Ideas for an independent Deseret timeline

What about the fact that the Mexican government wouldn't allow anybody to own land in California that wasn't Catholic? I don't particularly see the Californios being all too receptive. Also I think that there is not adequate count as to the number of Latinos that came north because of the Gold Rush. The Mormons are not moving into a vacuum in California.
 

HueyLong

Banned
What about the fact that the Mexican government wouldn't allow anybody to own land in California that wasn't Catholic? I don't particularly see the Californios being all too receptive. Also I think that there is not adequate count as to the number of Latinos that came north because of the Gold Rush. The Mormons are not moving into a vacuum in California.

They are moving into a practical vacuum, however. There are very few Californios. The government in California was far removed from Mexico and generally acted on its own accord anyways.
 

Hnau

Banned
It's true, there was a practical vacuum in California before the Gold Rush. Speaking of non-Amerindians, in OTL there were 9000 Californios, 1000 Americans, 500 Europeans and about 300 Mormons. It's not that hard to establish a majority. Furthermore, most Californios were in fact supporters of independence. The Mexicans encroached on their ranchero way of life.

Then again, I've heard reports of 90,000 Californios in the area before the Gold Rush, but this comes into conflict with the majority of data that agrees there were only 9,000.
 

Hnau

Banned
I believe I'm going to go for the Californian Free State idea. It will add stability to the Commonwealth of Deseret.

Meanwhile, there are butterflies with the Panic of 1857. No Mexican-American War and no American gold rush means there is no crazy speculating. On the downside, it does mean the economy has grown a little less. I believe that with Harrison and Clay, these negative factors on the American economy have been mitigated... in fact maybe they are just a bit ahead with railroads and what-not. Another good thing about no Panic of 1857 is that the North is not injured economically just before the war and the South does not benefit from low tariffs.

A few more thoughts as to Lewis Cass... I believe that due to his pro-filibustering position, there is going to be a seizure of Cuba by 1854 with a short war against Spain. He believes this will be good for the Union by keeping the Southerners happy. However, I believe the outrage will likely cause the Republicans to come to power in 1856, beginning the ACW four years early (adequate in my opinion due to earlier escalation with the policies of Harrison and Clay). Any thoughts on how the Crimean War will affect this?
 
Last edited:

Hnau

Banned
Here's an idea for the escalation of the civil war: the Caribbean Solution. The U.S. Presidential Election of 1856 becomes a referendum on Lewis Cass' attempts to make Puerto Rico and Cuba into two new slave states. The idea is that, at this time, there are 16 free states and 14 slave states. By adding these two states, the balance can be achieved and stability brought back to the United States.

Meanwhile, I've realized that Abraham Lincoln doesn't give up politics for a good four years due to being rebuked by President Taylor. In fact, he has probably gotten more attention due to the three successive Whig presidencies. Thus, being the articulate moderate he is, he will probably run for the 1856 election.

I've done some calculations on how the 1856 election would turn out, and its close. Its really close between Lewis Cass and Abraham Lincoln. Which one would you rather see? Lincoln means an earlier civil war and perhaps a hindered Republican movement later on. Cass means two new Caribbean states and a greater chance they'll stay in the Union.
 

Hnau

Banned
Any other comments or suggestions before I begin the formal timeline? I'm thinking of a title like, "An American Zion". Does that sound good?

Also, I'm interested in throwing in a successful Taiping Rebellion. There is also a high probability that the CSA will achieve independence in this timeline.
 
Interesting notions, Hnau. A few notes, first on Texas, then on the USA.

On Texas:
1) Presidents of the Republic could run for 2nd terms, just not 2 consecutive terms. For this to be changed, it would have to pass in 2 different Congresses.

2) How does the Republic hold off the Mexican invasions of 1842? They did OTL but incurred a lot of debt. I imagine the Republic continues to pursue friendly relations with Britain.

3) How does the Confederation of the Rio Grande fair?

4) I'd imagine Texas as the senior partner in the quasi-alliance with the Mormons to oust the Spanish from Alta California will want a Pacific coast of some kind. This could probably be fairly easily accomplished, but is probably a must for a Texas controlled by expansionist Lamarites.

5) Pity you killed Sam Houston: he's a nice way to introduce some sanity into Texas, but it's not a Texas TL I suppose.

On the USA:
1) In your outline, you suggest William Henry Harrison doesn't die in 1841, but then state that Henry Clay is running for re-election in 1844. I agree that a sucessful Clay presidency is likely to forestall the annexation of Texas.

2) However, a successful Whig presidency from 1840-48 is likely to forestall or greatly alter the collapse of the Whig party in the 1850s. If the Whigs are successful, then the Liberty party is a more fringe group. If the Democrats begin arguing for expressly pro-southern platforms (like the annexation of Cuba and Puerto Rico) then they'll lose ground in the North. Key issues will probably be immigration / nativism and fugitive slave status / Dred Scott. I tend to think 1856 is a little early for Lincoln to have made his come-back / rise to power and there's good reason to think he would prefer a resilient Whig Party to an insurgent / radical Liberty Party.
 

Hnau

Banned
Presidents of the Republic could run for 2nd terms, just not 2 consecutive terms. For this to be changed, it would have to pass in 2 different Congresses.

In my opinion, the Republic of Texas was dominated by its Congresses with such a weak presidential system. I would think that a natural outgrowth of the money-strapped, imperiled RoT would to give more power to the executive branch to end deadlock in the legislative branch. Is this implausible?

How does the Republic hold off the Mexican invasions of 1842? They did OTL but incurred a lot of debt. I imagine the Republic continues to pursue friendly relations with Britain.

Through the 1840s I see the RoT pursuing more and more friendlier relations with Britain when it becomes apparent the United States doesn't want to annex the Republic. The Texans are also slightly more economically well-off due to the Harrison Tariff, which is even more protectionist than the Black Tariff of OTL.

How does the Confederation of the Rio Grande fair?

I looked at this and it didn't seem that there would be any serious difference in the battle for independence unless I manipulated the butterflies like crazy. I say that the war continues for another half-year, perhaps due to slightly more Texan support, but it is still crushed. What this does is create more instability in Mexico, and keeps more stability in Texas because more Mexican soldiers were wasted on the affair.

I'd imagine Texas as the senior partner in the quasi-alliance with the Mormons to oust the Spanish from Alta California will want a Pacific coast of some kind. This could probably be fairly easily accomplished, but is probably a must for a Texas controlled by expansionist Lamarites.

Really? Hm. Well, I can see Texas pulling for all of Chihuaha and half of Sonora that the Mormons don't claim. A knock-on effect of this will be that Baja California will be even more isolated from the mainland, which might mean that it becomes independent or part of Deseret. This could create some conflict between Texas and Deseret, as neither would want the other controlling the peninsula outright. Perhaps it becomes a jointly-ruled protectorate?

Pity you killed Sam Houston: he's a nice way to introduce some sanity into Texas, but it's not a Texas TL I suppose.

Deseretian independence only becomes plausible with an independent Texas, and you have to get rid of Sam Houston to do that effectively enough.

However, a successful Whig presidency from 1840-48 is likely to forestall or greatly alter the collapse of the Whig party in the 1850s...

Definitely. I don't know if I had the opposite opinion while writing the draft, but I recently came to the conclusion that the three consequent Whig victories will bolster the party significantly. In fact it might be that the Democratic Party is the one to collapse. Henry Clay will definitely leave a strong legacy of 'compromise, compromise, compromise', which could lead to the Liberty Party becoming stronger, but it won't shatter the Whigs. Actually, because there are no violent debates over the future of the new western territories, the slavery issue is likely to be less of an issue. I believe I'll have to do a little more research on this facet of the TL.

As long as Vancouver Island stays Canadian I'm happy.

If the Civil War happens early enough, I'm planning for all of the former Oregon Territory to be made into British self-governing colony, with the American populace controlled by overseas colonists due to the recent gold rushes and Mormon settlers who have it in their interest to keep the United States away from Deseret's northern border. Poor USA...
 
If the Civil War happens early enough, I'm planning for all of the former Oregon Territory to be made into British self-governing colony, with the American populace controlled by overseas colonists due to the recent gold rushes and Mormon settlers who have it in their interest to keep the United States away from Deseret's northern border. Poor USA...

Hmmmm, British Columbia also had some Gold rushes, minor when compared to California, but they had an effect on British oregon's relation to Canada. The Cariboo Goldrush was one of them, and the colonial government in New Westminister wanted to tax the miners.

Therefore, New Westminister had the Cariboo Wagon road built through the mountains to get there. It was at the time an engineering feat, but it unfortunately bankrupted the colony since they arrived too late. Thus the mainland colony was combined with the colony of Vancouver Island to alleviate the debt. Unfortunately Victoria was also unable to pay for it and eventually Ottawa pulled enough strings to get a pro Canada governor sent out there to put British Columbia into the Confederation.

Also there is the fact that America, however reduced it is, is still probably going to be large enough of a threat that Britain will encourage the West Coast colony to confederate with Canada, both for easier financing and easier defense.
 

Hnau

Banned
In that case its very likely that Oregon will become part of Canada. Considering that Alaska is unlikely to be bought out, Britain might just be able to seize it one of these days. Canada will definitely receive a boost from all the extra land.
 
In my opinion, the Republic of Texas was dominated by its Congresses with such a weak presidential system. I would think that a natural outgrowth of the money-strapped, imperiled RoT would to give more power to the executive branch to end deadlock in the legislative branch. Is this implausible?

The deadlock was more often than not between Congress and the President. Even then, the most pressing issue was public financing and the whole system made a bit unstable by the short tenure of everyone involved and the frontier nature of the proceedings; if you can get England or France to issue a loan to Texas, than the system will stabilize.

Non-self succession IMO will encourage strong parties, which may have a vested interest in the system. I think you would see reform, precipitated by the success of the Santa Fe expedition and the war with Mexico on behalf of the Mormons. Probably, you'd lengthen the terms of Reps, Senators, and the President to 2, 6, and 6 years respectively, with a complete bar on succession, as the Confederates later did.

Through the 1840s I see the RoT pursuing more and more friendlier relations with Britain when it becomes apparent the United States doesn't want to annex the Republic. The Texans are also slightly more economically well-off due to the Harrison Tariff, which is even more protectionist than the Black Tariff of OTL.

That's probably a good start, but as I said a loan from Britain or France is really key. Texas had incredible money problems in the 1840s. See here for specifics. The most relevant paragraph is this one:

Handbook of Texas Online said:
During Houston's first administration (1836-38), the public debt of the republic soared from approximately $1,250,000 to $3,250,000. Houston's successor, Mirabeau B. Lamar, pursued aggressive policies toward Mexico and the Indians that added $4,855,000. In his second administration (1841-44) Houston and Congress pursued a policy of retrenchment and economy. The president abolished a number of offices in the government and in the army, combined or downgraded others, and cut salaries. Congress repealed the $5 million loan authorization voted earlier, as Texas had been unable to obtain money in the United States or Europe, and even reduced the pay of its own members. However, the Congress had overlooked an 1839 act that authorized the president to seek a loan of $1 million, and in June 1842, when he was considering a campaign against Mexico, Houston arranged to borrow that amount from Alexandre Bourgeois d'Orvanne[SIZE=-1]qv[/SIZE] of New Orleans. Congress also suspended payments on the public debt until the republic could meet its operating expenses. In his second term, Houston spent $511,000, only $100,000 of which went to Indian affairs. Though income slowly began to equal expenditures, at the time of annexation the public debt had risen to about $12 million.

Really? Hm. Well, I can see Texas pulling for all of Chihuaha and half of Sonora that the Mormons don't claim. A knock-on effect of this will be that Baja California will be even more isolated from the mainland, which might mean that it becomes independent or part of Deseret. This could create some conflict between Texas and Deseret, as neither would want the other controlling the peninsula outright. Perhaps it becomes a jointly-ruled protectorate?

Well, I would think they want something. If anything, it'd be cunning of Desert to give it to them because it means they take on the sole burden of mounting any future defense against Mexico. I'd imagine Baja could go either way; a joint-protectorate sounds as good as anything else.

Deseretian independence only becomes plausible with an independent Texas, and you have to get rid of Sam Houston to do that effectively enough.

I see your point: Houston was the foremost advocate of annexation. However, even its foremost opponent, Mirabeau B. Lamar, came around by 1845. And a huge wash of Texans supported it. The reason?--the mounting public debt and US Manifest Destiny.

There are a couple of ways to fix the debt: 1) get a loan from England, France or the US, 2) the US doesn't go into panic in 1837 spawned by the Specie Circular, 3) secure Sante Fe and find silver around it, 4) don't attempt to drive all the Indians out of Texas. If anything, Houston is probably the most capable person in Texas at the time to accomplish a lot of the above.

The best way to keep Texas independent is to keep the US from wanting to annex it. That isn't too hard if you keep the Whigs in power until at least 1848. Then you need to get Texas solvent, which probably requires help from England and France. Once you get into the 1850s and Texas has solved much of its probelm you've probably changed opinion in Texas that even Houston couldn't make a difference (he didn't in 1861, for example).

Also, given anti-immigrant sentiment in the US in the 1840s, under the right combination of circumstances that could be a boon for Texas. A big chuck of Irish would be nice, since they'd bridge the gap between Tejanos and Anglos.

Definitely. I don't know if I had the opposite opinion while writing the draft, but I recently came to the conclusion that the three consequent Whig victories will bolster the party significantly. In fact it might be that the Democratic Party is the one to collapse. Henry Clay will definitely leave a strong legacy of 'compromise, compromise, compromise', which could lead to the Liberty Party becoming stronger, but it won't shatter the Whigs. Actually, because there are no violent debates over the future of the new western territories, the slavery issue is likely to be less of an issue. I believe I'll have to do a little more research on this facet of the TL.

How does a strong Whig party lead to a stronger Liberty Party? I would think it would be a weaker one. Really, though, it's the American Party that was decisive in 1854-6.

I agree with most of the rest, though. Slavery will surface, because the South will grow angry about Northern politicians holding up the annexation of Texas. Their opinion should change when it becomes clear that Texas doesn't want to be annexed anymore. You'd still have tension induced by the settlement of the Kansas/Nebraska Territory, but remove the Mexican War and there's no history of violent conflict, just tension and compromise.

A Civil War is not out of the question, but it is greatly complicated by having the Whigs remain strong. One the one had, if the Whigs are strong they'll probably retain a following in some of the border states (Kentucky, for example). If so, then the Democrats' coalition of small farmers, some northern non-industrialists and recent immigrants, and Southern planters may begin to fracture. If it does, then that fracture is likely to be along sectional lines. OTL this is what happened in the Election of 1860 with the final collapse of the second party system. However, the road to Civil War is so complicated and the 1850s so chock-full of contingent events, that a lot of things are in the balance.

Best of luck on the TL!
 

Hnau

Banned
I agree with all your points. I might throw Sam Houston back in, if I can get Texas a loan by 1850 or so (perhaps when they become involved in the Mexican Civil War? Did Britain have any reason to weaken Mexico or give Texas a leg up?)

Also, given anti-immigrant sentiment in the US in the 1840s, under the right combination of circumstances that could be a boon for Texas. A big chuck of Irish would be nice, since they'd bridge the gap between Tejanos and Anglos.

Definitely planning more aggressive immigration to Texas, I've already drawn out a few important parts. It'll be interesting to see how the demographics of Texas evolve.

2) the US doesn't go into panic in 1837 spawned by the Specie Circular

That's a really interesting POD, because it would help out the Mormons as well (Crisis of 1837, as I've said before, destroyed the Kirtland branch of the Church). I'll look into it.

A Civil War is not out of the question, but it is greatly complicated by having the Whigs remain strong. One the one had, if the Whigs are strong they'll probably retain a following in some of the border states (Kentucky, for example). If so, then the Democrats' coalition of small farmers, some northern non-industrialists and recent immigrants, and Southern planters may begin to fracture. If it does, then that fracture is likely to be along sectional lines. OTL this is what happened in the Election of 1860 with the final collapse of the second party system. However, the road to Civil War is so complicated and the 1850s so chock-full of contingent events, that a lot of things are in the balance.

I guess I'll have to draw up some different figures and do some research how this effects the electoral map.

By the way, I'm taking your advice on constitutional amendments for the Republic of Texas. Interesting stuff! How'd you become so informed about Texan history, eh? Specialty of yours?
 
I agree with all your points. I might throw Sam Houston back in, if I can get Texas a loan by 1850 or so (perhaps when they become involved in the Mexican Civil War? Did Britain have any reason to weaken Mexico or give Texas a leg up?)

Well, one combination may be for the British to agree to a loan if Texas agree to unlimited Irish immigration / allowing immediate Irish homesteading (rather than the normal 3 year requirement). The best incentive there is in 1846-8. If you combine it with keeping Houston arround, a peaceful settlement with Indians, and a lack of the Specie Circular, it's probably just what Texas needs. It would also be good for the British, I'd think. Additionally, you could have Mexico piss off the British a bit more than OTL. If there's a bigger Civil War, perhaps they aren't paying of their debts and the British want to make a new friend in the Americas.

Definitely planning more aggressive immigration to Texas, I've already drawn out a few important parts. It'll be interesting to see how the demographics of Texas evolve.

It can be quite interesting. Without Annexation, Tejanos should remain more influential. Irish and Germans should give Texas quite a flair. If you add in successful accomodation with the Indians--Houston was an adopted Cherokee--then Texas could be quite a melting pot. Indeed, I always thought it might be funny if Houston as elder statesman of a healthy Texas could engineer a purchase of Indian Territory from the USA.

Of course, something will have to happen with slavery and African-Americans. Keeping Texas out of the US helps a lot, because it will put a damper on the amount of Anglos coming in from the South. There are also liable to fugitive slave issues between the two countries. It's probable, IMO, that the RoT eventually abolishes slavery, but what's hard is what they do with the remaining free black population. The OTL RoT Constitution prohibited free blacks in the country without the consent of Congress.

I guess I'll have to draw up some different figures and do some research how this effects the electoral map.

Yeah. I'd also look at the third party projects of the time, specifically the American Party. It's all pretty complex, which is annoying for research, but has the benefit of allowing the writer a lot of leeway with regards to making changes.

By the way, I'm taking your advice on constitutional amendments for the Republic of Texas. Interesting stuff! How'd you become so informed about Texan history, eh? Specialty of yours?

Comes with the territory of being a history buff living in Texas. :D While Vermont and California have the claim of having been independent, neither were as independent as Texas was (i.e. recognized by a foreign government). Happy to help. Somewhere there's a cool unfinished TL of an expanded RoT that might help, but it includes most of CA. And I can't find it (it's not on AH.com).
 

Hnau

Banned
Well, one combination may be for the British to agree to a loan if Texas agree to unlimited Irish immigration / allowing immediate Irish homesteading (rather than the normal 3 year requirement). The best incentive there is in 1846-8.

I don't think the authorities in charge of responding to the crisis would come up with an idea like 'sending them to Texas'. They were pretty unaware of the full extent of the problem. They might throw in the condition while negotiating for giving a loan to Texas, just in hopes of it working. In that case, I can see a lot more Irishmen going to Texas.

I like this idea for no Species Circular. I'll look more into that, probably with a January 1835 assassination for Andrew Jackson.
 
A few more thoughts as to Lewis Cass... I believe that due to his pro-filibustering position, there is going to be a seizure of Cuba by 1854 with a short war against Spain. He believes this will be good for the Union by keeping the Southerners happy. However,
Given Spain in the 1850's It may not be that short a war.
However, I believe the outrage will likely cause the Republicans to come to power in 1856, beginning the ACW four years early
2 problems
1] The Republican Party started in 1850's California, with 1856 the 1st national election it ran in.
2] No Dred Scott yet.
In 1858 following the Dred Scott decision, both the Whigs and Democrats promised the Abolitionists, to do something about it.
Then the politicians went to Washington and forgot all about the Promises.
in response to this Business as usual, thousands of Abolitionists joined the Republican party, and ran [won] for office in 1860.
It was these thousands of Abolitionists gaining office across the north that spooked the South into bolting the Union.
Really? Hm. Well, I can see Texas pulling for all of Chihuahua and half of Sonora that the Mormons don't claim. A knock-on effect of this will be that Baja California will be even more isolated from the mainland, which might mean that it becomes independent or part of Deseret. This could create some conflict between Texas and Deseret, as neither would want the other controlling the peninsula outright. Perhaps it becomes a jointly-ruled protectorate?
OTL during the Negotiations, the Mexicans tried to hold San Deigo, After the Mexicans lost SD, they turned to Baja.
The negotiators cut cards, the loser keep Baja.
Here without US Troops setting in Mexico City, I think the Mexicans would hold San Deigo.
 

Hnau

Banned
OTL during the Negotiations, the Mexicans tried to hold San Deigo, After the Mexicans lost SD, they turned to Baja.
The negotiators cut cards, the loser keep Baja.
Here without US Troops setting in Mexico City, I think the Mexicans would hold San Deigo.

That is a different timeline. Here, the Deseretian Revolution occurs because the Mexican Civil War has sprung up. With bitter fighting between Reformists and Conservatives, the Deseretians have an advantage in negotiating. Considering how few were in San Diego at the time (a few hundred), it doesn't seem like Mexico would fight very hard for it.

What I wonder is if the Reformists and the Mormons could come to some sort of agreement to support one another, and if together they could keep California in Mexican hands.
 
Top