The Many Little Americas

Highlander

Banned
I've decided to start to bunker down and put together a timeline; one based on this map.

The gist is this. Texas becomes and stays independent, whether through a more decisive victory or different politicians. However, this comes at a price, with the British stepping in to lend them money, and help to guarantee independence. Though relations are warm, not everyone in Texas is happy about the situation. Also around this time, the Republic of the Rio Grande is formed and maintained. The border between these two states is a sticking point, but mostly forms at the Nueces river.

With the crumbling government of Mexico, two things happen. First, the Mormons of Deseret (of course, you know ;)), and second, a new Union is formed of northern Mexican states.

This puts a damper on the expansionist Americans, whom possibly face a quick defeat in a quick war with Texas and the British. When the Civil War comes around (maybe a little earlier), the odds are much different.

An aspect I have also been pondering about this is the advancement of weapons, specifically the repeating rifle. Say there were a few good reports of breech firing rifles during the Revolution, and possibly later on in Europe. By the time the Civil War comes around, they would be more implemented than they were IOTL.

Not sure what direction I want to take with Europe. My original thought was to have a German unification possibly fail ITTL. As well, France is unclear to me as well.

What I could use some suggestions for would be ideas on making a Texas Revolution more successfull in keeping Texas independant, along with some ideas for the other elements.
 
Intriguing. I look forward to seeing how you pull it off.

My biggest worry is how the secessionists may not have as strong a voice if the Americans are facing serious competion on the continent. Many Soujtherners maight worry about becoming puppets of the British as the price for breaking from the Union.

Also why would Britain allow texas to grab the jewel of the Caribean?
 
It's going to be very hard to keep people from doing what they did anyway and moving West. The Mississippi and Ohio River basins are essentially the Yellow and Yangzte of the Americas; whoever holds those has the power to control everything else on the continent.
 
It's going to be very hard to keep people from doing what they did anyway and moving West. The Mississippi and Ohio River basins are essentially the Yellow and Yangzte of the Americas; whoever holds those has the power to control everything else on the continent.

Ummm... Really? I don't see to what extent this is true, if at all.

Regardless, of course they won't go west, if there are several big political borders stopping them. The US government smashed these barriers down OTL, will they be able to do so if foreign backed nationalist-independant states are in the way. I'd like to see American Exceptionalism work it's magic with other 'americans'.
 
It's going to be very hard to keep people from doing what they did anyway and moving West. The Mississippi and Ohio River basins are essentially the Yellow and Yangzte of the Americas; whoever holds those has the power to control everything else on the continent.
I think this is the biggest myth of AH- when did large numbers of settlers move to a territory not part of the legal United States against the laws of the nation where they moved to? Even in Texas the settlers were initially invited by the Mexican government.
 

Highlander

Banned
My biggest worry is how the secessionists may not have as strong a voice if the Americans are facing serious competion on the continent. Many Soujtherners maight worry about becoming puppets of the British as the price for breaking from the Union.

Very good point, and something to consider. Was thinking of the ultimate confrontation between states rights and slavery, but maybe that would override it . . .

Also why would Britain allow texas to grab the jewel of the Caribean?
That's likely to change here, as I originally just put that in there to be different.

But I reiterate my point; what of a successful way to keep Texas independent? Was thinking that if the US doesn't annex them, they already have foreign relations set up. But how do we get the US from moving to absorb Texas?
 
what of a successful way to keep Texas independent?

May be Polk isn't elected President, and thus no annexation and no Mexican-American War. This doesn't look ASB to me - you just have to let 1 % of the voters in New York change their mind - this flipps New York and thus -narrowly- the Electoral College. Or you could add Pennsylvania and/or Indiana as bonus - in both states, Polk's margin of victory was as well clearly below 2 %.
 
But I reiterate my point; what of a successful way to keep Texas independent? Was thinking that if the US doesn't annex them, they already have foreign relations set up. But how do we get the US from moving to absorb Texas?

Not as difficult as you might think.

1. Texas Annexation was practically provkoing war with Mexico. Many prominent American politicans opposed that war. Give the Anti War Faction more strength.

2. While a majority of Anglo Texans favored Union there was a sizable minority that adocated contiuned independence. Mexico br the time of the war was willing to recognize Texas, however there was a very large amount of disputed territory claimed by both sides. OTL American Expansionism called for recognizing Texas' claims, many of which were ridiculous. Have the US agree to Mexico's boundaries for a peaceful transition, and the Texans cry fouyl and walk away from the Union.

3. Britain takes a grater interest in the region and decides to play balance of power politics. Loans to give Texas a boast in organizing their infrastructure and negotiating for a workable compromise with Mexico(subject to later revision by force of arms).

4. Greater anitslavery power in the US opposes admission of Texas as a slave state. Also a fear before the war was that the west would be opened to slavery. Also would help create an alternate CSA.
 
I think this is the biggest myth of AH- when did large numbers of settlers move to a territory not part of the legal United States against the laws of the nation where they moved to? Even in Texas the settlers were initially invited by the Mexican government.

Imajin

The other point is that large numbers might move west, although difficult enough at those points but without US military conquest and with decent treatment there's no reason they would wish to become American. Especially if say more conflict in N America due to American expansion being more successfully resisted had detrimental effects on the attractiveness of being a US citizen. [I.e. higher taxes or military commitments, lose of trade opportunities etc]. A lot would depend on how the various states survive and prosper or not as to how viable they are and how attractive to settlers. The Californian part of the New Mexico state especially when gold is discovered.

Steve
 

Sachyriel

Banned
Ummm... Really? I don't see to what extent this is true, if at all.

Regardless, of course they won't go west, if there are several big political borders stopping them. The US government smashed these barriers down OTL, will they be able to do so if foreign backed nationalist-independant states are in the way. I'd like to see American Exceptionalism work it's magic with other 'americans'.

For the same reason Voyagers in Canada used canoes instead of walking and horses. Rivers allow for easier transport, and can be used for fresh-water, food and are an essential natural boundary. With the rivers, movement is aided, and so is trade, and it is a natural defense line in any war.

Everyone goes west, even if to kill First Nations people because there are $1 for every scalp. Assholes.
 
Intriguing. I look forward to seeing how you pull it off.

My biggest worry is how the secessionists may not have as strong a voice if the Americans are facing serious competion on the continent. Many Soujtherners maight worry about becoming puppets of the British as the price for breaking from the Union.

Doubtful I suspect. The CSA is too big to be easily dominanted by a distant empire, even one as powerful as Britain. Especially by this time Britain is well into the minimum involvement trade and influence preference for contact with other nations. Not to mention there's a long history of people preferring a more powerful state a long way away to the less powerful but still threatening one right on their border. At least with Britain, following OTL example the CSA could trade openly rather than have detremental tariffs impose for the benefit of the north.


Also why would Britain allow texas to grab the jewel of the Caribean?

Good question but even more so why would Britain help them or at least stand by while someone else did. While a successful CSA wanted Cuba, and is probably a more likely power to take it, its doubtful it would have the strength to before ~1890. [Not sure of the date of the map]. Texas would be noticably weaker and hence even less chance. Unless by this time texas is non-slave and some deal is possibly made between Texas and Spain, possibly brokered by other powers to help keep Cuba and Hati out of CSA hands. Even then I suspect that it would take big changes in Texas to want to take over those areas.

Steve
 
Doubtful I suspect. The CSA is too big to be easily dominanted by a distant empire, even one as powerful as Britain. Especially by this time Britain is well into the minimum involvement trade and influence preference for contact with other nations. Not to mention there's a long history of people preferring a more powerful state a long way away to the less powerful but still threatening one right on their border. At least with Britain, following OTL example the CSA could trade openly rather than have detremental tariffs impose for the benefit of the north.

Steve

I agree that Britain would be unlkely to dominate this CSA, but that does not mean many would still fear it. Americans paniced that California would be invaded after Pearl Harbor. Ridiculous, but their panic was real enough.
 
I've decided to start to bunker down and put together a timeline; one based on this map.

The gist is this. Texas becomes and stays independent, whether through a more decisive victory or different politicians. However, this comes at a price, with the British stepping in to lend them money, and help to guarantee independence. Though relations are warm, not everyone in Texas is happy about the situation. Also around this time, the Republic of the Rio Grande is formed and maintained. The border between these two states is a sticking point, but mostly forms at the Nueces river.

With the crumbling government of Mexico, two things happen. First, the Mormons of Deseret (of course, you know ;)), and second, a new Union is formed of northern Mexican states.

This puts a damper on the expansionist Americans, whom possibly face a quick defeat in a quick war with Texas and the British. When the Civil War comes around (maybe a little earlier), the odds are much different.

a couple of quibbles on the map:
  • switch the names of Assiniboia and Saskatchewan... you've got the two Sask rivers outside of the Sask province.
Saskatchewanrivermap.png

  • One too many e's in Lake E(e)rie
  • What you have listed as Hudson's Bay is actually James Bay. H. Bay is off the map
  • Shouldn't it be Union de Neuva Mexico...?
Otehrwise I like the map, it's ideas, and presentation.
 
  • Shouldn't it be Union de Neuva Mexico...?
Otehrwise I like the map, it's ideas, and presentation.
"Unión de Nuevo México" would be the proper term. Same opinion on the map, very nice, photoshop?


Also how do you account for the advance in weapons development? I'm not saying it cannot be done, however, you would need more money or quite a historical change to advance it.
 

Highlander

Banned
"Unión de Nuevo México" would be the proper term. Same opinion on the map, very nice, photoshop?

Good catch, the both of you. I shall change it.

Also how do you account for the advance in weapons development? I'm not saying it cannot be done, however, you would need more money or quite a historical change to advance it.

OTL, if I remember correctly, information did get back to the US regarding the effectiveness of the new kinds of rifles during the Texas Revolution.

I was just going under the flag of more wars = more advanced weaponry (generally).
 
Top