Not Another Balkanized North America Post

Hello,


I know that American Balkanization scenarios have been done ad naseum, but this isn’t a TL for a TL’s sake. I am working on a heavily modified Victoria 2, with the goal of an interesting Alternate history playthrough being the goal. I find the railroady-style of the base game often makes replays repetitive and expected.


I am toying around with several ideas to make the entirety of North America (not just the US) more balkanized, and more interesting from the 19th-20th century. I have read through a variety of proposals and timelines especially “What Madness is This?” And came to the conclusion that any meaningful balkanization of North America must start with a PoD from between 1786 – 1812.


In my head, the best way to begin balkanizing the early USA is an untimely death of George Washington, the failure of the Constitutional Convention to provide a meaningful/working constitution to unite the states further. A deadlier Quasi-War with France, if not a full-fledged outright war along the Eastern Seaboard/Caribbean would also further the divide between New England and the South. In 1807 the ChesapeakeLeopard affair blows up to a much larger degree causing an earlier style Hartford Convention in New England. Calls for independence for the Carolinas, Georgia are also heard on the other side of the aisle for fears of getting dragged into another New England war. There is no Louisiana Purchase, and a successful Napoleon allows for a Dominican-Louisianan protectorate to remain in North America with a much weakened Britain unable to exert the influence in the region it once had.

Some of the details are obviously hazy, but again the point is to create a series of independent states, and a relatively rump United States. With the TL start date of 1836, I imagine a New England heavily influenced by Great Britain. A Mid-Atlantic based United States with control over the Ohio valley and the NWT up to the Missouri, with a still connect Virginia on the verge of leaving the union for (reasons?). A few republics south of Virginia includes Georgia, the Carolinas, a West Florida Republic, a small off-shoot republic off of the Yazoo river (I was thinking a temporary rebellion – white slavers and Cherokee in a combined state? Probably ASB, but I don’t see Georgia being able to maintain control of the Mississippi in any meaningful way) and a West Florida Republic that has been propped maybe by French interests against Spain and Georgia.

To the north of IOTL Tennessee, I’m picturing a break-off Cumberland Republic. I was thinking that the Cumberland Republic might be an outright rebellion from Virginia (and perhaps a catalyst for Virginia leaving a rump union uwilling or unable to respond?). Issues of geography, culture, economics and French influence from Louisiana.

Louisiana to me is where my real questions start. In this scenario, there is no clear major power on North America. Britain is still very active in the north, but Louisiana’s close connection to France prevents much influence from the Gulf. Louisiana still comparatively has little population compared to its land size, though I do imagine a small boost from the balkanized American republics, and a boost from a victorious France post 1812. I’m imagining a very French south, with a polyglot immigration to the northern Missouri areas, from the American Republics, British Canada, Mexico, and of course French settlers. Post 1836, how would I be able to balkanize this area further? Could Louisiana independent or not release an American-style republic vassel in OTL Iowa/upper Missouri area? If these areas were to be heavily populated by Americans, how would/could western republics form? Without a strong central government offering protection from the natives in the area, could settlers ban together and begin to look towards a more centralized government, such as a Missouri Confederacy?

With Mexico too able to not have to worry about the US, I can imagine them still retaining control of the North, but demographics still don’t seem favorable. Could breakaway republics still be feasible? Smaller versions of Texas anywhere else? Would a mormon exodus still make the St Lake area a Deseret light? Or could they settle elsewhere? Would a heavily British influenced settler population in California seek independence during the Gold Rush?

So through projection to 1880 with a POD of 1807, what is the most balkanized North America possible for the sake of an interesting game? Bonus points if you can find a way to Balkanize Mexico and Canada as well, if even into seperated protectorates of a larger nation.

I should also mention that in the game files, I am able to create unification states, should the rump US wish to act like Prussia to the east coast republics, or should a combined Georgia/Carolina, so long-term existance doesn’t have to be a thing necessarily. I enjoy the players having the options to pursue many different options in their play throughs.

I apologize for so much English is not my first language so it might be nonsense.. I had my spouse check the language the best she could. I do know that this isn’t the most realistic timeline, I’m just looking for some creative input or ideas. The more countries and more wars the more fun in the game! Thank you so much for your time!

I have a rough map idea too I can post later if anyone cares
 
I think that French Louisiana should only go as far north as the Missouri River and the 40th Parallel, they couldn't hold any more territory beyond that.
 
So do you think the United States would naturally be able to enforce rule on the area, even in it's rump state? Is there any scenarios an enterprising man/group could try to cut out some republic in the Northern Missouri area in the 1820s - 30s? Burr, or a Burr-like figure?
 
So do you think the United States would naturally be able to enforce rule on the area, even in it's rump state? Is there any scenarios an enterprising man/group could try to cut out some republic in the Northern Missouri area in the 1820s - 30s? Burr, or a Burr-like figure?

I've mulled over the idea of doing my own "Balkanized North America timeline", but the site feels so saturated I never felt right putting it out there. I like the idea of France never "selling" Louisiana but just slowly losing control of it over time. Maybe some American versions of Voortrekkers make their way west and set up their own republics throughout the Louisiana territory and France has neither the resources or desire to force them out?
 
I love the idea of some settlers carving out parts of northern Louisiana in a Texas like fashion, and settlers moving further west into the ‘wild’ like the Voortrekkers carving out smaller Jeffersonian republics, with significant American and French influence. Add in some Mexican settlers, and the regional natives could be fascinating.


I think a dominion-like Louisiana neglected by a victorious Napoleonic France through the mid-19th century, would be the best in this situation. Perhaps an ineffective Napoleon II rises to the thrown, or the empire is thrown into chaos due to some European events. An independent or isolated Louisiana fighting off the interests of the Eastern American Republics, the British in the far north, and the Mexicans to the west could provide reasonable and more systematic balkanization as well.


And please feel encouraged to write your own TL, I’d be happy to read it! (and get some ideas from it! :p)
 
Here is a really rough map of what I have so far.

pQNUNZs.png
 
You are also forgetting about the Land of the Lion and the Lilly. We were shooting at reuniting the Maritime provinces before the Canadians ruined that dream. And contrary to what some believe we would not be absorbed by any US or New England if we did. Our politics and economics ran against any such notion. We benefitted most when we were the middle man between the Caribbean, those two, and England.

Just to add my hble 2 cents on a fun looking to. And possible Vic2 nod I'd download.
 
You are also forgetting about the Land of the Lion and the Lilly. We were shooting at reuniting the Maritime provinces before the Canadians ruined that dream. And contrary to what some believe we would not be absorbed by any US or New England if we did. Our politics and economics ran against any such notion. We benefitted most when we were the middle man between the Caribbean, those two, and England.

Interesting, I would love to think of a way to start up a Maritime Republic! Any ideas? Would the culture be mixed Franco-Anglo? Could the idea of a sister-Republic to the New England confederacy help out the cause? But more importantly how/why would Britain give up the area without the US strong enough to be involved?

I managed to do some work on the game. It's my first time modding Victoria 2, so it's pretty rough.

sDuBXDp.jpg


Ignore Texas. I don't know what I'm going to do with that- assuming that not as many American settlers poured in as OTL. Maybe a combination of French and American settlers? A more broad northern rebellion against Mexico? But for what?

Not shown on the map is that I added Virginia as a releasable nation. My thinking is that the fact that Cumberland exists is a big issue with the Virginians. The United States is unable, or unwilling to reclaim any of the land, but Virginians want it back. That, coupled with the slavery question is a mostly free union might allow for Virginia to declare independence and dare the United States to march on it. Virginia might quickly be supported by the British or Louisana/French and prevent the US from doing so. That could lead to some interesting simulations, as I did give Virginia cores on Cumberland, increasing the likelihood they will eventually try to annex the upstart country.

Speaking of which, for Cumberland I'm imagining a Paraguay of North America. A recluse dictatorship hiring foreign innovators and inventors to modernize it to compete with it's much larger neighbors. It's position among the rivers and assumed animosity with all the neighbors around it is similar imo as well. Why did it break off? It never really was a part of the union. The issues with it's statehood go back to the 1780s - 90s, and with the shit show of the early 19th century the US had gone through, and it's geographical seperation from the rest of the Union via river, mountains, Carolina and culture made the would be state eventually seek independence in coordination with Louisianan and Spanish support. The much weakened United States of the 1810s wasn't ready for another conflict, especially when the entirety of the south had essentially seceded already.

West Florida is incredibly weak, and susceptible to reconquest from Louisiana, Spain or Georgia, but does has a claim on the rest of the Peninsula which would allow for them to form Grand Florida or some such thing.

Yazoo I pictured as the backwoods of the backwoods. A small republic reaping the benefits of downriver trade at Vicksburg, again (as always) propped up by the Louisianan govenrment who has vested interested in splitting these areas up as quickly as possible. They're weak and Georgia has a claim on the area, so I don't forsee them lasting long in game/TL. I do plan on giving them an option to create a Mississippian Republic or something if they are able to claim more of the river themselves, somehow.


That leads me to the rest of the west. Without OTL US involved, I don't see an easy way for a Texas or California republic to pop up. What would their counterparts be? I'm fascinated by what the affect of heavier French influence and culture would have on the west than OTL. Franco-Anglo Republics sprouting up on the praries?

Loving yours guys thoughts on this. I'll admit I'm not particular good at the world building, so I welcome anything you got!!
 
I don't think Tennessee would remain a part of North Carolina. East Tennessee was settled by the same people who tried to make the State of Franklin, opposed to the North Carolina government. These people (such as John Sevier, first governer of Tennessee), later would establish Tennessee itself in 1796--they were also on the frontlines of the Battle of Kings Mountain in the American Revolution since the British considered their settlement illegal and supported the Cherokee and other American Indians against them. The Nashville Basin has solid fertility for tobacco, cotton, etc. and other river valleys in Tennessee are fertile enough that a large population of white settlers (and their African slaves) will settle there, and logically seek independence from the government in North Carolina should it prove incapable of protecting them. The major concern in early Tennessee was protection from Indians (especially the Cherokee) and free navigation of the Mississippi and its tributaries (to this day, this is listed in the Tennessee Constitution as a right citizens of the state have, a holdover from the 1796 State Constitution). All these issues make certain that North Carolina will be incapable of holding Tennessee.

I think in the failure of the United States, the offer of Spain/France in Louisiana to join them would be much more attractive. These powers based in New Orleans were constantly in contact with the governments in OTL Tennessee to try and lure them to their side. This is why that 1796 Tennessee Constitution gives the right to navigation on the Mississippi. I think instead of an independent trans-Appalachian republic, early figures like James Robertson, John Sevier, etc. would have simply negotiated an alliance with Louisiana (if not full incorporation) if the United States was incapable of protecting them and helping their communities. No, they wouldn't end up speaking French/Spanish and becoming Catholic, but they'd be allies simply out of economic need and justify it with the notion that the American government had abandoned the West.

Long-term, much of Louisiana will become Anglo. Relatives of John Sevier were pioneers in Arkansas, for instance. There aren't enough Frenchmen to settle that area. And in Missouri and northwards, plantation agriculture is almost impossible while industry (coalfields, lead, etc. in Missouri, Iowa, Oklahoma, Minnesota, etc.) is easy to develop. Texas will wind up as part of Louisiana--it's too sparsely populated and in need of a strong government thanks to the Comanche which Mexico City is incapable of providing.

Also, if the group which controls the Deep South isn't some Indian confederation, that would be inaccurate. Georgia was very close to South Carolina in the colonial period, moreso than South Carolina was to North Carolina. Alabama and Mississippi were divided between a southern part focused on the Gulf (i.e. Mobile) and the northern parts which were more linked to Tennessee/Southwest Territory (i.e. Muscle Shoals).

To the north of IOTL Tennessee, I’m picturing a break-off Cumberland Republic. I was thinking that the Cumberland Republic might be an outright rebellion from Virginia (and perhaps a catalyst for Virginia leaving a rump union uwilling or unable to respond?). Issues of geography, culture, economics and French influence from Louisiana.

They'd be pretty vulnerable to Indians, as well as to Euroamerican settlers in that area. Culturally they're obviously similar to East Tennessee, so there might be an issue there if Tennessee wants to unify with their cultural relatives. Other areas like the Pennyroyal Plateau (an extension of the Highland Rim of Tennessee) culturally and economically ended up similar to Tennessee (which in the Civil War led to their strong Confederate sympathies)--the economy is growing wheat/corn (to feed slaves elsewhere for the most part, as well as making whiskey), and most productively growing tobacco. Geographically, they have no defense from an invasion from Tennessee, since the Cumberland River (and Tennessee River) will easily facilitate an attack from Tennessee.

If you want a Cumberland Republic, especially one more worthy of the name, since the Cumberland River is most associated with Tennessee, you'd have a fusion of modern Tennessee and Kentucky with a bit of land in Alabama (where the Tennessee River enters into there, basically the Muscle Shoals region). East-West issues were influential in the early US, frontiersman did not like the central government (because they were ineffectual against their main enemy, the Indians), and Westerners like Andrew Jackson faced huge opposition from the establishment in the East. Jackson himself, I think, would have made a fantastic Latin America-style dictator, to the point where I love to imagine a United
States gone the way of early Argentina having Jackson as the American version of Rosas.

Now combined Tennessee and Kentucky (plus the bit of Alabama bordered by the Tennessee River i.e. Muscle Shoals) could be a "Paraguay". River warfare will be key, yet a rival power (Louisiana) holds the outlet to the oceans, although thanks to the many caves in TN and KY, production of gunpowder and explosives won't be hard. There's lots of rugged land in Kentucky and Tennessee to fortify against invaders, especially toward the mountains. There's an obvious hate of Carolina and Virginia, who didn't have as solid loyalties in the Revolution as the frontiersman did. There's a religious difference, since circuit-riding preachers and other revivalists established the evangelical sensibility in religion which persists to this day in those areas, while the Carolinas and Virginia (which also experienced this to a degree) remained Anglican for much longer. They have an issue regarding the Mississippi River and the port of New Orleans which the Carolinas/Virginia are unable to help them with. So I think it's clear that this area will separate quickly.

Speaking of which, for Cumberland I'm imagining a Paraguay of North America. A recluse dictatorship hiring foreign innovators and inventors to modernize it to compete with it's much larger neighbors. It's position among the rivers and assumed animosity with all the neighbors around it is similar imo as well. Why did it break off? It never really was a part of the union. The issues with it's statehood go back to the 1780s - 90s, and with the shit show of the early 19th century the US had gone through, and it's geographical seperation from the rest of the Union via river, mountains, Carolina and culture made the would be state eventually seek independence in coordination with Louisianan and Spanish support. The much weakened United States of the 1810s wasn't ready for another conflict, especially when the entirety of the south had essentially seceded already.

As I said, Tennessee has a lot in common with Kentucky/Cumberland. Daniel Boone, a foremost pioneer of Kentucky, was much involved in colonial Tennessee as well, as were figures like Isaac Shelby. Maybe you could have Tennessee as the "Entre Rios" to Kentucky's "Paraguay" (and I guess North Carolina as the Buenos Aires and other Argentine provinces), but I don't think that's likely. Recall that Paraguay's strength was its inaccessibility. The fortress of Humaita guarded the main route to Paraguay, the other routes were through untamed swamps and jungles. Kentucky and Tennessee has nothing equivalent. To access that area, all one needs to do is cross the Appalachians and travel the rivers. Difficult points on the rivers, i.e. Muscle Shoals, Alabama, can be places forts are established on.

Yazoo I pictured as the backwoods of the backwoods. A small republic reaping the benefits of downriver trade at Vicksburg, again (as always) propped up by the Louisianan govenrment who has vested interested in splitting these areas up as quickly as possible. They're weak and Georgia has a claim on the area, so I don't forsee them lasting long in game/TL. I do plan on giving them an option to create a Mississippian Republic or something if they are able to claim more of the river themselves, somehow.

That's mostly the Mississippi Delta, and in the early 19th century was mostly a swampy floodplain notorious for its impassibility. Only solid civil engineering and extensive use of slave labour (and after the Civil War sharecropper labour) turned into an agricultural paradise for cotton and other plantation crops.

That leads me to the rest of the west. Without OTL US involved, I don't see an easy way for a Texas or California republic to pop up. What would their counterparts be? I'm fascinated by what the affect of heavier French influence and culture would have on the west than OTL. Franco-Anglo Republics sprouting up on the praries?

Texas will be Southerners, and the Plains itself will be a mix of Southerners and others. Louisiana can absorb this, assuming they throw the planter elite of Louisiana Proper under the bus. And why not? Louisiana can be a constitutional monarchy, maybe even a Protestant one (it may be French, but recall the Huguenot influence in Anglo-America, of which the Seviers were a part of). The French part of it will be Louisiana, the Anglo part the rest of it, and it will extend to the Pacific since there's a demand to control that trade (plus gain those rich farmlands in Oregon and Washington).

California could go any number of ways, but probably independent. Many settlers there are Anglos from New England or Britain, they have links with the local Mexican settlers, said Mexican settlers don't have much loyalty to Mexico City's government, so I think California could be an independent republic easily. Call it the "Chile of the North" perhaps.
 
Thank you so much for the well thought out reply. Tons of good thoughts to dig into J



I don't think Tennessee would remain a part of North Carolina. East Tennessee was settled by the same people who tried to make the State of Franklin, opposed to the North Carolina government. These people (such as John Sevier, first governer of Tennessee), later would establish Tennessee itself in 1796--they were also on the frontlines of the Battle of Kings Mountain in the American Revolution since the British considered their settlement illegal and supported the Cherokee and other American Indians against them. The Nashville Basin has solid fertility for tobacco, cotton, etc. and other river valleys in Tennessee are fertile enough that a large population of white settlers (and their African slaves) will settle there, and logically seek independence from the government in North Carolina should it prove incapable of protecting them. The major concern in early Tennessee was protection from Indians (especially the Cherokee) and free navigation of the Mississippi and its tributaries (to this day, this is listed in the Tennessee Constitution as a right citizens of the state have, a holdover from the 1796 State Constitution). All these issues make certain that North Carolina will be incapable of holding Tennessee.


I like it. I was debating about including a ‘Franklin’ but wasn’t sure how to do it with my want for a Kentucky = Paraguay comparison that you touched on further down. Maybe in the craziness of a post-secession situation in the late 18th early 19th century settlers in OTL Franklin and further into Tennessee tiny republics could form in defiance of Carolinian and US rule, and eventually form into what became the Cumberland Republic.


I think in the failure of the United States, the offer of Spain/France in Louisiana to join them would be much more attractive. These powers based in New Orleans were constantly in contact with the governments in OTL Tennessee to try and lure them to their side. This is why that 1796 Tennessee Constitution gives the right to navigation on the Mississippi.


You’re absolutely right, an emboldened Louisana/France and a much weaker United States would make a Cumberland – Louisana alliance a perfect match and mutually beneficial. The Louisianans could maintain influence in Transappalachia, and discourage American adventurism onto the Mississippi and likewise, the promise of Louisianan and French influence would keep the Anglo republics at bay.


Long-term, much of Louisiana will become Anglo. Relatives of John Sevier were pioneers in Arkansas, for instance. There aren't enough Frenchmen to settle that area. And in Missouri and northwards, plantation agriculture is almost impossible while industry (coalfields, lead, etc. in Missouri, Iowa, Oklahoma, Minnesota, etc.) is easy to develop.


I think a dual system of government for the northern Anglos and the southern Francos would be interesting, and be perfect for future civil wars/balkanization. I’m sure the aristocracy in New Orleans would not be happy about eventual growing influence of the Anglos along the Missouri and vice versa. By 1836 I think the demographic realities in Louisiana would lead to some interesting political maneuvering to keep the nation united. Maybe some sort of Compromise of 18-whatever for a Bicaramel English-French legislature? Failing that, maybe an Agrarian upper missuouri Confederation might try to arise?


Texas will wind up as part of Louisiana--it's too sparsely populated and in need of a strong government thanks to the Comanche which Mexico City is incapable of providing.


So I still imagine a lot of immigration from the American south as in OTL albeit with more of a French influence. Would an active Louisiana want to encourage secession in this situation however, considering its own potential for secession issues? Or would they be more likely to want the land as it is closer and more central to New Orleans and better for defense? Would Louisana have any military benefit in involving itself?


Also, if the group which controls the Deep South isn't some Indian confederation, that would be inaccurate.


I was thinking the Yazoo confederacy as a sort of Cherokee – Planter rebellion. Is there any possibility/situations where local slaveholders might make common cause with the local tribes against the central influence in Charleston/Savanah? Or is there no way the tribes or local white planters might ever work together? I guess if they do, it would for sure make an interesting dichotomy with the West Floridians and Cumberland Republic in the north. A pariah state is sort of what I expected here anyhow.



Culturally they're obviously similar to East Tennessee, so there might be an issue there if Tennessee wants to unify with their cultural relatives. Other areas like the Pennyroyal Plateau (an extension of the Highland Rim of Tennessee) culturally and economically ended up similar to Tennessee (which in the Civil War led to their strong Confederate sympathies)--the economy is growing wheat/corn (to feed slaves elsewhere for the most part, as well as making whiskey), and most productively growing tobacco. Geographically, they have no defense from an invasion from Tennessee, since the Cumberland River (and Tennessee River) will easily facilitate an attack from Tennessee.

If you want a Cumberland Republic, especially one more worthy of the name, since the Cumberland River is most associated with Tennessee, you'd have a fusion of modern Tennessee and Kentucky with a bit of land in Alabama (where the Tennessee River enters into there, basically the Muscle Shoals region).


So we could have a Kentucky-Tennessee-Northern Alabama/Mississippi Republic like you had touched on before. A Yazoo/Cherokee state hugging the Mississippi as a point of contention for Georgia, Cumberland, Louisana, and WFR.


East-West issues were influential in the early US, frontiersman did not like the central government (because they were ineffectual against their main enemy, the Indians), and Westerners like Andrew Jackson faced huge opposition from the establishment in the East. Jackson himself, I think, would have made a fantastic Latin America-style dictator, to the point where I love to imagine a United
States gone the way of early Argentina having Jackson as the American version of Rosas.


That’s sort of the goal. I love the idea of smaller Latin America style nations across North America with larger than life figures like Jackson grabbing the reigns. In this TL I think Jackson would have an easier time coming to the fore than OTL but my question is – would he do so fighting Indians for independence in Cumberland? Or remain in the Carolinas. He was born in the Carolinas, but as you said identified more as a westerner. My brain is telling me he could be Cumberland’s earlier Francisco Lopez?


Now combined Tennessee and Kentucky (plus the bit of Alabama bordered by the Tennessee River i.e. Muscle Shoals) could be a "Paraguay". River warfare will be key, yet a rival power (Louisiana) holds the outlet to the oceans, although thanks to the many caves in TN and KY, production of gunpowder and explosives won't be hard. There's lots of rugged land in Kentucky and Tennessee to fortify against invaders, especially toward the mountains.


Love it.


There's an obvious hate of Carolina and Virginia, who didn't have as solid loyalties in the Revolution as the frontiersman did. There's a religious difference, since circuit-riding preachers and other revivalists established the evangelical sensibility in religion which persists to this day in those areas


Heavily protestant – do you think there would be any attempt at a new American form of Protestantism in this region? Especially considering the geographical seclusion in this scenario?


Kentucky and Tennessee has nothing equivalent. To access that area, all one needs to do is cross the Appalachians and travel the rivers. Difficult points on the rivers, i.e. Muscle Shoals, Alabama, can be places forts are established on.


I see what you mean, but there are still some geographical adventures at least up until early industrialization, no? With a Jackson-like leader, fortifications and river fortifications given years to develop could make it Paraguay-lite? Far more connected to the local area, sure, but definitely more secluded from the east-coast. If the right (or wrong) leader could pop up, I could see restricted railroad access over the Ohio River and Mississippi keeping a sense of other within the republic.


Texas will be Southerners, and the Plains itself will be a mix of Southerners and others. Louisiana can absorb this, assuming they throw the planter elite of Louisiana Proper under the bus.


Wouldn’t Anglo immigrants settling further along the Missuori and further from New Orleans feel less and less influence from the French? I could see small agrarian breakaway republics forming. Or do you think a stronger central government elsewhere is key to develop these lands?


Louisiana can be a constitutional monarchy


I would love for it to be so, but I’m not sure who would rule it? If it is a substate of a Napoleonic France, would Napoleon just throw a royal over there to rule over his American possessions? Or would it maybe be a local aristocrat? Even the Napoleonic Monarchy ever falls (lets just say 1848ish) and Louisiana breaks away, perhaps the familiar system of C Monarchy might still be accepted by the French areas of Louisana, but maybe less so by the northern Anglos?


You seem to have a lot of knowledge in this area so your consideration is definitely welcome!


California could go any number of ways, but probably independent. Many settlers there are Anglos from New England or Britain, they have links with the local Mexican settlers, said Mexican settlers don't have much loyalty to Mexico City's government, so I think California could be an independent republic easily.


When would the earliest be for Anglo settlement to outweigh Spanish? Am I wrong in thinking that Anglo-American settlers would be naturally more inclined to break away from Mexico City than actual Californios?


Call it the "Chile of the North" perhaps.


I love it! Would a breakaway Republic be able to claim any lands further into the mountains? Or would its borders be much more coastal than OTL. Maybe further to the north, and all along the Baja in the south?


Again thank you so much for the thoughtful response. I’ve been editing the game and really needed a creative boost. When I get some time after work I’ll be slaving away on some of the recommended edits and ideas you have. I’ll post updates!


On top of all of that I’m interested in a few things –


1. I know Russian influence into Cascadia is always pretty ASB but with a balkanized US, a strong France, and a much weaker GB is it that ridiculous to imagine the Russian-American company wanting a little more influence into some warmer waters/lands? Maybe not down to Vancouver, but I’m not sure how British influence in Canada would be in this situation anyway which leads me to my second question


2. How would British NA expand without a US counterweight to the south? Would they be in such a hurry to rush to Oregon? Would there still be a settled border along the 49th parallel between ITTL Louisana and British NA? I don’t want to just tear apart the US – anyway I can alter and even split Canada gets bonus points in my books. Even if the border is further south or north. Without a central US driving settlers towards the west, I see a big power vacuum in Idahao, Montana, Coloarado, Nevada etc.
 
I don't think Tennessee would remain a part of North Carolina. East Tennessee was settled by the same people who tried to make the State of Franklin, opposed to the North Carolina government.

I don't think North and South Carolina will stay together either. Economically and politically North Carolina has always had far more in common with Virginia than it does with South Carolina. Our own history has shown that wherever Virginia leads NC generally follows.
 
I think that Louisiana south of the Missouri River and 40th Parallel should be French, while north of there should be Anglo.
 
Without a strong central government offering protection from the natives in the area, could settlers ban together and begin to look towards a more centralized government, such as a Missouri Confederacy?

Might I suggest looking on the other side of this coin? How about because there is no strong central government to enforce military power, there are more Native American powers who can repel settlers from their land. You can give claims or cores to their lands (sorry, mostly an EU4 player, I do not know if they have those in Vicky2) or have them as vassals but effective control is given to the tribe. From your PoD, you can butterfly away Andrew Jackson's Indian Removal Act, and possibly the Northwest Indian War (began in 1792). So you would see territory controlled by the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Muskogee Creek, and Seminole in the South, and the NW territories in the Ohio Valley with tribes like the Shawnee, Miami, the Council of Three Fires(Ojibwa, Potawatomi, Odawa), Lenape(Delaware, Wabash Confederacy(Weas and Piankeshaws), Wyandots(Hurons), Illinois, Sauk & Meskwaki(Fox), Menominee... I am not sure of these peoples would be the most likely to receive a state. Further west you could also populate them with other tribes like the Sioux, Apache, Hopi, Navajo... It is probably not feasable for your first mod to have all of these, but I do like considering giving the natives at least some chance to fight off the colonists.
 
Top