AHC: Make these "States" Survive till 1900

There is a conflict here. If Lewis Cass had won in 1842 and the US had turned down annexation of Texas,
If Lewis Cass won what in 1842?

There was no U.S. presidential election in 1842; Cass was a candidate in the election of 1848, and Cass as a western, non-Free-Soil Democrat almost certainly favored annexation of Texas.

it was Sam Houston's plan to annex everything to California and the Tropic of Cancer.

Houston may have proposed such expansion. But Texas lacked the power to carry it out. Texas in fact was in some danger of reconquest by Mexico.
 
Texas would have opted to be a British satellite/protectorate if the US wouldn't have them, which, might have eventually enabled them to spread to the Pacific if the British wanted to pre-empty the Americans. However, I'm sure the British would have eventually wanted to create a separate satellite state in California if that we're the case (especially once gold is discovered). So, maybe in this TL the US gets fenced in by British friendly states in California, Canada, Columbia and Texas.
 
Texas would have opted to be a British satellite/protectorate if the US wouldn't have them, which, might have eventually enabled them to spread to the Pacific if the British wanted to pre-empty the Americans. However, I'm sure the British would have eventually wanted to create a separate satellite state in California if that we're the case (especially once gold is discovered). So, maybe in this TL the US gets fenced in by British friendly states in California, Canada, Columbia and Texas.

Maybe, but even if Texas survives for another few decades as an independent nation I think they'd still be pushing for US annexation. Mostly because the overwhelming majority of their population is going to be settlers moving in from the US. Once they're free from Mexico I think you'd have to have the US collapse to keep them from acquiring Texas.
 
The longer Texas exists as an independent nation, the less likely it is to be annexed. After northern anti-slavery states start to gain the upper hand in US politics, expect Texan independence to become an insurance policy against the extinction of slavery in North America.
 
Easy. William Henry Harrison doesn't catch pneumonia. The Whigs get to enact their program, which is successful. Henry Clay wins the election of 1844. The U.S. doesn't annex Texas, there is no Mexican War. Webster wins in 1848. After the Irish Famine and 1848 revolutions start to increase immigration, the Whigs enact restrictions.

Mormons move to Utah in 1846. They remain outside the U.S., forming the Republic of Deseret.

Texas, threatened by resurgent Mexico, allies with Britain in 1847, becoming financially entangled. Texas agrees to abolish slavery eventually in return for British protection and financing. German and Irish immigrants barred from the U.S. start to fill up Texas.

Gold is discovered in California in 1850. There is a flood of immigrant miners, including many Irish, but fewer Americans. In 1854, the immigrants rebel against the Californio oligarchy and declare the Republic of California. Britain supports the rebellion. Alt-California excludes the Los Angeles-San Diego area and the deserts out to the Colorado, but includes western Nevada. The U.S. recognizes California in 1857.

Deseret forms in Utah north of the Colorado, eastern Nevada, Arizona north of the Grand Canyon, Colorado north of the Colorado and west of the Continental divide, and a bit of Wyoming. There's SFA Mexico can do about it.

The U.S. considers invading and subjugating Deseret, but the disunion crisis over slavery pre-empts any action till 1870 or so. By that time Deseret is well dug-in on its territory. U.S. Army commanders on the frontier have established cooperation with Deseret against outlaws and Indian raiders. California recognizes Deseret in 1861. Britain follows suit in 1862. The U.S. finally yields in 1877.

There's actually a cool map depicting something like this, from a journal article on "what if Henry Clay won in 1844?":

northamerica.jpg


Link.

Not sure why they have the Columbia River as the U.S. boundary in the Oregon Territory -- not clear why it couldn't have been the same as OTL, but whatever.
 

katchen

Banned
Because California is already occupied by the Spanish who are going to be even less tolerant of Mormonism than the Americans. Utah was chosen because it was the middle of nowhere. And to get to California they'd have to travel through Utah anyway.
Utah was chosen because people walking pushing handcarts could reach it in one season. Bark Beetle and I were talking and we agreed that the Grand Valley of the Colorado River, where Grand Junction CO sits today would have been a better place to site the Mormon Colony. It would have had better soil, more water, centrally located amidst MORE valleys where farming could take place, both in Colorado and Utah, and unbeknownst to Brigham Young, was just below one of the richest silver mining areas in North America. But what SHOULD have appealed more to Brigham Young more was that the Grand Valley was farther off the settlement trails to Oregon and California and New Mexico.
Both BAJA California and interior British Columbia (the Fraser Valley around Prince George) or even the Columbia Basin (either around Wenatchee WA or the Palouse Region around Lewiston ID) might have worked for the Mormons, as far as keeping away from Gentiles was concerned, but those areas were too far for Mormons making the trek on foot pushing handcarts to get to between early April and mid September and have time to build a cabin before winter. That was the pure logistics of the matter.
 
So Spanish could be the official language of this alternate California.
Makes me think of Los Angeles as the major telenovela-producing center in the whole Latin America

that'd be what we are looking for...a Spanish-speaking California:D:D
telenovela? probably. California and LA will become the cultural/economic centre of Latin America...before it gets annihilated by the Japanese:cool:
 
As for the Boers, if they had settled an additional state around what is now Wihdhoek Namibia (Republic of SuidoestAfrika), THAT Boer Republic would have had access to the sea via Walvis Bay, access to more immigration (Europeans and white Brazilians) via the sea and no gold discoveries in the neighborhood. More Boer settlement would be possible in what is now the Namibe region of Angola, which is high altitude and moderate rainfall and no tsetse flies. Those Boer states could be connected across the Kalahari Desert with South Africa Republic and Orange Vrystaat by rail. And all of this could happen before Cecil Rhodes strikes it rich. Forcing Cecil Rhodes to make his fortune someplace else in Africa or in New Guinea.

so do we see a viable future for the Boers? perhaps this can make them less anti-Black, as they haven't suffered as much ITTL:D
 
The longer Texas exists as an independent nation, the less likely it is to be annexed. After northern anti-slavery states start to gain the upper hand in US politics, expect Texan independence to become an insurance policy against the extinction of slavery in North America.

but I thought Texas was mainly ranch-based? weren't slaves a necessary part of local life only in areas that heavily developed in cotton plantations and the like?
 
Texas would have opted to be a British satellite/protectorate if the US wouldn't have them, which, might have eventually enabled them to spread to the Pacific if the British wanted to pre-empty the Americans. However, I'm sure the British would have eventually wanted to create a separate satellite state in California if that we're the case (especially once gold is discovered). So, maybe in this TL the US gets fenced in by British friendly states in California, Canada, Columbia and Texas.

this is the tl you are talking about, perhaps?
 
so do we see a viable future for the Boers? perhaps this can make them less anti-Black, as they haven't suffered as much ITTL:D

Well the only reason they abolished slavery was because Britain forced them, events like the Battle of the Vow were a key part of their mythology and the idea of sanctifying the land by cleansing it of heathens (blacks) and bringing it into Gods domain was floating around so I don't think so.
 
but I thought Texas was mainly ranch-based? weren't slaves a necessary part of local life only in areas that heavily developed in cotton plantations and the like?

East Texas is cotton country and basically an extension of the Deep South with a biracial WASP/Black culture and a plantation economy until the Civil War. The Hispanic and European Immigrant influence is in West and Central Texas. Remember Texas is a big place.
 
Top