Alternate Wikipedia Infoboxes VI (Do Not Post Current Politics or Political Figures Here)

Status
Not open for further replies.
I can see the pirates having a stronger influence and legacy in the Caribbean than that of otl. And maybe France taking Jamaica and the Bahamas and other British Caribbean territory.

No, the Brits still keep their territories, It's just that the French manage to defeat the Pirates when the British failed
 
Ya46ygm.png


In 2009, 20 years after the Peaceful Revolution, New Forum co-founder Jens Reich said of the development of democracy in East Germany: "The Bonn hippopotamus came in such a mass that you were simply helpless. The entire apparatus of the West was simply brought to the East in the election campaign. We had nothing to oppose. These were western elections exported to the GDR."

What if democracy in East Germany had formed without West German intervention?
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 92121

Hmmm.

I presume Henry Clay winning 1844 means the Rivers and Harbors Bill passes, but what happens to Texas?

Also, does Lewis Cass winning 1848 bolster the Young America movement and cause USA to take a more aggressive approach to the Oregon Country?
The Rivers and Harbors Bill passes.

With Clay in the Presidency Texas is never annexed. He believes such a move would not only bring America to war with Mexico, but damage the Missouri Compromise, leading to the expansion of slavery. By 1848 the time for the Anexation of Texas has passed, and support for it has faded in both Republics.

The issue of Oregon was solved in 1847 with the border being set following the Columbia River, essentially giving the Seattle sound to Britain.

By the time of the 1848 elections many democrats argue that Clay was too soft and had denied America it's manifest destiny. Clay seeks a second term, which angers many Whigs who believe (as he served for the vast majority of Harrison's term as well), he's arleady spent too much time on the White House. The Whigs are split between Clay and Webster, which leads to Crittenden as a compromise. Crittenden is seen as way too lenient os slavery by northern whigs like Webster and Chase (the later runs on a third ticket), and the lack of charisma on the man leads to an easy Cass victory.
 
The Rivers and Harbors Bill passes.

With Clay in the Presidency Texas is never annexed. He believes such a move would not only bring America to war with Mexico, but damage the Missouri Compromise, leading to the expansion of slavery. By 1848 the time for the Anexation of Texas has passed, and support for it has faded in both Republics.

The issue of Oregon was solved in 1847 with the border being set following the Columbia River, essentially giving the Seattle sound to Britain.

By the time of the 1848 elections many democrats argue that Clay was too soft and had denied America it's manifest destiny. Clay seeks a second term, which angers many Whigs who believe (as he served for the vast majority of Harrison's term as well), he's arleady spent too much time on the White House. The Whigs are split between Clay and Webster, which leads to Crittenden as a compromise. Crittenden is seen as way too lenient os slavery by northern whigs like Webster and Chase (the later runs on a third ticket), and the lack of charisma on the man leads to an easy Cass victory.
End result presumably being civil war in five to ten years as OTL? Also an independent Texas that still has slavery isn't going to be popular when the North inevitably wins the ACW. Better see to abolition quick or an invasion might be on the cards.

Would the US still try to take Northern Mexico later on or has the time for that passed? If they don't that's good for the natives and the Mormons as relative neglect by Mexico is probably better than genocide (for the natives) and "selective" enforcement of the free exercise clause (for the Mormons).
 

Deleted member 92121

End result presumably being civil war in five to ten years as OTL? Also an independent Texas that still has slavery isn't going to be popular when the North inevitably wins the ACW. Better see to abolition quick or an invasion might be on the cards.

Would the US still try to take Northern Mexico later on or has the time for that passed? If they don't that's good for the natives and the Mormons as relative neglect by Mexico is probably better than genocide (for the natives) and "selective" enforcement of the free exercise clause (for the Mormons).
Lots of good points. Spot on on the Civil War. The US wouldn't be THAT excited about ending slavery in Texas. Being a foreign nation, the US has an excuse to turn a blind eye for some time before the optics turn way too grim.

Gold is about to be discovered in California, and with Cass in power, who knows if he'll try to snatch it up, or support a filibuser to create an "independent" republic.

Didn't even consider the Mormon point. Very interesting. I believe I'll continue with the Presidential infoboxes and later will develop on the conflicts taking place in the period.
 
Put on a Whig!
or
Things escalate quickly!
(Part II)


View attachment 567878
View attachment 567879
View attachment 567880
Well that escalated quickly. I assume (due to the break happening mid term) the South saw the writing on the wall and decided it was "now or never?" Seward loved slavery not OTL after all so they likely feared what he would do when Webster dropped dead.
Would Douglas/Buchanan have run on an "end this and negotiate" platform?

Also did Cass start the Mexican war or did the combination of Texan desire for freedom (and worry about possible slave ststes being created) ensure he was held up until he lost re-election?
 

Deleted member 92121

Well that escalated quickly. I assume (due to the break happening mid term) the South saw the writing on the wall and decided it was "now or never?" Seward loved slavery not OTL after all so they likely feared what he would do when Webster dropped dead.
Would Douglas/Buchanan have run on an "end this and negotiate" platform?

Also did Cass start the Mexican war or did the combination of Texan desire for freedom (and worry about possible slave ststes being created) ensure he was held up until he lost re-election?

Texas held out as a Republic. California broke into an US sponsored revolution in 1849 and became a Republic (with an Anglo government and a lot of upset native mexicans within it). Cass wanted to admit the Republic as a slave state. He also pushed "Popular sovereignty" into Kansas and Nebraska, leading to a lot of fighting (both political and actual violence in those areas), over the status of the states.

Webster was elected in 1852 in a strong anti-Californian anexation/ anti-expansion of slavery plataform. He picked the abolitionist Seward as his VP to ensure NY followed the Whigs.

The situation was very tense. And then Webster was shot by a southern sympathizer in 1853.

Seward rose to the Presidency. The South refused to recognize Seward as anything more than a lame-duck, and proclaimed they would not abide by any executive decision of his concerning slavery or expansion. When Seward effectively blocked Californian anexation in 1854, the south rose up in rebellion. Virginia remained loyal to the Union (and Lee became the top US general, while Jeff Davis led the CSA troops). Seward ran in 1856 with the Virginian Hunter as his VP, beating the Douglas/Buchanan ticket that wished to negotiate a treaty with the CSA. The war was somewhat shorter than OTL.

Texas allowed volunteers to fight in the war but remained officially (and nervously) neutral. California went through its own internal turmoils and developed as a nation (the internal issue of slavery almost led to its own civil war). The british were more friendly to the Union, considering the democrats had been the ones pushing for the taking of Oregon. They also meddle quite a great deal in Californian an Texan politics.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Texas held out as a Republic. California broke into an US sponsored revolution in 1849 and became a Republic (with an Anglo government and a lot of upset native mexicans within it). Cass wanted to admit the Republic as a slave state. He also pushed "Popular sovereignty" into Kansas and Nebraska, leading to a lot of fighting (both political and actual violence in those areas), over the status of the states.

Webster was elected in 1852 in a strong anti-Californian anexation/ anti-expansion of slavery plataform. He picked the abolitionist Seward as his VP to ensure NY followed the Whigs.

The situation was very tense. And then Webster was shot by a southern sympathizer in 1853. Seward rose to the Presidency. The South refused to recognize Seward as anything more than a lame-duck, and proclaimed they would not abide by any executive decision of his concerning slavery or expansion. When Seward effectively blocked Californian anexation in 1854, the south rose up in rebellion. Virginia remained loyal to the Union (and Lee became the top US general, while Jeff Davis led the CSA troops). Seward ran in 1856 with the Virginian Hunter as his VP, beating the Douglas/Buchanan ticket that wished to negotiate a treaty with the CSA. The war was somewhat shorter than OTL. Texas allowed volunteers to fight in the war but remained officially (and nervously) neutral. California went through its own internal turmoils and developed as a nation (the internal issue of slavery almost led to its own civil war). The british were more friendly to the Union, considering the democrats had been the ones pushing for the taking of Oregon. They also meddle quite a great deal in Californian an Texan politics.
So much for Monroe I guess but then a US without the big two would be alot less able to impose its will on the rest of the America's. A CSA without Virginia would also be alot less powerful and probably easier to strangle without what Lee and Davis bought to the table.
 

Deleted member 92121

So much for Monroe I guess but then a US without the big two would be alot less able to impose its will on the rest of the America's. A CSA without Virginia would also be alot less powerful and probably easier to strangle without what Lee and Davis bought to the table.
Good point. An independent Texas and California, and a shrunk down Pacific coast for the US really weaken their regional power. The European powers were always looking for a way to influence American policy. We've Mexico and the French invasion, of couse, but if you look at stuff like Brazil, the big international power trying to meddle in its affairs was usually Britain, not the US.

And yes, the CSA is smaller. I do wonder how the conflict between Lee and Davis would go down. I wonder what Jefferson Davis the general would be like in such a conflict.
 
Good point. An independent Texas and California, and a shrunk down Pacific coast for the US really weaken their regional power. The European powers were always looking for a way to influence American policy. We've Mexico and the French invasion, of couse, but if you look at stuff like Brazil, the big international power trying to meddle in its affairs was usually Britain, not the US.

And yes, the CSA is smaller. I do wonder how the conflict between Lee and Davis would go down. I wonder what Jefferson Davis the general would be like in such a conflict.
According to Wikipedia the man could not delegate and was to likely to see the trees instead of the forest. Also not the most personable person ever if his relations with the CS state governors is anything to go by. A Lee with the resources of the Union army would do even better than he did OTL (sure he couldn't win militarily but his victories probably added years to the life span of the CSA and if it had been possible to get recognition might have contributed to getting the US to the table). In contrast Davis is probably why the war is slightly shorter this time round as he won't be able to use what he has to punch above his weight.

A US without most of the west will have serious limits compared to OTL, alot of motherloads (Nevada for instance or the Texas oil) are now in foreign parts and there is alot less space to build a transcontinental railroad. That will probably see an America that is more European facing while California becomes a very isolated state very far away from anything else, especially once the gold runs dry and there is less reason to go settle there. Texas in contrast will be rolling in it from oil and probably a very wealthy state in its own right, hopefully being a petrostate will see Slavery simply wither away although all the usual problems with an oil base will likely strike it eventually.
 
The Indian presidential election, 1982 was a momentous election. After the assassination of Indira Gandhi in 1976, in a period in which she temporarily established what can only be called a dictatorship, Sanjay Gandhi, her son, succeeded her. He ruled India with an iron fist. In 1977, he amended the Indian constitution to make it semi-presidential, with himself as President; in the 1977 presidential election, the first presidential election to be popularly held, he was the one and only candidate due to the continued imprisonment of political opponents, which meant that despite his unpopularity he was able to win the election. In the five years of his presidency, he declared President's Rule in every non-Congress government in India, and despite the resultant protests his rule continued. Corruption increased to never before seen extremes. Most controversially, he spearheaded a campaign of forced sterilization, primarily vasectomy. In many cases, botched sterilizations resulted in deaths, and in others children were even sterilized. It is estimated that twenty million people were sterilized during Sanjay's reign of terror.

Come the 1982 election, Sanjay was massively unpopular. In 1981, a protest in Amritsar led to the killing of one thousand people by the Indian military under Sanjay's orders; when word got out, it was much compared to the 1919 Jallianwala Bagh Massacre by the British Raj. This "Second Jallianwala Bagh" initiated a series of protests across India against "Sanjay the Britisher", which ended in violence in many cases. Though Sanjay desired to delay the 1982 election, many of his sycophantic advisors told him that the people of India still loved him and an election would reveal this, putting an end to the protests of a "small minority".

It was in this authoritarian atmosphere that the 1982 election occurred. Though most expected Sanjay to be the sole candidate, Nehru's sister and Sanjay's great aunt Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit, and a person known for opposing Indira's authoritarianism, signed up as a candidate with the election commission. While the Election Commissioner was appointed by Sanjay, he accepted Vijaya's candidacy despite this. Today, he claims he did so to save Indian democracy, but others point to other things. A few days after accepting Vijaya as a candidate, he placed fifty crores into his bank account; this, many believe, was a bribe paid by Vijaya and others in return for accepting her candidacy.

But nevertheless, Vijaya was a candidate, and though Sanjay had her arrested and imprisoned immediately upon learning of her candidacy, he could not remove her from the ballot. He was nevertheless told by his advisors that Vijaya was a non-entity, and that he was popular. And so the 1982 election went on.

rect5616.png


The results surprised almost everyone. Vijaya swept every state and union territory in India, and she won 73.4% of the vote. Sure, the Indian people didn't know a thing about her, but they were willing to vote for anyone not named Sanjay Gandhi. Sanjay, astonished, was forced to step down after such a landslide, and so with that Vijaya took her oath.

Immediately, she freed political prisoners, nullified Emergency decrees, dissolved Parliament, and held an election. The election was a sweeping landslide for the opposition to the Congress party, now consolidated as the Indian Democratic Revolutionary Party. Even within the Congress Party, in an effort led by Jagjivan Ram, many split and formed a coalition with the Democrats, forming the Indian National Congress (Democratic). The subsequent parliamentary elections reduced the Indian National Congress (Sanjay) to a mere twenty-seven seats, and most humiliatingly even Sanjay himself was defeated in the constituency he was running for. And with that, India celebrated like it had not done since independence.
 
Strange Angel
President Parsons 2.png

Jack Parsons is one of the more colorful figures to hold the presidency in history. Parsons, prior to entering politics, was involved in two key passion projects: American rocket scientist and the occult. Parsons helped found the Jet Propulsion Laboratory during the 1940's and assisted in developing rockets during the Second World War. Meanwhile, Parsons additionally was an acolyte of Aleister Crowley and a practitioner of the religion of Thelema. Parsons attributes his choice to enter politics to the successful completion of a ritual known as the Babalon Working alongside fellow Thelemite L. Ron Hubbard. This working, seeking to conceive a 'moonchild' to usher in a new aeon, succeeded in leading to Parsons' first wife Helen Parsons-Smith getting pregnant. While the marriage subsequently collapsed thanks to Hubbard absconding with her that same year, Parsons reportedly had visions of an amazing destiny for the newborn child, but also came to believe he had to pave the way for it to occur. Parsons determined the best way to do so was enter politics.

Parsons' first bid for office in 1950 against California Governor Earl Warren ended in failure, but proved to be a surprisingly close race for one pitting a known occultist against an established and well-liked Republican. When Parsons challenged Senator Knowland in 1952, his victory proved to be a major upset. Several in Washington condemned him as 'Satanic' and Senator McCarthy went further by accusing him of being a communist. However, Parsons proved surprisingly capable in defending himself and his reaction to McCarthy accusing him of being a communist was one of the most eloquent denunciations the senator experienced before his career was ended. Parsons proved to be a thoroughly left-wing Democrat, pushing for civil rights legislation and expansion of the welfare state.

In 1960, Parsons was a favorite son candidate in the primaries, but failed to win against another Californian favorite son, Pat Brown. Parsons became an early supporter of John F. Kennedy on the basis of a shared interest in expanding space exploration, his belief the young Kennedy would usher in an era of change and the shared experience of practicing a faith that made one a popular target of the reactionaries. However, in a narrow race, Kennedy would be defeated by Vice President Nixon. Nixon's administration saw Parsons gain increased stature as a key opponent, pressing Nixon on the failure to pass civil rights legislation, the 1961 invasion of Cuba and the president's personal corruption. In 1964, Parsons managed to seize the Democratic nomination thanks in part to the willingness of the DNC to select him over Dixiecrat George Wallace. Wallace mounted a third-party bid in retaliation, but despite Wallace flipping much of the south, Parsons triumphed comfortably in the electoral college.

Parsons' administration was rather consequential. His 'New Age for America' proposals created a national healthcare system, environmental protection laws and programs to alleviate poverty. The New Age for America also increased funding for education, the arts and scientific research. Parsons additionally withdrew troops from Cuba despite the objections of hawks and signed comprehensive civil rights legislation. Parsons was also president when the US landed on the Moon in 1970. This is not to say his administration was controversy-free or totally successful. The tail-end of his term saw a major increase in inflation occur, nearly triggering hyperinflation before the Federal Reserve implemented a tighter monetary policy. Parsons additionally alienated much of the US foreign policy establishment by having a fairly conciliatory attitude towards the USSR. In addition to negotiation of arms reductions treaties, this included Parsons saying that 'Soviet influence in Eastern Europe is natural and, for the time being, necessary', an incident that would have likely cost him election had he not said it in 1969 after winning his second term. Parsons also alienated many US allies due to his personal eccentricity and he was dogged by rumors that he was carrying out devil-worship and human sacrifice in the White House (the 1968 third-party campaign of Edwin Walker was almost entirely rooted in promoting this conspiracy theory on the basis of 'an anonymous patriot' supposedly within the White House). While Parsons did continue to carry out occult rituals in office, they were far less dramatic than the ones that had characterized him in the 1940's, instead being largely rooted in trying to 'cross the Abyss' via meditation and astral projection.

Historians have generally ranked Parsons as a good president but falling short of a great one due to his eccentric tendencies, foreign policy naivete and the inflation crisis. Nevertheless, Parsons has left a major impact on the American welfare state and laid the groundwork for much of the contemporary Democratic Party's economic agenda. Parsons has been credited with the rise of new religious movements from 1965 onwards, with faiths like Thelema, Wicca, Setianism and various neopagan faiths all taking off and gathering significant followings in the years since. The 'moonchild' Parsons and Hubbard 'invoked' (or that one of them fathered), Aleister Parsons-Smith, would go on to serve as Governor of Florida in the 1980's and was the Democratic nominee for president in 2000, but was defeated. However, Parsons-Smith went on to serve as the Secretary of Commerce in the O'Malley administration and is a rumored choice for vice president to Joaquin Castro in the 2020 election.
 
OSKINSTITUTE.png

The Osk Institute, sometimes referred to as the Institute or the OI, is a website that focuses on statistical sport analysis, record-keeping, and sports blogging centered on basketball in the United States and abroad. The website was founded in 2021, and serves both as a public resource and a media group. It gained initial attention for its written content as it hired notable NBA writers for its opinion pieces. As the 2022 NBA Playoffs were set to begin, the website launched a written series known as Dorian's Deep Dive (commonly called the Triple D series), a series of 16 essays providing deep analysis of each playoff team. The series' mixture of rhetoric, statistical analysis, history, and pop references were lauded as the website's popularity exploded. Each essay were long for the genre, breaking convention in a field where articles just a few paragraphs in length dominated. The website gained an even larger following ahead of the 2022-23 season when it launched its expansive database of basketball statistics, records, and just about anything else that can and has been recorded for the sport. Officially titled the Official Record of all things Basketball - X000, the database is stylized and commonly known as ORB-X000. The database, which is free to access, provides users with an unparalleled amount of basketball history, including at the collegiate and international levels. ORB-X000 has been described as "If Wikipedia was solely dedicated to basketball, but with the graphics and maneuverability of an eighth-generation video game interface."
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top