Post-US-Californian Civil War

Some time ago i stumbled upon this timeline which I enjoyed quite a lot! So I sat down and wrote a kind of addition to it for the "european aspect" of it. In my addition or modification of that timeline, the USA faces a development somehow like USSR/Russia in the 90s. I made some former states declare independency (even though I might need to overthink the certain states who did so, because it was something like the idea of a second and not so well considered). My timeline ends with the upcoming of the internet and a perspective of the net revolution.

Now I kind of get amazed with the idea of the former USA to get more and more fragmented, which will lead to a crisis and the forming of a "CIS"-like organisation to keep a certain bond across the former member states.

My idea now is, that in California thinks might develope in another direction. There might be a declarance of independence of a californian state, which in my idea is followed some time after by the hispano-californians proclaim a separate hispano-californian state. Which might lead to a war. In addition I could imagine that some people might not like the idea of a however californian state anyway, and those could take action for remaining inside the USA.

In my timeline the eastern bloc is still at large and more or less well going, so I thought, that the USSR might support one of the "Californias" and maybe China the other one, both to gain access to the economy in california and to get a grip on technologic knowledge useful for building computers and the internet.

What do you think? Does that scenario make sense at all?
I'm happy about suggestions of any kind!

(Please excuse my bad English!)

usa.png

(thats my very very preliminary map of the states, in German, and, like mentioned, I need to rethink the states declaring independency. )
 
Please include TEXAS if any state will go independent it will be Texas

Was thinking about some more states declare themselves independent meanwhile a californian civilware, thinking the risk of the USA to intervene military will be less big.
Do you think Texas would be among the "first wavers" or will the lone star state wait until a favourable point in time?
 
Given Texas talks about secession at least every few years. So they might not be the first but they would not be far behind.
 
Since California is pretty famous for being "liberal", they'd have a far easier time of adapting to a Soviet world order, unless the way things were going (communist) Mexico would be allowed to annex them and other chunks of the Southwest. Likewise with Vermont (think Bernie Sanders), though along with Maine and New Hampshire it has a very significant conservative/libertarian edge (more states to split off). Hawaii of course could easily be split off.

For states to secede, aside from the obvious Texas, Alaska definitely could, since they have the resources and land to be independent on their own. See the Alaska Independence Party, which is basically a libertarian group and in your scenario would definitely declare independence. Though they'd be kinda close to Siberia for comfort.

The rest of the South is also obvious to split off, but if communism is the order of the day, I'd expect a lot of people to collaborate (with a Yeltsin-type guy or someone) for the sake of their personal power. The South was full of those sorts of people. But probably a place to start an internal conflict regardless.
 
So in my Scenario, Texas will declare independence when things in California beginn to develope. Maybe Texas (and a few other southern states that will follow it's example) will join the Union of southern states and form a kind of new confederation. What do you think?

I was thinking about Mexico and Cuba + Soviet Union will support the hispanic-californians, China the other californian state. Does that make sense?

The other question that comes around is, how much of an ethnic conflict that will be. If there would be "ethnic cleansings" done by the hispanic side, or from both sides, or if both californian don't care about ethnicity as long as people are willing to accept their state and speak the state language.
 
Ethnic cleansings could be a possibility, look at what happens in the California prisons all the gang are racially oriented. The white, hispanics and black all could go at it and you have a large Asian community sort of caught in the middle. Also remember that California is more like two states, you have north California and south California. As for Texas it possible to but with access to oil money they can afford to hire all the mercenaries they need. Alaska could leave it is also rich in oil money. Hawaii could succeed but they would have real money problems also they cannot feed themselves. As for Mexico it has so problems of its own so any aid would be problematic. China might try to get involve but if this is during the 1980's they don't have a lot of strategic reach so it would be more of a symbolic nature. Cuba will do whatever the Soviet Union tells them but foreign intervention would cause a lot of negative reaction. Also remember Americans are extremely well armed and a good chunk of them can shoot real well. So foreign troops involve in a foreign intervention could get a lot of sniping as well as open rebellions. No offense but if you have never lived or been in the US consider this bit of info People that don't live in the US just don't understand just how well armed the citizens of America are.
 
Ethnic cleansings could be a possibility, look at what happens in the California prisons all the gang are racially oriented. The white, hispanics and black all could go at it and you have a large Asian community sort of caught in the middle. Also remember that California is more like two states, you have north California and south California. As for Texas it possible to but with access to oil money they can afford to hire all the mercenaries they need. Alaska could leave it is also rich in oil money. Hawaii could succeed but they would have real money problems also they cannot feed themselves. As for Mexico it has so problems of its own so any aid would be problematic. China might try to get involve but if this is during the 1980's they don't have a lot of strategic reach so it would be more of a symbolic nature. Cuba will do whatever the Soviet Union tells them but foreign intervention would cause a lot of negative reaction. Also remember Americans are extremely well armed and a good chunk of them can shoot real well. So foreign troops involve in a foreign intervention could get a lot of sniping as well as open rebellions. No offense but if you have never lived or been in the US consider this bit of info People that don't live in the US just don't understand just how well armed the citizens of America are.

Can Hawaii really not feed itself, or is more of a case that agriculture can't do well thanks to economic reasons? I think if Hawaii wanted to (with agriculture subsidies), it probably could feed itself to a greater degree than it does now.

Any civil war in the US will have massive amounts of bloodshed thanks to the fact that quite a few individuals own guns and illegal guns are comparatively easy to obtain (but usually the people who obtain them are felons and criminals who can't legally buy a gun). Since you can see documentaries on gangs where the police are showing the sort of guns they seized from gangs (basically everything up to full-auto assault weapons), weapons will flow freely.

Speaking of gangs, a massive increase in crime might be interesting to see if the US would end up having something like the Russian Mafia. Or with gangs, if the Ku Klux Klan would gain a huge increase in membership based on nationalism and the need to deal with minorities in a way comparable to the Civil Rights-era Klan.
 
I hate to tell you this but a California Civil War scenario is more likely to see southern Californians and northern Californians shooting each other

No matter the ethnicity they really don't particularly like each other as the northern Californians think that the southern Californians are stealing their water while the other side thinks that the Northern Californians are stingy.
 
I hate to tell you this but a California Civil War scenario is more likely to see southern Californians and northern Californians shooting each other

No matter the ethnicity they really don't particularly like each other as the northern Californians think that the southern Californians are stealing their water while the other side thinks that the Northern Californians are stingy.

Where did you learn this?
 
In the book "Cadillac Desert."
The quickest way to stop a revolt in Soithern California is to dam the Colorado River.
 

Wallet

Banned
No

California and Texas won't both leave unless the US is a failed state

If liberal California leaves to join the greater Soviet world, then the remaining US is a lot more conservative now. Something Texas will like. And now Texas is the biggest and most powerful state now. And if it's like OTL 1990/1991, a Texan is president.
 
Also remember Americans are extremely well armed and a good chunk of them can shoot real well. So foreign troops involve in a foreign intervention could get a lot of sniping as well as open rebellions. No offense but if you have never lived or been in the US consider this bit of info People that don't live in the US just don't understand just how well armed the citizens of America are.

In my idea no foreign troops will be involved, but maybe military arms and money (maybe some advisers, too) from China and the USSR, so those countries can have a talk in the economics, after their supported californian side won. Kind of proxy war between China and the USSR, too.

That fact that arms are more freely available in the US doesn't harm my idea, because I anyway needed to think through how some secessionists may come to a reasonable stock of arms. Okay, the "main" californians in the north have the former national guard, after independence becoming the californian army. But the southern californians/hispanics... they'll have to get serious weaponry, because otherwise it will be more a short and bloody riot then a civil war.

A main point in my whole idea is, that some things happened in the former eastern bloc in the nineties happen in the west, it's all a bit mirrored, and california was my idea for a thing like the yugoslavian wars. Concerning the northern californians vs. southern californian things, I think in yugoslavia, the ethnic conflicts where also about economics. So maybe similar ideas would pop up in california, a smoldering conflict between the two parts will come to erupt via ethnicity?

California and Texas won't both leave unless the US is a failed state

Hm... failed state. At least in my world model the US are much less wealthy than economic strong than they where in reality during the nineties. They had (in my world) years and years of wars in southern america, oppressive politics on the interior side, a failed coup d'etat... so after finally a more liberal president wins the election, all those states, that always had a kind of wish for doing things on their own will have "spring time"... I don't know, how much sense that makes. I'm open for suggestions of any kind, concerning as an european I don't know that much about society in the states as someone native has, naturally!
Anyway, the idea of a split is crucial, since my "mirrored" downfall of the soviet union would not work any other way, I think. (I need to say, that not the whole world in my idea is communist. And the eastern bloc had to make different economic and political decisions from the 1950s until the 90s, allowing more freedom, to prevent the collapse that happend in the real world).

If liberal California leaves to join the greater Soviet world, then the remaining US is a lot more conservative now. Something Texas will like. And now Texas is the biggest and most powerful state now. And if it's like OTL 1990/1991, a Texan is president.
I think the certain texan will be president after some states left the union. Just because it's obvious for the voters, that something must be done to stabilize the situation and to regain some influence, maybe even to get some of the former member states back.
 
That fact that arms are more freely available in the US doesn't harm my idea, because I anyway needed to think through how some secessionists may come to a reasonable stock of arms. Okay, the "main" californians in the north have the former national guard, after independence becoming the californian army. But the southern californians/hispanics... they'll have to get serious weaponry, because otherwise it will be more a short and bloody riot then a civil war.

California is loaded with places to conduct guerilla warfare, both northern and southern California. Drive for half an hour outside of any of the major cities (not in the direction of the suburbs of course) and you'll be in a stony desert with mountains everywhere--perfect terrain for guerilla warfare. And everyone has guns, and if not, some dictator could shake down the ghettos in LA to get a decent stock.

George W. Bush for ATL's Putin analogue? :p

Why not just Donald Trump instead? He was considering politics long before his 2016 run.
 
With damande idea fleshed out with more info, whether Texas leaves or not can be influenced by whose if president. If Reagan/Bush are in power a much less chance of succession. But if they are not more chance of succession, also if the current president is an out and out liberal as well as a complete failure even more chance. A lot depends on who is president and what events happen that of course is up to damande to think up. As for foreign advisers that will still get a negative reaction and shot at. As for Southern California personally I think it would be a bloody chaotic mess and any foreign power should think twice about getting involved. I admit I could be wrong about that but there are to many different groups that would be looking for power and I think not interested in making any deal with the other side.
 
Top