OOC: I got it. Russia never sold Alaska to America, leading to tensions. In the late 19th, or early 20th Century, they was a war. America took a lot of it, but Russia kept Nome, and other parts.
DBWI: America without Canada
- Thread starter Historyman 14
- Start date
OOC: I got it. Russia never sold Alaska to America, leading to tensions. In the late 19th, or early 20th Century, they was a war. America took a lot of it, but Russia kept Nome, and other parts.
OOC: I'm sorry, but that's not all that plausible, TBH; if anything, if there was a war, the U.S. would definitely get *all* of mainland Alaska, including Nome; there would be nothing useful for Russia there, with *Anchorage and *Sitka gone, so it'd be totally pointless. May I suggest at least some of the Aleutians, and maybe a few of the other islands as well? Keeping those areas actually could benefit Russia, eventually.
OOC: Okay. Apologies if I came across a little harshly, by the way; that was not intentional.
OOC: Okay. Apologies if I came across a little harshly, by the way; that was not intentional.
OOC: No. It's fine. I am happy you, and SHIELD like this.
IC: So, going back to all the generals joining the South at the start of the war, who do you think was the biggest?
Another question to consider is how tolerant would the rest of America be of Catholicism and non-WASP culture in general without having to accommodate the linguistic and religious differences of the French-Canadian community early on? The friction between Catholics and Protestants had been largely resolved in the decades leading up to the middle of the 19th Century and had given way to the much more contentious North-South divide; around this time, large numbers of Catholic immigrants from Ireland began pouring into the country, to be followed by millions more from other Catholic countries in Europe? Would these trends be different in a Canada-less America? Would the country have a more robustly "Protestant" conception of itself? How long would it have taken for the US to elect a Catholic President?
And speaking of that, how would American political history develop (taking into account butterflies) without the influence of French-Canadian politicians? As other posters have mentioned, Canadians were particularly active in the abolitionist movement, and later on were also champions in the advancement of progressive causes in American politics. From the eloquent excoriations of slavery delivered on the Senate floor by Louis-Joseph Papineau in the antebellum era, to the enactment of the Equal Rights and Multicultural Amendments under President Trudeau (not to mention the crusading journalism of CBS correspondent Rene Levesque in covering Civil Rights), it's hard to imagine those moments in history without the influence of French-Canadians. Then again on the flip side of this, Catholic (and later Evangelical) politicians of a certain stripe, like Kennedy and McCarthy would have been deprived of a role model in an America without the clerical conservatism of Le Gouverneur.
And speaking of that, how would American political history develop (taking into account butterflies) without the influence of French-Canadian politicians? As other posters have mentioned, Canadians were particularly active in the abolitionist movement, and later on were also champions in the advancement of progressive causes in American politics. From the eloquent excoriations of slavery delivered on the Senate floor by Louis-Joseph Papineau in the antebellum era, to the enactment of the Equal Rights and Multicultural Amendments under President Trudeau (not to mention the crusading journalism of CBS correspondent Rene Levesque in covering Civil Rights), it's hard to imagine those moments in history without the influence of French-Canadians. Then again on the flip side of this, Catholic (and later Evangelical) politicians of a certain stripe, like Kennedy and McCarthy would have been deprived of a role model in an America without the clerical conservatism of Le Gouverneur.
Gian
Banned
Well, for one Nova Scotia wouldn't have Scottish Gaelic as an official language (besides English and Spanish), plus all those Gàidhealtachds in the north and Cape Breton Island, had Britain kept Canada
((OOC: The Scottish Migrations to Nova Scotia happened as in OTL, but unlike OTL, they kept their culture and language thriving today. Also, Spanish has been an official language since 2007 ITTL due to pressure from Hispanics living there))
((OOC: The Scottish Migrations to Nova Scotia happened as in OTL, but unlike OTL, they kept their culture and language thriving today. Also, Spanish has been an official language since 2007 ITTL due to pressure from Hispanics living there))
Last edited:
It's always wierd to talk american politics in regaurds to religion becuase their default state is secular, but not aggressivly so like the Spanish. The lack of a real clerical/anti-clerical debate has done much to bridge the gap between ethnic, lingusitic, political, and class devides. Let's look at my home state of Missouri, In Veen[1] both canidates were using religion to justify their political positions, but we are a largly religious state and I'm sure that wouldn't fly as much in Oregon, or over in Birmingham where there are still some protestant catholic tensions.
I question the American approach to Mexico, After the Mexican American war, there was little in terms of land that would be good to conquer, we had enough of that we just needed people. Without Canada, we might have seen the need to have even more land. Would the US have tried to aid the Liberals in the Mexican Revlolution, or would the US pounce on them to grab more land?
[1] OTL Kansas City, a Americanized version of Wien/Vienna pronounced VEEn in German
Last edited:
Paradoxically the US might have taken less of Mexico after the war. Without Canada helping the US to be more tolerant of Catholics the US would have been much more Protestant influenced back then. Why would they want to take large parts of staunchly Catholic Mexico? The US would be lucky to take anything south of San Francisco [1] let alone territory south of the Rio Grande like the US did historically to have a buffer area.
And Alabama isn't that bad with Catholic-Protestant tensions, its mostly overplayed in the media when different groups of drunken backwoods hicks start throwing punches at each other.
They tried using religion to back up their positions!? They're lucky that's a state election. The Supreme Court ruled politicians trumpting up their religiousness or attacking their opponent's violated the "No religious test" clause of the Constitution, at least for federal positions. I've lived in quite a few states, from Ohio to Florida to Columbia and Sierra [2]. Sure every state is different with being allowed to have different state languages and maybe I've just never got as involved in local elections compared to federal elections but that's still just a little wierd to me and I was born in a fairly small, pretty religious town.
[1] Apparently it was founded in June 1776. Suck it butterflies!
[2] Basically TTL Nevada, but not going as far south by quite a bit and instead is a bit more west over the Sierra Nevadas where it gets its name and more east to have parts of Utah and north to have parts of Oregon and Idaho. No gambling, lots of mining still and loves to argue with Colorado on which state has better ski resorts.
Last edited:
Veen? You mean New Veen[1]? The town that had one of the worst Mafia problems in the whole country up until the end of the 1980s?
Liberty Falls[2], across the river is a much nicer place, and far more important as well. I have no clue why they wouldn't just go there instead.
OOC: [1] New Veen, honestly, sounds a little nicer, I think.
[2]Liberty Falls is OTL Kansas City, south of the Missouri River, next to Veen/New Veen. With 750,000 people, it's triple the size of it's neighbor city to the north.
IC: Possibly, but it may depend on how Mexico holds out, too.
Yeah, and there's definitely been worse: In New Veen, things actually got so bad that the Italian and Jewish Mobs were engaging in major gunfights every other year somewhere in town, during the '60s and '70s. Or the Welsh/Anglo-Saxon divide in Mississippi and South Carolina, in the '50s.
They tried using religion to back up their positions!? They're lucky that's a state election. The Supreme Court ruled politicians trumpting up their religiousness or attacking their opponent's violated the "No religious test" clause of the Constitution, at least for federal positions. I've lived in quite a few states, from Ohio to Florida to Columbia and Sierra [2]. Sure every state is different with being allowed to have different state languages and maybe I've just never got as involved in local elections compared to federal elections but that's still just a little wierd to me and I was born in a fairly small, pretty religious town.
[1] Apparently it was founded in June 1776. Suck it butterflies!
[2] Basically TTL Nevada, but not going as far south by quite a bit and instead is a bit more west over the Sierra Nevadas where it gets its name and more east to have parts of Utah and north to have parts of Oregon and Idaho. No gambling, lots of mining still and loves to argue with Colorado on which state has better ski resorts.
OOC: Wouldn't this cause border issues with California, though(and, by extension, *Arizona as well)? I think it'd work out much better if we just kept the OTL western border, although everything else should be fine.
So, i heard that Russia is sending some more ships to the Aleutians, again. Why won't they stop trying to sacred the US. It never works.
Well, unfortunately, Premier Yushchenko hasn't exactly been much of a leader, domestically speaking, so he's trying to make up for it otherwise. There's also rumors that his party, the Conservative Party for Russia, rigged the 2012 elections as well, so it could be a distraction from that, as well. Definitely not the hopeful days of 1991-2002 after the Cold War ended, for sure.
Well, unfortunately, Premier Yushchenko hasn't exactly been much of a leader, domestically speaking, so he's trying to make up for it otherwise. There's also rumors that his party, the Conservative Party for Russia, rigged the 2012 elections as well, so it could be a distraction from that, as well. Definitely not the hopeful days of 1991-2002 after the Cold War ended, for sure.
I am not that surprised. I heard he try to make a move in Ukraine last year, or something.
Well, Yushchenko's grandfather was himself born in Donet'sk, and the Ukraine did remain surprisingly sympathetic to Communism after the Soviet Union disbanded; and Yushchenko, who had once been an underground Samisdat publisher during the '70s and '80s, was horribly shocked to hear that the former General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Ukraine, Alberik Kropotkin, won the 2010 elections in that country. So there's that. But, on the other hand, at least he's not Turtledove's Stalin. *Shudders*.
(P.S., it also appears that Premier Kropotkin would be the first man of Jewish descent to be leader of the Ukraine since the fall of the Iron Curtain. Unfortunately, it's also inspired a number of anti-Semites in the nastier pro-annexation groups to come out.).
OOC: Hopefully this isn't *too* convergent for your tastes.
OOC: Maybe a little but it's fine. But is Ukraine still apart of Russia?
IC: Well, Belarus and the Batic states hate Russia. Well, hate might be too strong, but still. That why they firends with Europe.
I personally hate to say this but I don't think the British Empire could have held Canda even if the US hadn't gotten it. The Quebecese had been too riled up by American actions and the US could have always sent agitators into British Canada afterwards anyway (and I wouldn't put it past the US).
Also I think the loyalists would have wanted to resettle there either. If the zeal they took to resettling in England, Australia and the Cape Dominion are any indicators anyway.
Also I think the loyalists would have wanted to resettle there either. If the zeal they took to resettling in England, Australia and the Cape Dominion are any indicators anyway.
OOC: It wouldn't be too far west, just more of a even split down the Sierra Nevadas rather than California getting the lion's share.
Here is what I was thinking. Gold was discovered in northern California before the OTL discovery at Sutter's Mill but earlier. 1830's maybe? This still brought a lot of population to California as in OTL and helped San Francisco and Sacramento develop. Pretty sure the Sacramento River could be used for trade. This would lead to a scenario similar to Texas where they were too far from Mexico to make them follow the requirements to emigrate and too far to successfully put down a rebellion.
They claimed most of OTL's California Republic but also claimed a bit further north into parts of Oregon. I figure with the US having British Columbia there is a lot more room for divergent state borders in the Northwest. When California joined the US they tried to get all their claims recognized, but the US wanted to make states out of TTL's Mexican Cession. Since New Mexico could resist not being part of Texas, the people in the east parts of California tried the same. The US didn't want California too powerful of a California to not upset the balance in Congress, so they gave them a choice to either back down on their claims east of the Sierra Nevadas or to back down on their claims in the Oregon area. (Let's say somewhere around Crater Lake?)
So it came down to either a fight for the mountains (where the gold hadn't been discovered yet) or more coastal and farmland. It was a fairly easy decision. Also, Pah-Ute county split among TTL's Southern Californian state and Arizona, with Arizona going a bit further north to have more of the Colorado River.
TL;DR, basically OTL southern Nevada is part of one of the Californian states and Arizona, with the Northern Californian state (i.e. mega-State of Jefferson [maybe the state named after Benedict Arnold?]), going a bit further north. And the more I think about it, three Californias, while cool sounding, seems a bit too complicated, and given you're obvious love of the place two sounds a much better solution. Not trying for a California-screw, trust me, just trying to have different state borders in the West. Too many TL's keep them the same.
Edit: Did we ever talk about Baja California? I know its a minor-cliche to give it to the US but I'm all for it. Maybe the border is further south so the US has access to the Gulf of California/Sea of Cortez?
OOC: Sounds good. Maybe the 3 all like the each, so when one does it, the other 2 does it.
I personally hate to say this but I don't think the British Empire could have held Canda even if the US hadn't gotten it. The Quebecese had been too riled up by American actions and the US could have always sent agitators into British Canada afterwards anyway (and I wouldn't put it past the US).
Also I think the loyalists would have wanted to resettle there either. If the zeal they took to resettling in England, Australia and the Cape Dominion are any indicators anyway.
That's a good question actually. How could the British Empire have held onto Canada if the US didn't get it? Not to cause any offense but the British Empire wasn't the nicest to Catholics back then. Granted most countries had their own religious tensions and it the norm back then so applying modern judgements to them isn't quite fair. With the Jacobite rebellions I can see how the British were distrusting of Catholics. But even if they held onto Canada would it be for long? Assume the US isn't up for another war right after the Revolution and thus avoids stirring up the Quebecois how long could the Canadiens be held down?
And if you butterfly the loyalists moving to Australia and the Cape Dominion and going to Canada instead would that butterfly their obtaining Dominion status? That population influx was a major turning point in those areas histories. Especially as those Dominions in later generations sent lots of troops to help the UK during the various wars that the Empire fought.
OOC: Hope nobody minds the double post, but I wanted to respond to those posts separately.
Edit: Historyman ninja'd my doublepost. Thanks!
That's a good question actually. How could the British Empire have held onto Canada if the US didn't get it? Not to cause any offense but the British Empire wasn't the nicest to Catholics back then. Granted most countries had their own religious tensions and it the norm back then so applying modern judgements to them isn't quite fair. With the Jacobite rebellions I can see how the British were distrusting of Catholics. But even if they held onto Canada would it be for long? Assume the US isn't up for another war right after the Revolution and thus avoids stirring up the Quebecois how long could the Canadiens be held down?
And if you butterfly the loyalists moving to Australia and the Cape Dominion and going to Canada instead would that butterfly their obtaining Dominion status? That population influx was a major turning point in those areas histories. Especially as those Dominions in later generations sent lots of troops to help the UK during the various wars that the Empire fought.
OOC: Hope nobody minds the double post, but I wanted to respond to those posts separately.
Edit: Historyman ninja'd my doublepost. Thanks!
Yes, the UK trying to hold down Quebecois would make a good TL.