AH Challenge: NAU with a catch.

Witha POD no earlier then 1900, have a North American Union style country form, but with the added catch of having atleast two of the current 50 states not a part of it. Deadline for formation is 2030. I hope 130 years is enough to work with.
 
Well, with a POD not before 1900, the easy part is to eliminate at least 2 of the current 50 US states. Arizona, New Mexico, and Oklahoma all entered the US in the first two decades of the 1900's, Alaska and Hawaii in the late 1950s. Alaska and Hawaii are the obvious candidates to be left out of the NAU.

Getting Canada to join the US (or more interestingly, the US to join the Canadian Confederation) is a lot harder. You would probably either have to make Canada renounce its membership in the Commonwealth, with the British Sovereign as its head of state...or somehow get the USA to align with the Commonwealth. Perhaps if the British be defeated in either WW1 and WW2, and perhaps Canadian provinces would elect to join the USA
 
There was enormous draft resistance (violent rioting, put down with troops) in Quebec, during the Second World War. Suppose a fascistic Quebecois leader arose, and got himself elected Premier of Quebec? While its certain Quebec would not have been permitted to withdraw from Canada during the war, perhaps shortly afterwards Quebec would be granted national independence, and with Canada cleaved in two, her provinces might well have joined the Union (perhaps with an Ontario-rump Canada persisting). I don't see any real way for any two U.S. states to remain outside such a Union, other than with regard to Alaska and Hawaii retaining Territorial status (although I don't think that really counts; they'd still presumably be part of the same nation, just with a lesser status). Puerto Rican nationalists nearly assassinated President Truman around this time, and also shot (non-fatally) half a dozen members of Congress on the House floor, so perhaps Puerto Rico would have been granted independce along with Quebec.

In a North American Federation minus a Quebec allied with Franco's Spain, Salazar's Portugal, and other rightist states, and a Puerto Rican nation associated with terrorism, it seems likely anti-Catholic sentiment would have been slightly higher in this nation, and thus a Kennedy Presidency would probably never have occurred.

Once at a used book store, I came across a tome authored shortly after the Second World War, entitled Union With Britain Now!, the cover of which showed a map where the USA, Canada, Britain, the Irish Free State, South Africa, Rhodesia (all the way up to the present day Kenyan-Ethiopian border), Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, British Honduras, and a few other locales (the Falklands, Cyprus, Malaya, etc.) were all one nation (India/Pakistan/Bangladesh probably wasn't included, although Sri Lanka-then-Ceylon may have been). I really wish I had bought that book, alas.
 
Let me be a bit more clear, but loss of a state, I mean they actualy lack the territory, not just it failing to become a state. For any who might become confused. Ment to put this in the OP.

(An easy way to do that is for Alaska to vote independance instead of statehood)
 
(An easy way to do that is for Alaska to vote independance instead of statehood)

There really is no easy way to achieve it; I mean, why would Alaska vote for national independence (that option wasn't popular, at least in '59). And what other state do we get rid of? Hawaii was already annexed by 1900, so the only way we lose Hawaii is by it being conquered by Japan. And there's no way Alaska would want national independence under those conditions; they'd be next of the Japanese hit list.

I suppose we could have lost both Hawaii and Alaska to Japan, and that this fact could have been the impetus which spurred a union between Canada and the rest of the USA.
 
Well, easier then some of the other ways it could happen :p

Fifty or so years gives time for opinions to sway, perhaps Alaska was worse off in WWI, leading to more independant sentiment. No Alaskan highway, etc etc.

But anywho, I guess easy is in the eye of the beholder.
 
Well, there's always the Horrible Nuclear War option, in which the new US government occupies an also devastated Canada but fails to incorporate some parts of the US that have, shall we say, ideological issues re the government, and may indeed think of themselves as the "true" USA. (Who is the Bad Guy in this situation is of course the writer's option).

PS - _more_ than 2 states is probably easier than just 2, unless one of the two is California or Texas. As seen in 1861, the US government has a history of heated objection when people vote themselves out of the Union.

Bruce
 
Well I did say atleast two, you can have as many as you wan't (though don't do something like Canada plus Maine, thats just x.x)
 
Let me be a bit more clear, but loss of a state, I mean they actualy lack the territory, not just it failing to become a state. For any who might become confused. Ment to put this in the OP.

(An easy way to do that is for Alaska to vote independance instead of statehood)

The problem is that US territories would not be provided the option to vote for independence. Alaskans and Hawaiians basically would have two choices: vote to remain a territory or vote to apply for statehood. The situation with Puerto Rico is different.
 
The problem is that US territories would not be provided the option to vote for independence. Alaskans and Hawaiians basically would have two choices: vote to remain a territory or vote to apply for statehood. The situation with Puerto Rico is different.

Alaska was provided the option for independance when they held it OTL, not sure about Hawaii. It had something to do with the UN list of non-self governing territories.

I'm also surprised no one has explored the 2nd civil war with a few states remaining independant line of though, I've had a few people offsite talk about it on MSN.
 
Last edited:
Top