the 90s, the national government is weaker than the states due to Paul's Convenant with the People still affecting the way government works in the ASB, which is more state-oriented than how it was before.

And TBH, after the Socialist Party adapted to this new "state-oriented" politics, it is very unlikely things will go back to the "quasi-federalist" era.

That makes a lot of sense. I think it's a good thing that the ASB experimented with centralization now and then, but it didn't stick. And that it should happen under the Paulites, of all people...

I think a lot of the OTL paulites would actually be Greens in TTL. People who move out to the country to raise chickens and be self-reliant, and such.

 

[Turquoise Blue]

That makes a lot of sense. I think it's a good thing that the ASB experimented with centralization now and then, but it didn't stick. And that it should happen under the Paulites, of all people...

I think a lot of the OTL paulites would actually be Greens in TTL. People who move out to the country to raise chickens and be self-reliant, and such.

Well, not "now and then", it lasted for around 60 years, increasing in centralisation gradually. Under Reagan and Michaud, you could be fooled in believing it worked like OTL USA. Paul massively changed the whole ballgame and his way of governing (apart from the unions...) is seen as a model for future CMs.

Yeah, I can see that happening, yeah. The agrarian green faction would definitely have OTL Paulites in them.

 

[False Dmitri]

Well, not "now and then", it lasted for around 60 years, increasing in centralisation gradually.

I get that, but looking back it could be seen as a series of experiments that were finally stopped when they got too far.

I was writing a history of this war and it made me think of this infobox. I think it might by the first fictional infobox I ever made. This war was important because it involved a conflict between two states that were still ostensibly French colonies, but to mediate it they looked not to France, but to Ohio and other American neighbors. Additionally, it was this mediation process that made Louisiana and the inland French states permanent attendees at the Grand Councils and Congresses of Nations, the primordial governing bodies of what became the ASB.

Side note, this grew out of my attempt to map the Illinois/Upper Country border in more detail. It implies that I will have to slightly adjust that border on the main map.

 

[Venusian Si]

First of all, let me say that this is very intriguing project False Dmitri/Turquoise Blue. I'm definitely interested in seeing where this project goes.

At the same time, after c. 1820, you're right, the limits of the ASB became better defined, and the balance of power was extremely delicate. At that point expanding the size of the confederation would have been less a matter of assimilating existing alliance networks, more a matter of admitting new members outright - something that would obviously face opposition with the exception of innocuous outliers like the Cayman Islands.

Assuming you don't want either Mexico or ASB holding that land, I think you could go the route of a couple of independent states such as Mormon-analogue (or depending on Spanish colonoization, a Jesuit state) or states based on the various Utopian projects of the 1800s. Obviously, I would think the ASB would want to avoid getting tangled up with theocracies or politcal systems radically different from any member state.

Not to mention independent tribes that simply want to be left alone...

In my mind I have been trying to imagine if there is a way to have the ASB coexist with my other, less developed mega-commonwealth, this Ruso-wank that was originally inspired by a silly title I invented for myself in this thread. I go back and forth. On the one hand, merging the two universes would require a massive change in the concept of the nation-state and sovereignty, something I want. And the inclusiveness (the PIC is authoritarian in places, but inclusive) fits fairly well with the ASB concept. On the other hand, it's a bit more silly and over-the-top, maybe a Type IV alternate world rather than a Type III, and I'm afraid the styles would clash.

Hmm, I certainly think it would be interesting, and Russian Oregons are always a fun touch. In any case, I think a toned down version could certainly be workable. Perhaps "free" areas such as Bactria, North, Germany, Korea, chunks of Manchuria, etc.

And instead of having it be a union between Poland, Sweden, and Russia, perhaps it would be better to have it initially start as a sort of Polish-Russian Commonwealth (with Sweden still a major ally) and have it evolve from there? Such a union would be less likely to fall apart imo and could more better focus its efforts on the East instead of getting itself too caught up in western affairs.

And if Oregon is retconned into being Russian, perhaps you could have Rupertsland become Danish (to at least partly explain why it wouldn't want to join up with the ASB)?

True. I based the border with Mexico on one of the Spanish proposals in 1819. as explained earlier in this thread. So it's perfectly plausible that Mexico once included all that land. But whether Mexico could keep it in the long term is a different question.

Depending on how you set things up, I think you could throw in a couple of PODs about a better Spanish development of Mexico/New Spain - such as an earlier settlement of *Texas/*California, earlier development of infrastructure, diverting OTL immigration to the East Coast to Mexico, etc. As such, I don't think it would be that hard imagining Mexico to keep said territory, especially considering the nature of this world.

I also think a strong/centralized Mexico would add a nice contrast to the ASB. While both would be considered world powers, Mexico could be used as an example of "hard/direct" power/influence vs the ASB's "soft/indirect" power/influence.

And on a finally note, is there any possibility that Mexico keeps Nahuatl as the dominant language? It would definitely be cool to have it as one of the world's largest languages.

Certainly settlers from ASB territory would enter that territory; on the other hand, part of the essential premise of this world is that Anglo-Americans were never the demographic juggernaut that they were in OTL.

Based on your demographic map though, it seems like that extends to all European-Americans (except for the French/Dutch) instead of just Anglos. Has an in-universe reason (such as immigration being diverted to South America*) been established yet?

*Perhaps stronger relations between Portugal and England leads to the early established of a very successful English colony in the area of southern Brazil/Argentina?

 

[False Dmitri]

First of all, let me say that this is very intriguing project False Dmitri/Turquoise Blue. I'm definitely interested in seeing where this project goes.

Assuming you don't want either Mexico or ASB holding that land, I think you could go the route of a couple of independent states such as Mormon-analogue (or depending on Spanish colonoization, a Jesuit state) or states based on the various Utopian projects of the 1800s. Obviously, I would think the ASB would want to avoid getting tangled up with theocracies or politcal systems radically different from any member state.

Not to mention independent tribes that simply want to be left alone...

Depending on how you set things up, I think you could throw in a couple of PODs about a better Spanish development of Mexico/New Spain - such as an earlier settlement of *Texas/*California, earlier development of infrastructure, diverting OTL immigration to the East Coast to Mexico, etc. As such, I don't think it would be that hard imagining Mexico to keep said territory, especially considering the nature of this world.

I also think a strong/centralized Mexico would add a nice contrast to the ASB. While both would be considered world powers, Mexico could be used as an example of "hard/direct" power/influence vs the ASB's "soft/indirect" power/influence.

Both are interesting possibilities. I prefer the idea that I originally had, that the entire Great Plains stayed in Mexico. And your ideas add a very interesting dynamic to that. The area could certainly contain a number of former Jesuit states, utopian projects, and tribes, but one way or another be attached to Mexico today.

In the case of the Mormons, I am still planning for them to be in the ASB. Dakota has room for the main branch, and splinter groups could find plenty of valleys in Arques to settle in and not be bothered.

Hmm, I certainly think it would be interesting, and Russian Oregons are always a fun touch. In any case, I think a toned down version could certainly be workable. Perhaps "free" areas such as Bactria, North, Germany, Korea, chunks of Manchuria, etc.

If by "free" you mean autonomous, then yes. The empire is much too big to be governed as a single country and in fact contains multiple systems. The western and American states are highly democratic.

And instead of having it be a union between Poland, Sweden, and Russia, perhaps it would be better to have it initially start as a sort of Polish-Russian Commonwealth (with Sweden still a major ally) and have it evolve from there? Such a union would be less likely to fall apart imo and could more better focus its efforts on the East instead of getting itself too caught up in western affairs.

You deprive me of my rightful inheritance? Never! I'll avenge and so on and it actually sounds like a good idea and would remove that area (New Sweden) of overlap between the two worlds. To be considered. I still worry about the clash in styles.

And if Oregon is retconned into being Russian, perhaps you could have Rupertsland become Danish (to at least partly explain why it wouldn't want to join up with the ASB)?

Rupertsland became an English Crown Colony along the lines of Jamaica and Barbados, which also did not join the confederation.

And on a finally note, is there any possibility that Mexico keeps Nahuatl as the dominant language? It would definitely be cool to have it as one of the world's largest languages.

Based on your demographic map though, it seems like that extends to all European-Americans (except for the French/Dutch) instead of just Anglos. Has an in-universe reason (such as immigration being diverted to South America*) been established yet?

*Perhaps stronger relations between Portugal and England leads to the early established of a very successful English colony in the area of southern Brazil/Argentina?

In real life the British were the real en masse settlers. New France's population was never more than a small fraction of the English colonies. And the number of actual Spanish people who settled was never huge. At the time of independence far more Mexicans spoke indigenous languages at home rather than Spanish. So I think the only necessary change is greatly reducing the number of British settlers, and it can be found in the chaotic political situation that reduced Britain's ability to colonize; as well as in the lack of cooperation between Scotland and England.

 

[Venusian Si]

If by "free" you mean autonomous, then yes. The empire is much too big to be governed as a single country and in fact contains multiple systems. The western and American states are highly democratic.

Hmm. Interesting.

You deprive me of my rightful inheritance? Never! I'll avenge and so on and it actually sounds like a good idea and would remove that area (New Sweden) of overlap between the two worlds. To be considered. I still worry about the clash in styles.

Based on the information shown on the PIC page, I don't think there would be much of a clash, but as noted with issue of New Sweden, you couldn't have both ASB and PIC existing as is.

If you do decide to have an alternate version of PIC exist in the world of ASB, the major change I would have is to have the development of this PIC influenced directly by the development of the ASB.

After all, the ASB is bound to give birth to influential thinkers, philosophers, political scientists, and the like. As such, it's possible that the works of these ASBians could reach the royal courts of PIC and strongly influence its development.

In real life the British were the real en masse settlers. New France's population was never more than a small fraction of the English colonies. And the number of actual Spanish people who settled was never huge. At the time of independence far more Mexicans spoke indigenous languages at home rather than Spanish. So I think the only necessary change is greatly reducing the number of British settlers, and it can be found in the chaotic political situation that reduced Britain's ability to colonize; as well as in the lack of cooperation between Scotland and England.

If we're talking about the colonization of North America before the 1800, then you're absolutely correct, but what about the large waves of German and Irish immigrants post 1800?

And in regards to Mexico's linguistic situation, I was referring to the fact that Nahuatl was the actual administrative language of New Spain for a relatively long period of time and asking if different politics might prevent the force change from Nahuatl to Spanish. Sorry for not being more clear on that.

 

[False Dmitri]

If you do decide to have an alternate version of PIC exist in the world of ASB, the major change I would have is to have the development of this PIC influenced directly by the development of the ASB.

After all, the ASB is bound to give birth to influential thinkers, philosophers, political scientists, and the like. As such, it's possible that the works of these ASBians could reach the royal courts of PIC and strongly influence its development.

Ah, of course! It would provide a model for decentralized, heterogeneous governance, rather than federal, presidential republics.

If we're talking about the colonization of North America before the 1800, then you're absolutely correct, but what about the large waves of German and Irish immigrants post 1800?

I think that all this is affected by the fact that (a) the existing settler society is smaller, and more importantly (b) there is no orgy of cheap farmland in the western regions. Immigration is still going to occur, especially to established and urban areas, but the "pull factors" of America will be substantially less.

And in regards to Mexico's linguistic situation, I was referring to the fact that Nahuatl was the actual administrative language of New Spain for a relatively long period of time and asking if different politics might prevent the force change from Nahuatl to Spanish. Sorry for not being more clear on that.

No, I followed you. I was addressing more the number of European settlers, rather than the language of Mexico. A bilingual Mexico that becomes a major world power... what an idea! Care to write up a contribution?

 

[False Dmitri]

Revised map of the Pays d'en Haut: