An east/west split of North America?

you mean like mexico?

oshron

It's the most likely possibility for a late POD but you would need a less chaotic early history for Mexico and preferable also more than nominal Spanish settlement of California.

The only other possibility I've seen in TLs that looks anything like realistic is that the US breaks up shortly after the conquest of California [and/or gets duffed up by Britain, the only power in a position to do so] and you get a break away republic on the Pacific coast. Between politics and geography America is never strong enough to regain control and the border is basically the continental divide.

Steve
 
I've been reading that timeline recently, and I like it - in fact it's one of the few in which I've found myself rooting for the British - but I don't see how you're going to prevent its Canada from having a significant presence on the Pacific coast. Plus, the remaining republics on the east coast (which are more likely to fall apart or be beaten into submission) are going to prevent Canada from possessing the entire Atlantic coast.

tubby.twins

I suspect he won't, with the rate Canada is developing at, backed by Britain and with poor relations, at least at the moment with Mexico.;) However it does give a N America in which there are east-west as well as north-south splits.

Steve
 
Also, any TL that has a break-away California means neither the US nor Mexico nor Canada/Britain are in a position to stop them. Which means that they are also not in a position to stop them from simply expanding up and down the coast, especially into the north - taking over the 'Cascadia' regions of the Cascades and OTL Oregon & Washington States and British Columbia Province.

I don't know about that. Barring a POD that sees markedly larger population of the Pacific coast before ~1800, California, even with plentiful agricultural lands and the gold rush, is going to be pretty thinly developed for quite a while.

As such I think its more likely that an independent California is likely to be because the US takes it from Mexico then seriously runs into problems. A very bad civil war that prompts the west to break away and/or a bad defeat by Britain that leads to it being established as a separate republic. In either of those cases there are powers [CSA and/or Britain, along with possibly Mexico, who may want to support a separate Californian state to keep it out of US hands. [Also if a successful CSA then Britain, the US and Mexico would want to boost the west against it as well]. As such a relatively weak Californian state is buffered against threat from the east by geography - it's bloody difficult to reach overland until railways are completed - and local balance of power politics.

Steve
 
oshron

It's the most likely possibility for a late POD but you would need a less chaotic early history for Mexico and preferable also more than nominal Spanish settlement of California.

The only other possibility I've seen in TLs that looks anything like realistic is that the US breaks up shortly after the conquest of California [and/or gets duffed up by Britain, the only power in a position to do so] and you get a break away republic on the Pacific coast. Between politics and geography America is never strong enough to regain control and the border is basically the continental divide.

Steve
i was more making a point when it was mentioned that some other country would need to colonize the california region, which mexico did historically
 
i was more making a point when it was mentioned that some other country would need to colonize the california region, which mexico did historically

oshron

They did but not in very large numbers from what I understand it. Coupled with the problems Mexico had of disputes between the central government and the regions. As such the region, despite it's potential wealth was fairly easily overrun by the US despite the logistical problems in the 1840's. Also a fair number of the settlers, even before the conquest, seem to have been neither Mexican or locals.

If there had been a much stronger Mexican identity not only might it have been much more difficult for Freemont to seize it but also for the US to have secured lasting control. If there had been a large Mexican population there I could also see, prior to the discovery of gold anyway, the US being a lot less willing to annexe it.

Steve
 
I don't know about that. Barring a POD that sees markedly larger population of the Pacific coast before ~1800, California, even with plentiful agricultural lands and the gold rush, is going to be pretty thinly developed for quite a while.

At the same time though, British Columbia is very thinly settler. And the US doesn't even have anything worth counting asides from a few (very few) settlers in the Oregon territory - and that very well could be butterflied away (or changed significantly) by the POD and its affects. A California Republic would be the only one in a position to expand into the lower cascades region, its just a matter of how quickly do they do so.

As such I think its more likely that an independent California is likely to be because the US takes it from Mexico then seriously runs into problems.

This is possible. OTL California was settled pretty heavily by southern and midwesterners that were sympathetic to the Democrats and the South in general. As the Confederacy broke away from the Union several groups in Southern California attempted to due the same but were only narrowly put down the militias. However, once the South attacked Fort Sumter and kicked off the war patriotic fervor swept through the region and settled California firmly into the pro-Union side. Though the state didn't send any regular units east, there was a mass exodus of militia volunteers for the Union side.

A possible POD could be that California does break-away from the Union as the South does, but as the Confederate-Union war breaks out California declares its neutrality. Without the western gold and volunteers the Union will have a harder time, but superior numbers and industrial base will still overwhelm the south in the end - say by spring of '66 ATL. California most likely remains independent as the Union would be war-weary and the Californians never out-right attacked Union property or men. A neutral buffer state between the powers of the US, Mexico and British Canada, taking most if not all of the Western Coast.
 
At the same time though, British Columbia is very thinly settler. And the US doesn't even have anything worth counting asides from a few (very few) settlers in the Oregon territory - and that very well could be butterflied away (or changed significantly) by the POD and its affects. A California Republic would be the only one in a position to expand into the lower cascades region, its just a matter of how quickly do they do so.

British Columbria is very thinly settled [by Europeans] compared to Calfornia but the latter is still going to be very thin on the ground. Their unlikely to want to put a lot of resources into invading neighbouring lands. Furthermore the US may accept the loss - or never obtaining depending on the POD - but will definitely want to keep some connection to the Pacific for various reasons. Furthermore, depending on the political situation it may be able to get support from the UK, who generally will want peace and stability in the region. Since the RN is pretty much unopposeable at this time and the Californian economy, not to mention supporting any advance northwards will be vulnerable to blockade this would be a big potential factor.

I can't see California getting the Oregon area unless and until the US either totally implodes, say with a much bloodier civil war, or it clashes with Britain who decides Canada is safer with a small and relatively weak ally on the Pacific coast rather than the US spanning the continent.

This is possible. OTL California was settled pretty heavily by southern and midwesterners that were sympathetic to the Democrats and the South in general. As the Confederacy broke away from the Union several groups in Southern California attempted to due the same but were only narrowly put down the militias. However, once the South attacked Fort Sumter and kicked off the war patriotic fervor swept through the region and settled California firmly into the pro-Union side. Though the state didn't send any regular units east, there was a mass exodus of militia volunteers for the Union side.

A possible POD could be that California does break-away from the Union as the South does, but as the Confederate-Union war breaks out California declares its neutrality. Without the western gold and volunteers the Union will have a harder time, but superior numbers and industrial base will still overwhelm the south in the end - say by spring of '66 ATL. California most likely remains independent as the Union would be war-weary and the Californians never out-right attacked Union property or men. A neutral buffer state between the powers of the US, Mexico and British Canada, taking most if not all of the Western Coast.

That's a possibility apart from the last sentence. I think the US having lost California would definitely seek to hold onto Oregon, which was a state at this point wasn't it. Also, with the area north of the 49 secured for Canada there's no way California will get that. The only way it might get Oregon is possibly if the taxes being demanded by Washington to pay for the larger and longer civil war provoke a rebellion in that region and it then decides to join California and the latter either gets British support or the US is so desperate it decides not to fight. [Although I suspect the latter would be unlikely]. I agree that if California tries to expand by force it will prompt a strong reaction from the US, possibly in that case supported by Britain.

Steve
 
So - you're suggesting California breaks away, but Oregon doesn't, and isn't coerced into joining California?

I'm not saying I disagree, I just want to clarify what you are positing.

wolf_brother

I suspect that would be the case. Don't know enough about Oregon but it was pretty much all northern settled I think? Also no gold so no taxes on this by Washington. Also it's been American pretty much from the start while California was conquored from Mexico, has a Mexican element to the population and much of the recent immigrants, from America or elsewhere, are there for the gold and have little reason to be loyal to a distant Washington. Also it may consider itself big enough to stand on its own.

I don't think any of those would apply for Oregon. hence the reasons California has to seceded don't seem to apply. Also, once California has gone Oregon and the neighbouring Washington territory were the only option for the US to maintain a Pacific coast. As such I would expect they would seek to secure their grip on it. [Both possibly more troops and measures to make the population happier with their stance].

As such, unless someone attacks it and I don't think either California or Britain, the only neighbours in reach, have any reason to, I think it's unlikely Oregon would seek to fly the coup. [Unless the US response was particularly heavy handed possibly].

The only alternatives might be if the US, possibly lashing out in fear/anger/paranoia clashes with Britain or possibly California, fearing that the US will use Oregon as a staging ground for an attack to reclaim it launches what they see as a pre-emptive strike to occupy it first. You suggested that California would just declare independence and not make any hostile move, which is probably its best bet. [Even if Washington wants to do something after resolving a longer and more bitter war with the south, there might not be the appetite for a war at such a long distance. Also if California can use the time and the peace in the west to get international recognition and establish trading links with other powers that gives it a lot more status].

Furthermore war is expensive and Oregon is a long way from the goldfields. It might struggle to organise any sort of army for an invasion and especially to maintain it against any opposition. Also this means their less likely to get international recognition from the other powers, as they may be considered as destabilising and aggressive.

Anyway, hope this explains my thoughts on the issue.

Steve
 
Errr you mean like Canada, US, Mexico?

Or have Russian settlement to California with Fort Ross being more profitable and sucessful. Maybe a Single Russian-American Company is able to get a monopoly over the area, deal better with the natives and send settlers over to intergrate a nd what not.

Does the Tsar have the ability to send into exile a group of people he or she doesn't like?
 
Last edited:

Now that you've expanded upon your position I see where you're coming from, and yes it does make perfect sense. If California can't get Oregon or what at the time was the Columbia Territory to join them in breaking away from the Union in the first few weeks or even months, than they're not going to get those possessions in any sort of military operation.

So, now the question is - butterflies? ;) We have the US roughly as it was per OTL at this time with the exception of California. The ACW has lasted slightly longer than it did OTL, around six months more, and thus the Union is that much more war weary, and depleted that much more financially and in terms of man-power. For the sake of simplicity, though I'm willing to let this one go if someone comes up with an adequate and logical TL, let's say Lincoln is still assassinated. How does American, and world, history change from 1866 - onwards?

Also, any ideas on how the government of a California Republic would be styled? I assume it would be a copy of the US system with a few modifications, but I could very easily be wrong.

Finally, I'd like to note that while this is interesting, it could easily become Caliwank, and it most certainly doesn't fit the descriptions of the OP.
 
wolf_brother

I think the butterflies would decide a lot of details. Wouldn't rule out the south surviving because of the differences but it's probably unlikely. Or changes to the post-war reconstruction or also the assassination attempts.

If they all go roughly as OTL, other than the war taking longer and being more costly, then the important immediate factor would probably be how the US reacts to the loss. Are they resigned to the change or bitter? This will decide how California responds in turn.

If relations are relatively good then neither side need maintain large forces in the area. You might even see the initial trans-continental railway going roughly along the historical route. It's possible that you might see California peacefully re-absorbed to the US in the not too distant future. The bulk of the immigration to California will probably be overwhelmingly from the US and much of its trade will be with the US.

If there's bad feeling or concern in California that it's likely to be attacked in an attempt to force it back into the union then things are likely to be drastically different. It will do what it can to minimise contact with the US and possibly seek some form of protection deal with another power, probably Britain as it's the only one really able to play a major role. [Whether and how much Britain would be willing to do would depend on the circumstances. It could be that it values good relations and trade with the US more and hence refuses to even formally recognise California].

Also under those circumstances the US is not going to be putting its railway through California as neither side will want that. It will have to go through Oregon, which may be more expensive and hence latter and will also affect the development of the various regions. The US will probably push for faster development of Oregon, to secure it against possible Californian encroachment as it will be their last link with the west coast.

In this situation California will probably develop somewhat slower with less links with the US and also possibly draw off some immigrants and investment from the US. Hence probably a little slower development all around for both powers.

It's probably not going to make a major difference to the development of the US other than it being a little weaker and less involved in the Pacific. California won't have the strength to be a major power, probably not until the last 50 years but will be a medium sized regional power. Not sure how badly it will be affected by the 1905 earthquake as recovery could be slower without the involvement of the rest of the US.

Steve
 
The problem is that not only was California far too weak in terms of population, industry, and so forth to be a viable rival to the United States but that most of California's expansion in the 20th Century depended on being part of the United States.

Take away the Hoover Dam and associated projects and you've just crippled California in terms of both water and electricity.* A California limited to the population of the 1950s, perhaps generous since the benefits arrived prior to WWII, is going to be a nation with roughly the population of Chicago.

Delay and reduce the impact of the railroads and other projects of the US government and military and California is further reduced. In 1950 the state amounted to roughly 2% of the total US population and that state of affairs might not change now.


*Mexico was, to be blunt, screwed by those projects, particularly in terms of the water flowing along the Colorado River and was not at all pleased. Now, against the US Mexico couldn't do much but, if it does not serve the interest of the US and carries the price of offending Mexico...
 
Grimm

Good point about the water. I had forgotten about that. I knew that the rate of growth of the states was most dramatic after the war but not how much.

I knew it would only be a regional power but by the sound of it a significantly more minor one than I was thinking.

Steve

The problem is that not only was California far too weak in terms of population, industry, and so forth to be a viable rival to the United States but that most of California's expansion in the 20th Century depended on being part of the United States.

Take away the Hoover Dam and associated projects and you've just crippled California in terms of both water and electricity.* A California limited to the population of the 1950s, perhaps generous since the benefits arrived prior to WWII, is going to be a nation with roughly the population of Chicago.

Delay and reduce the impact of the railroads and other projects of the US government and military and California is further reduced. In 1950 the state amounted to roughly 2% of the total US population and that state of affairs might not change now.


*Mexico was, to be blunt, screwed by those projects, particularly in terms of the water flowing along the Colorado River and was not at all pleased. Now, against the US Mexico couldn't do much but, if it does not serve the interest of the US and carries the price of offending Mexico...
 
Without the Southern Pacific railroad and Hoover Dam, California agriculture would still be pretty major, albeit diminished. The LA megalopolis wouldn't exist. Neither for that matter would Phoenix; in fact Arizona would be sleepy, thinly populated, and probably still Mexican. California would be centered on the Bay Area-Sacramento axis, as was originally expected.
 
Without the Southern Pacific railroad and Hoover Dam, California agriculture would still be pretty major, albeit diminished. The LA megalopolis wouldn't exist. Neither for that matter would Phoenix; in fact Arizona would be sleepy, thinly populated, and probably still Mexican. California would be centered on the Bay Area-Sacramento axis, as was originally expected.
what about the orange county region?
 
Top