Wild West Challenge

I was browsing the forums as I usually do and came across this thread which I found very interesting. I've been wanting to do an TL for a while now and this really caught my attention. Essentially it is trying to keep the "Wild West" in the classical sense as long as possible.

To me, this seems like a really cool idea for me to work on when I'm bored in class.

A few considerations:

1.
Simple; less European immigration in the mid-, and late-, 19th century. The West remains wild because there's not enough people to populate it.

Simplified, America was seen as the land of opportunity. This TL needs it to be established that America is socially in disarray and does not present the same opportunities as elsewhere would. An interesting splinter would be another country being seen as the "land of opportunity". Brazil perhaps? Canada? South Africa?

2. In order for a socially dis-repaired America, we need the Civil War to drag a bit and for Reconstruction to fail more than it did.

3.
No barbed wire and delayed railroads and telegraphs, for starters.

We are also looking to see if we can slow down the creation of railroads. The Transcontinental Railroad was finished in 1869, so delaying that as long as possible would be necessary.

----
Here's my idea so far. Obviously, keeping ASB to a minimum.

In 1865, with the Confederacy on the brink of destruction, Jefferson Davis advises his armies to begin fighting a guerrilla war against the Union. General Robert E. Lee of course disapproves of this greatly and writes a letter to the president attempting to dissuade him.

The POD is that either Lee never writes this letter, or it never reaches Davis and the Confederacy begins fighting a guerrilla war.

This extends the American Civil War, though the guerrilla war proves more to be an annoyance than actually effective. Lincoln is assassinated by a Confederate backed Booth in 1865, and Johnson takes the seat of U.S. President. Wanting to a swift end to the war, he allows General Sheridan to run down suspected guerrillas, plundering and tearing up infrastructure along the way and General Sherman to march from the Carolinas straight to Richmond, utilizing his scorched earth policy.

Robert E. Lee attempts to convince his men to surrender and that it was now "time for reunion and rebuilding". He was granted amnesty in return for surrendering and did so with a few thousand men in late 1865.

By 1866, Sherman had captured Richmond, proclaimed a national hero and the Confederacy surrendered.

The rest is just a rough outline:

Andrew Johnson attempts reconstruction and fails miserably. There is no Northern sympathy for the South due to guerrillas having regularly attacked civilian buildings during the war.

Amnesty (other than to Lee and his detachment) is given, but former rebels are not granted voting privileges.

Johnson is not re-elected, and in 1969 the popular William T. Sherman is elected president. He puts forward harsh reconstruction policies, stifling the Southern economy causing widespread unrest.

Many southerners move west, while many northerners move south.

Native attacks on homesteaders become quite frequent.

The south is made up mostly of former slaves and American Army detachments serving as a police force.

America seems less attractive as a place for immigration.


That's all I have so far. What do you guys think?
 
Native attacks on homesteaders become quite frequent.
You need to give the natives more "staying and fighting power" Historically, most tribes simply lacked the numbers to offer effective resistance. This was due to the low population base of many nomadic and semi nomadic societies.

If more of the native tribes were agricultural, or had adopted large scale agriculture (perhaps promoted by missionary societies), their population would be higher, they could purchase more and better weapons and they would field regiments instead of bands.
 
If more of the native tribes were agricultural, or had adopted large scale agriculture (perhaps promoted by missionary societies), their population would be higher, they could purchase more and better weapons and they would field regiments instead of bands.

The traditionally religious south, as they head west, bring their beliefs with them leading to "Western Baptistism". If they head out west ~1868-~1869, than the Sioux could possibly mount an effective force ~1885-~1890?

This is kind of the most difficult part, trying to keep the US Army preoccupied in the midwest. Basically, the Native Americans need to bide time and recognize that if they adopt some practices they'd be able to withstand the US in the future.

Notoriously stubborn though, weren't they?
 
General Sherman is highly unlikely as a President. His second most famous quote (after "War is Hell" ) was " If nominated I will not run.If elected I will not serve."
 
How about if two events in 1848 change?

1) The Potato Blight does not occur. Millions of Irish emigrants never head to the Americas

2) The Rebellions that swept the Continent in that year are remarkably successful, sweeping away the Old Regime from one end of Europe to the other and installing liberal democracies in place of the OTL power structure. Thus No Napoleon III, and no Bismarck and a more democratic Austria-Hungary. If we really wanted to make Europe a more attractive place to stay, the Czar not only frees the serfs, but strictly forbids pogroms within his empire.

That would really reduce the rate of emigration without a distopic USA
 
He said this in OTL, "If nominated, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve"

Sherman won't run, perhaps you could replace him with Sheridan although you would have to wait some time for him to get older.

General Sherman is highly unlikely as a President. His second most famous quote (after "War is Hell" ) was " If nominated I will not run.If elected I will not serve."

Do we now what his motivation was? Motivations change, and unless I'm wrong, didn't he say that in the 1880s?

He also historically was very aggressive when it came to Native Americans. Maybe he would have done it earlier. Harry Truman didn't want to be president either.

Sheridan is an interesting possibility. He could have ran. Age limit is 35, I believe he would have been 37.
 
How about if two events in 1848 change?

1) The Potato Blight does not occur. Millions of Irish emigrants never head to the Americas

2) The Rebellions that swept the Continent in that year are remarkably successful, sweeping away the Old Regime from one end of Europe to the other and installing liberal democracies in place of the OTL power structure. Thus No Napoleon III, and no Bismarck and a more democratic Austria-Hungary. If we really wanted to make Europe a more attractive place to stay, the Czar not only frees the serfs, but strictly forbids pogroms within his empire.

That would really reduce the rate of emigration without a distopic USA

This would possibly lead to a much more Asian west which could lead to interesting cultural merging.

No Franco-Prussian war, no German Empire, I think you may have just stopped OTL's version of WWI!

I'm thinking about swapping Sherman with Sheridan, but realistically with Grant heavily endorsing Sheridan. Or just keep Grant as in OTL?
 
This would possibly lead to a much more Asian west which could lead to interesting cultural merging.

No Franco-Prussian war, no German Empire, I think you may have just stopped OTL's version of WWI!

I'm thinking about swapping Sherman with Sheridan, but realistically with Grant heavily endorsing Sheridan. Or just keep Grant as in OTL?

Yeah, Grant was a good general but not the best of presidents... He might just mess things up more.
 
This is kind of the most difficult part, trying to keep the US Army preoccupied in the midwest
You already have a solution keeping the Army occupied as a southern police force, also since it's mainly Southerners moving West the Northern army probable won't care what the indians do to them.

Another way to keep the West Wild, an earlier acquisition of Panama. Even without a canal sailing from the East Coast, railroad across the isthmus, then another ship to the West Coast will be shorter and safer than a wagon train.
 
The traditionally religious south, as they head west, bring their beliefs with them leading to "Western Baptistism". If they head out west ~1868-~1869, than the Sioux could possibly mount an effective force ~1885-~1890?
I think the adoption of agriculture would have to come early (it would take genratiosn to build up popualtion and infrastructure).

Maybe.... French missioanries and Metis introduce agriculture and Catholcism to the northeren plains, and northeren Rocky mountains in 1800. By 1875, the tribes are a hybid culture (metis) and are a pretty unified confederation of autonomous tribes.

Though they cant totally stop the U.S., they do have a standing army of 15,000 troops and militia. Canada discretely assures that the native confederation has access to up to date weapons and is familair with western warfare tactics. Maybe some former CSA with grudges offer their services as well. The Native Army keeps the settlers out, the natives have all the good land already under plow anyways, and the U.S. govt cant afford another large scale war.
 
Last edited:
I agree a big part of this is having Europe face less upheavals. However, the defining element of the Wild West isn't the lack of whites, its the lack of federal authority. Having some political gridlock by tinkering with the constitution, or playing up sectionalism could lead to less compromises over expansion. If you prevent statehood being granted to places West of the Missippi for another thirty years you could certainly have longer cowboy culture.
 
As far as I can tell, wasn't the finding of gold a big factor for going west? Just an idea. Also if those from the east where not moving west, could those in the west move east?
 
Last edited:
How about you get a situation similar to the Boers in the wild-west. Maybe French settlers expanding West in a semi-nomadic lifestyle, clashing with both Indians and American settlers.

But with your POD, Might I say it, Mormon Pioneers being openly aggressive to American expansion, allying with Indians. You could use an earlier POD like this and this would still keep butterflies to a minimum until you reach the post-Civil War era.
 
If you could get the US into a war with a European power, than disgrace the US by having US troops troops do horrible things to the dead bodies of their enemies and that sort of thing it might help. Also perhaps if there is a war, than you could have some president permanently imprison enemy troops or something similar disgracing the ideas of the bill of rights. People might think twice of coming. Having the stock market slow in the Americas (but not in Europe) might get people emigrating.
 
Last edited:
If united disillusioned former Confederates in the West with potentially fractious Mormons, you could have a second Civil War in the west. The Mormons of Utah didn't want lots of migrants so they could practise their faith in peace and isolation. If you could unite that with the afore-mentioned ideas of 'Western Baptism' with natives who also have an interest in preventing widespread migration and the mountain-men who were also not in favour of widespread settlement due to the reliance of their income and lifestyle on good relations with the Natives, you could have a 'Confederacy of the West' against the Union.
 
Top