Independent Deseret: plausible size?

I'm thinking about a TL where the Mormons have a different doctrine regarding the religious significance of the US government and are just ignored prior to the ACW and never have their lands admitted to the Union as a single, territorial entity. Taking the typical 'American West balkanises due to European intervention in the ACW' scenario (CSA is independent and California has been separated from the Union), where exactly would an independent Deseret's borders stabilise?

The Mormon Belt, or at least, for the brief time it takes for someones Army to burn Salt Lake City to the ground.

Japhy said:

The Mormon Belt, or at least, for the brief time it takes for someones Army to burn Salt Lake City to the ground.

Click to expand...

What was the Mormon corridor in the 1860s though? The only parts of the Mormon corridor which are majority Mormon today are Utah and southeastern Idaho. Or would it also include areas which are plurality Mormon?

Rush Tarquin said:

What was the Mormon corridor in the 1860s though? The only parts of the Mormon corridor which are majority Mormon today are Utah and southeastern Idaho. Or would it also include areas which are plurality Mormon?

Click to expand...

The Mormons settled the 1st permanent town in Idaho (SE) in the 1860s by accident, thinking they were in Utah territory. So you'd have SE Idaho and probably the greater part of the territory for starters.

Sorry, the American West balkanizes is space bat because few West wanted that. As is an independent Deseret, because we do love our turf, and'd conquer if needed (maybe why Smith didn't try for independence?). So you'd just have different territories and later states.

Sorry!

jkay said:

Sorry, the American West balkanizes is space bat because few West wanted that. As is an independent Deseret, because we do love our turf, and'd conquer if needed (maybe why Smith didn't try for independence?). So you'd just have different territories and later states.

Sorry!

Click to expand...

using asb a tad too easy i think.

so maybe explain better why it is so implausible.

Mormons are crushed by the Army if they rise up. IF they set up shop before hand, they are deluged by settlers and THEN the Army crushes them.

Weren't swamped by settlers OTL: Utah's kinda shitty real estate, it's important as a route to places further along, but it's no California. But it was US real estate by right of conquest from the Mexicans, so the incorporation of Utah into the US was kinda inevitable without the balkanization thingy. If we can somehow prevent the Mexican-American war so the Mormons settle in Mexican territory and they later break away from Mexico, I think they'd have a fair change of surviving as an independent state.

Bruce

jkay said:

(maybe why Smith didn't try for independence?)

Click to expand...

Joseph Smith never went west, he was killed in Carthage, Illinois. It was Brigham Young who led the pioneers to Utah.

Although I guess Smith did proclaim himself King of the entire world.

jkay said:

Sorry, the American West balkanizes is space bat because few West wanted that. As is an independent Deseret, because we do love our turf, and'd conquer if needed (maybe why Smith didn't try for independence?). So you'd just have different territories and later states.

Sorry!

Click to expand...

First POD is in 1817 with Ernest Augustus becoming the Britisk King. Those are some impressive powers of foresight you have.

Rush Tarquin wrote:

First POD is in 1817 with Ernest Augustus becoming the Britisk King. Those are some impressive powers of foresight you have.

Click to expand...

But, that's not how butterflies work; they still work causally, just making the changes that make sense from your POD. So, there has to be a REASON for the 100% changes in opinion on union and OTL turf love. Remember, we even OTL wrongly went to war with Mexico and ethnically cleansed countless tribes in the way to get our OTL turf.

jkay said:

Rush Tarquin wrote:


But, that's not how butterflies work; they still work causally, just making the changes that make sense from your POD. So, there has to be a REASON for the 100% changes in opinion on union and OTL turf love. Remember, we even OTL wrongly went to war with Mexico and ethnically cleansed countless tribes in the way to get our OTL turf.

Click to expand...

The butterflies aren't within the United States for the most part. The difference is a much slower to reform Britain, one that's indifferent to slavery, and one with a more stubbornly reactionary and jealous ruling class that is dedicated to breaking the US as a competitor, which, given the resources it takes to conduct a full-scale war in North America in the 19th century and make a concerted effort to break-up the United States, bankrupts and breaks-up the Empire and causes a revolution in Britain.

jkay said:

But, that's not how butterflies work; they still work causally, just making the changes that make sense from your POD. So, there has to be a REASON for the 100% changes in opinion on union and OTL turf love. Remember, we even OTL wrongly went to war with Mexico and ethnically cleansed countless tribes in the way to get our OTL turf.

Click to expand...

Plenty of people thought we were going to annex Canada. And Cuba. And we didn't. And it didn't require the intervention of ASBs.

EDIT: Anyway, this is stated to be after the US loses the Civil War, so their force projection capabilities are likely limited in the immediate term at least. He's not even said how long he wants it to exist for.

Rush Tarquin wrote:
The butterflies aren't within the United States for the most part. The difference is a much slower to reform Britain, one that's indifferent to slavery, and one with a more stubbornly reactionary and jealous ruling class that is dedicated to breaking the US as a competitor, which, given the resources it takes to conduct a full-scale war in North America in the 19th century and make a concerted effort to break-up the United States, bankrupts and breaks-up the Empire and causes a revolution in Britain.

Click to expand...

So? It's still NORTH AMERICA, not Britain. Butterflies have to work appropriately for NORTH AMERICA. Which' why it's important to pay attention to those educated in North American history.


Sicarius, are you really sure? Really, really sure? Because we only don't have Canada because we failed twice, and don't have Cuba because we threw it back AFTER conquering it, presumably because its freeing was an efficial war goal,and it was outside our main slice of turf. And, if you'd paused a moment to bake a bit more, you might thought to check if the annexation of Utah Territory came before the Civil War. which, oh, yeah, it did.

jkay said:

So? It's still NORTH AMERICA, not Britain. Butterflies have to work appropriately for NORTH AMERICA. Which' why it's important to pay attention to those educated in North American history.

Click to expand...

The US can try to get that land back and they'd have a good chance after a breather. But they've presumably just lost a war pretty soundly if they've lost this much of the west and south. These new states would be British clients (though the US might do well to make Deseret a client state and buffer from the British, French, and CSA presences neighbouring the southwest).

jkay said:

Because we only don't have Canada because we failed twice, and don't have Cuba because we threw it back AFTER conquering it, presumably because its freeing was an efficial war goal,and it was outside our main slice of turf.

Click to expand...

We didn't take all Mexico for a reason, we didn't conquer Canada for a reason, we decided fifty-four forty wasn't worth the fight, we cast Cuba aside. You say that we would conquer Deseret because we wanted the territory. I propose that there were other pieces of land we coveted; politics, international maneuverings, a balance of various strengths and weaknesses unique to the times, all these factors determined whether those lands were taken, and whether they were held. Could such factors have similarly fostered an independent Deseret, and/or an unannexed Utah? Support from a foreign power, American weakness, an American lack of will? I say yes. It happened before, in other places.

If I were to try and construct such a scenario, I'd do my best to move the Mormons to Salt Lake a bit earlier. Either due to their friction with Mexico or simple American leanings, they, like California, declare independence as a Republic. Being a bit in the hinterlands, they can't immediately cede authority to the US. They're also able to very quickly form a provisional government, since it's basically just the Mormon power structure. The US, not knowing as we do that it was going to be a knockout, quickly seizes the advantage and recognizes the Republic. Now, is it likely that the US would negotiate Deseret's independence as part of the treaty with Mexico, before it's locked down that Deseret would become a state? I don't know, I'm asking - folks? If you'll permit me the assumption, we come out of the war with a US recognized Deseret. But what now? Suddenly some people aren't so sure they want to annex a new state full of polygamist heretics who sound at times suspiciously abolitionist? For state they must be, under the precedent established by Texas - or so they say. And unlike in OTL, they are not under US law and power, and bargain from something of a position of strength. The Mormons are resistant to giving up their traditions. The US is resistant to allowing them to retain them. Negotiations collapse, and part of the Compromise of 1850 is to drop any further attempts for the time being. California is the new free state - maybe Deseret can be admitted in the future, a balance to a slave state carved from the new Mexican territory. But that perfect chance never quite comes by the time of the Civil War, and then the Union has bigger problems...

EDIT: Hmm, but why move early? Proposal: From (what I assume would be) the intolerance and instability of Augustan (or post-Augustan) Britain, young Emma Floyd (later, in OTL, Emma Hardinge Britten) emigrates to America early. She falls in with the Mormons, and with her visions of the future and powers of clairvoyance, encourages the early and vague ideas of a Salt Lake migration.

^OK, so taking that as the situation, what territory would Deseret be able to effectively claim in the medium-term: southern Idaho, eastern Nevada, western Colorado, roughly OTL Utah, or just the Salt Lake Valley?!

Well, with Mexico out of the picture for the time being, and the US otherwise occupied due to internal issues, what opponent is left? The natives? I don't think the Mormons are strong enough to kill all the natives, I do think the Mormons would imagine any such struggle not worth the cost, and would seek rather to make peace for the time. So I think they'd be sitting pretty as far as organized, outside military threats. The big deal is to keep the US out of the picture, so you can't make Deseret huge, because they won't let them get away with too too much land. OTL's proposed State of Desert, for example, was ridiculous. Maybe something more akin to OTL's Utah state, but you could justify tacking on other little bits. You just don't want to get it over the threshold of being more tempting than trouble.

I guess the main thing would be to avoid too much mineral and ore wealth which can be discovered in the period to avoid making it a target.