Hello everyone!
I've had an idea in my mind for some time now. I want to write a medium sized story. And in my vision, the story will be set in 1960s North West America, primarily in New Alki (Seattle), capital city of Autonomous Region of Washington, which is a part of Republic of Oregon, which is a part of the Pacific Federation / Union of Pacific Republics (ALL NAMES ARE IN PROGRESS, if you think that something sounds better, tell me). The story is about a man, who gets involved in leftist party, which later begins socialistic revolution and in the end of the story proclaims People's Republic of Cascadia-1.


I wanted to discuss likelihood of this scenario with people, who know history of the USA and ideally live in the north east. Firstly, I would like to present you my Alternative timeline, main part of which is yet to be written. Also I'd probably like not to change the world TOO dramatically, as I still want WW1, WW2, Cold War(between UK and USSR) to take place, (USA, UK, France, Germany and USSR - all of them to exist in slightly different form) --- IF YOU FIND IT UNREALISTIC, TELL ME. I am here to discuss after all)


So Pacific Federation consists of Republic of Alaska (includes Autonomous Region of Yukon ), Rep. of North Columbia, Rep. of Oregon (includes A.R. of Washington, A.R. of Idaho ), Rep. of California (includes A.R. of South California -peninsula-), Rep. of Utah (includes A.R. of Nevada), Rep of Arizona-- some territories are AR's because at the moment of creation of Pacific republic they were pats of States/Territories which are now Republics.


So. Finally.
The timeline differs from ours in 1845, when in Oregon Country (joint American and British control over modern Columbia, Washington, Idaho and Oregon) George Albernethy (pro unionist) loses elections to Osborne Russel (Pacific Republicanist), who become Provisional Governor and begin shaping common north east American-British identity, creating some common self governance institutions. This doesn’t allow UK and USA to divide county so easily in 1846 due to that opposition instead it is just series of harsher American talks with British, which doesn’t lead to final partition and only solves minor problems. Opposition is getting in the way of achieving compromise, manipulating sides. Therefore, tensions between US and UK are escalating, lowering the chance of successful negotiations.

in 1847-1861 tensions between British, American administrations and Independence supporters are rising. After the Divide of Democratic party, Party of Pacific democrats is registered in Oregon Country, organizing independence movement. In late 50s party has many supporters and begin advocating for Autonomy referendum.

when CSA leaves USA in 1861, nearly all American troops leave Oregon and go South, Big part of British forces leave to reinforce border with USA. in March now nearly free from occupation Pacific democrats propose emergency referendum. By the result and becomes Republic of Columbia-Oregon. USA doesn’t go further than sending threats due to the southern threat, Britain threatens to invade, so RCO has to give them access of free passage to the ports.
In California conspiracy of Pacific Republic escalates (Independent movement has been growing more active than IRL due to example of North) (Conspiracy existed in our world - commander of Pacific Military Region General Johnston-he then fought for CSA, Governor of California John G. Downey and Democratic majority Congress, Copperheads were a part of it). LA mountain Rifles (existed IRL) is formed and approach East. Federal government fears that RCO and California will join CSA and decide to strike preemptively. on April 12 USA invade Port Royal, starting American civil war –( it is just symbolic, I would love you to come up with more realistic kind of us first attack). California leaves us , officially due to the fact of aggression. RCO and California begin diplomatic relationships and start discuss Pacific Republic Unification Plan. mountain Rifles and then newly- formed regular army is ready to defend borders of California, after series of proposals and secret talks Territory of UTA. including Nevada decides to join California in order not to become a battleground of USA and CSA. For the same reason Arizona leaves New Mexico and decides to join California. Democratic Alliance of West America is created – (event and name are open to discussion). The idea of Pacific republic Becomes Idea of Union of Pacific Republics - Pacific Federation, which is created in 1862, by the governments of California and RCO after referendum, is neutral in Civil war. In 1865 it helps Liberals in Mexican Civil war and insist on independence of Californian peninsula(later absorbing it) (sounds not very realistic, probably will it cut out). Civil war itself goes until 1867 due to absence of Californian resources. Therefore in 1867 Russia sell Alaska to Pacific Federation. USA has won but is left in ruins and total economic and diplomatic isolation, probably never becoming anything more than regional power.

So here we are, 100 more years to go. my goal is not to get too deeply into the events, but to continue logical timeline.
In my mind, Britain takes USA's place in terms of power and economy. World is much more imperialistic and isn’t decolonized at all by 1960. North America is more similar to south America and isn’t very strong or stable. PF may even be more democratic than USA. The history of slavery is also unknown as USA has no recourses to deal with it too fast. United Kingdom and USSR are in Cold war, dividing the world in communism and capitalism. USSR gets deeply involved in supporting leftists in Pacific Federation in order to create communist state in north America, just by Canadian and US borders.

So the chain of events has to lead to a socialist revolt is Oregon.
Do you find it possible ?
What would you change ?
How in your opinion history would unfold until 1960 ?
Do you feel like 1960 at all ? maybe unrest would happen earlier or later ?


And the main reason of the post.
If you are north east American or if you know this region, try to imagine and describe me Every day live, culture (also media), economics. politics and social life of life in Washington in Pacific Federation of 1960s. And especially which troubles may spark left uprising.


Whew
Sorry for horribly long text.
Thanks in advance, I would be grateful for your perspective on this subject as an American. I am personally Russian so it may be hard for me to imagine everyday life in that society (ah also sorry for grammar or other mistakes/ English isn’t my first language and I write it late at night)

Заранее большое спасибо !)
 
Last edited:
Good evening (I live in UTC +3)
I've had an idea in my mind for some time now. I want to write a medium sized story. And in my vision, the story will be set in 1960s North West America, primarily in New Alki (Seattle), capital city of Autonomous Region of Washington, which is a part of Republic of Oregon, which is a part of the Pacific Federation / Union of Pacific Republics (ALL NAMES ARE IN PROGRESS(-1), if you think that smth sounds better, tell me). The story is man, who gets involned in leftist party, which later begins socialistic revolution and in the end of the stoty proclaims People's Republic of Cascadia-1.
I wanted to discuss likelyhood of this scenario with people, who know histoty of the Usa and ideally live in the north east. Firstly I would like to present you my Alternative timeline, main part of which is yet to be written. Also I'd probably like not to change the world TOO dramatically, as I still want WW1, WW2, Cold War to take place, (USA , UK, Fance, Germany and USSR - all of them to exist in slightly different form) --- IF YOU FIND IT UNREALISTIC, TELL ME. I am here to discuss after all)
So Pacific Federation consists of Republic of Alaska (includes Autonomous Region of Yukon ), Rep. of North Columbia, Rep. of Oegon (includes A.R. of Washington, A.R. of Idaho ), Rep. of California (includes A.R. of South California -peninsula-), Rep. of Utan (includes A.R. of Nevada), Rep of Arisona-- some territories are AR's because at the moment of creation of Pacific repunlik they were pats of States/Territories which are now Republics.
So.Finally.
The timeline differs from ours in 1845, when in Oregon Country (joint American and British control over modern Columbia, Washington, Idaho and Oregon) George Albernethy (pro unionist) loses elections to Osborne Russel (Pacific Republicanist), who become Provisional Governor and begin boosting independence ideas and widen structures of self-governance. These leads to inability of Britain anf Usa to divide these territories by Oregon treaty(in RL -1846), so after two years of debates, Oregon treaty of 1847 creates Autonomous Country of Columbia-Oregon under joint British-American Administration with an agreement that every 10 years a referendum must be held with options to join Britain/USA/Become independed/Remaim status Quo -- I WOULD LIKE to listen to your ideas - basically i neeed to logically keep Status QUO until 1861.
in 1847-1861 tentions between British,American administrations and Independence supporters rise. After Divide of Democratic party, Party of Pacific democrates is registered in ACCO, organising independence mowement. when CSA leaves USA, nearly all american troops leave ACCO and go South, Big part of British forces leave to reinforse border with USA. in March ACCO emergency referendum and becomes Republic of Columbia-Oregon. USA is quiet due to the southern threat, Britain threatens to invade, so RCO has to give them acces of free passage to the ports.
In California conspiracy of Pacific Republic escalates (Independent movement has been growing more active than IRL due to example of North) (Conspiracy existed in our world - commander of Pacific Military Region General Johnston-he then fought for CSA, Governor of California John G. Downey and Democratic majority Congress, Copperheads were a part of it). LA Mountin Rifles (existen IRL) is formed and approach East. Federal government fears that RCO and California will join CSA and dicide to strike preemptively. on april 12 USA invade Port Royal, starting American civil war -- IT IS JUST SYMBOLIC, i would love you to come up with more realisic kind of US First attack. not to overwrite. California leaves us , officially due to the fact of aggression. RCO and California begin diplomatic relationships and start discuss Pacific Republic Unification Plan. Mountin Rifles and then newly- formed regular army is ready to defend borders of california, after series of proposals and secret talks Territory of UTA. including Nevada decides to join California in order not to become a battlrground of USA and CSA. For the same reason Arisona leaves New Mexico and decides to join California. Democratic Alliance of West America - bad name i know 1. is created. The idea of Pacific epublic Becomes Idea of Union of Pacific Republics - Pacific Federation, which is created in 1862. It is neutral in Civil war. In 1865 it helps Liberals in Mexican Civil war and insist on independence of Californian peninsula(later absorbing it) Civil war itself goes until 1867 due to abcene of californian resourses.Therefore in 1847 Russia sell Alaska to Pacific Federation. Usa has won but is left in ruins and total economicand diplomatic isilation, probably never becoming anithing more than regional power.

So here we are, 100 more years to go. my goal is not to get too deeply into the events, but to continue logical timeline.
In my mind, Britain takes USA's place in erms of power and economy. World is much more imperialistic and isnt decolonised at all by 1960. North america is more similar to south America and isnt very strong or stable. PF may even be more democratic than USA. The history of slaveruy is also unknown as USA has no recourses.

So the chain of events has to lead to a socialist revolt is Oregon.

Do you find it possible ?
What would you change ?
How in your opinion history would unfold until 1960 ?

Do you feel like 1960 at all ? maybe unrest would happen earlier or latter ?

And the main reason of the post.
If you are north east american or if you know this region, try to imagine and descibe me Everyday live, culture (also media), economics. politics and social life of life in Washington in Pacific Federation. And especially which troubles may spark left uprising


Whew Sorry for horribly long text.
Thanks in advance, I would be greatiful for your perspective on this subject as an american. I am personally russian so it may be hard for me to imagine everyday life in that society (ah also sorry for grammar or other mistakes/ english isnt mu first language anfd i write it late at night)

Also tell me if i sould post it on main Thread (i think this is test/im new here)

Заранее большое спасибо !)
I live on Vancouver Island and the PNW is somewhat of a strength for me. I know I'm not the only person on the site from the region.

There are some aspects of your TL which I find more plausible than others, but I'm not going to say its unrealistic without fleshing out some of these ideas more.

The American-British join occupation period was marked more by intensive competition than by cooperation; so I find the PoD unlikely to result in the British and American sharing the area.

By the mid 1840s the Americans arriving on the Oregon trail had swamped the few British settlers, and once the Yanks started hammering Mexico, the British kind of realized that the region was a lost cause. This is why they pulled back to the 49th parallel and moved their HQ to Fort Camosun (now Victoria, where I live!).

It doesn't meant it's impossible, however.

What's your plan for Alaska? I think that could be crucial here.

And welcome to the forum!
 
I live on Vancouver Island and the PNW is somewhat of a strength for me. I know I'm not the only person on the site from the region.

There are some aspects of your TL which I find more plausible than others, but I'm not going to say its unrealistic without fleshing out some of these ideas more.

The American-British join occupation period was marked more by intensive competition than by cooperation; so I find the PoD unlikely to result in the British and American sharing the area.

By the mid 1840s the Americans arriving on the Oregon trail had swamped the few British settlers, and once the Yanks started hammering Mexico, the British kind of realized that the region was a lost cause. This is why they pulled back to the 49th parallel and moved their HQ to Fort Camosun (now Victoria, where I live!).

It doesn't meant it's impossible, however.

What's your plan for Alaska? I think that could be crucial here.

And welcome to the forum!

okay so therefore what if Osborne manage to begin shaping common north east american-british identity, creating some common self governance institutions. This doesnt allow sides to divide county so easily due to that opposition , referendumes arent proposed, and it is just series of harsher american talks with british, which doest lead to final partition, as exrteme claims of both sides are insisted on, due to somewhat growing sence of common nature and unity among colonists( thanks to Russel ). Opposition is getting in the way of achieving compromise, probably even manipulating sides. Therefore tentiones between US and UK are escalating, lowering the chance of successfull negotiations.

Speaking of Alaska, its purchase is objectively inevitable due to the state of russian economy. Therefore the question is to whom it wil be sold . Its not Brits or French because of rivaliry between russia and them. Spanish Empire is dead, mexico is too poor. Usa is (in my opinion is probably) still at civil war by 1867, therefore Pacific State is the only Rich enough entity, geopolitically interested in Alaska. btw can Pacific Federation become russia's important trade partner.

Actually now i doubt how realistic Pacific intervention in Mexican civil war of 1865 is.

What is in your opinion crucial about Alaska ? The fact that combined with Californian Gold, its Oil will make Pacific State incredibly wealhy ? Though what resourses are most common in that region ? Will Pacific Federation be able to industrialize without much import ?
 
Last edited:
What would they do with the Chinese? Considering the small population of the area and given the Pacific Federation would be their own state, I could see a lot more paranoia about the Chinese than even OTL. It still won't stop Chinese immigration entirely but they'd spend a lot more time enforcing their equivalent of the Chinese Exclusion Act. This would mean a smaller population and economy than OTL.
For the same reason Arizona leaves New Mexico and decides to join California
I doubt the CSA would let their territory go free like that, not without some sort of compensation.
Civil war itself goes until 1867 due to absence of Californian resources. Therefore in 1867 Russia sell Alaska to Pacific Federation. USA has won but is left in ruins and total economic and diplomatic isolation, probably never becoming anything more than regional power.
That's not really a realistic way to extend the Civil War since even with California/Oregon's resources and soldiers I do not believe it amounted to particularly much in the grand scheme of things when the war was always going to be won or lost in the East. Worst case scenario is the CSA holds out for independence by 1864/1865 (scenario 1), or holds on a little longer than OTL and surrenders 1866 (scenario 2).

Scenario 1 (CSA victory) is more damaging long-term to the US since there's less resources (no Texas oil, less coal and iron from Appalachia, etc.) and less manpower and geopolitically there's basically no chance of the US having a Pacific port. Scenario 2 is better for the US since even if there's more bodies and more destroyed towns and possibly a more rebellious South after the war, the damage can be healed and the South can be a productive part of the US as it was in the "New South" era. A Pacific port can be regained through a war with Mexico to go take Sonora and Guaymas.

Either way though, this still leaves the US with a substantial population and doesn't change the fact that almost all the industrial areas are in the North and Midwest. Some Americans will still immigrate to the West Coast but the fact there's an international border would likely reduce migration. Even a CSA with maximum claims (highly unlikely) would still leave the US with a population higher than any great power besides Russia (outside of colonial empires) and massive industrial capacity and unlike OTL, a much more militarised footing since they have not one, but two major competitors on their border. More military development would likely reduce overall GDP but it means the US Army becomes a sizable, modern force and not the mess it was in the early 20th century and the US Navy likely gets plenty of cruisers (unlike OTL) to counter the surface raiders the CSA (and perhaps Pacific Federation) would employ. This means the US will still easily count itself as one of the great powers of the world even with a slightly lesser resource base (i.e. no California oil, gold, iron, copper, etc).

It also means the US is less isolationist, since both the Pacific Federation and CSA especially will actively seek foreign aid and investment. Both sides will take an interest in Latin America, another place the US also has plenty of interests in. The US in your TL can much less afford to be isolationist in regards to Europe.
North America is more similar to south America and isn’t very strong or stable.
How? The US is still a wealthy industrial democracy even with a longer Civil War. And it's likely that although an independent CSA would resemble a typical South American country in terms of economy and stability, it would more resemble Brazil than, say, Bolivia.
PF may even be more democratic than USA. The history of slavery is also unknown as USA has no recourses to deal with it too fast.
I don't know about "more democratic", it would have similar political culture to the US so you'd have your blatant election fraud and machine politics as was the norm. Plus similar racial views which means open discrimination against non-whites and every excuse being used to prevent them from voting.

The US has every reason to deal with slavery as a means of punishing the South after the war. If the US is looking terrible in 1867, then the South is looking even worse and in little position to resist with a substantial amount of their own population not giving a damn if the US takes away the slaves from the rich landowners who kept the war going for so long.
Speaking of Alaska, its purchase is objectively inevitable due to the state of russian economy. Therefore the question is to whom it wil be sold . Its not Brits or French because of rivaliry between russia and them. Spanish Empire is dead, mexico is too poor. Usa is (in my opinion is probably) still at civil war by 1867, therefore Pacific State is the only Rich enough entity, geopolitically interested in Alaska. btw can Pacific Federation become russia's important trade partner.
It's probably still plausible to have them sell to Britain or France, or simply not sell Alaska to begin with (or perhaps sell later down the line). In 1867 the Pacific Federation would need to be on full alert against the United States (since if the CSA is smashed, why shouldn't they be next) and thus on full military economy and churning out plenty of supplies and weapons for the soldiers, and probably building forts and warships as well. It's difficult to think of a relatively expensive purchase like Alaska when national survival is at stake and looking pretty dire given the disparities of population and resources between the two countries. There's also the matter of Indian Wars to attend to since most of Washington and all of the interior (Nevada, Idaho, etc.) hadn't been conquered yet.
What is in your opinion crucial about Alaska ? The fact that combined with Californian Gold, its Oil will make Pacific State incredibly wealhy ? Though what resourses are most common in that region ? Will Pacific Federation be able to industrialize without much import ?
They could suffer the "resource curse", given the substantial amount of gold and silver not just in California, British Columbia, Nevada, eastern Oregon, Idaho, etc. and then as you mentioned the oil leading to over-reliance on that. The other major industries would be fishing, forestry, and agriculture, so it's very vulnerable to fluctuations in resource prices and issues like droughts. But I think the economy would be diversified enough to avoid the most serious issues with that and it would be akin to Canada or Australia. Australia is an especially good comparison since cattle ranching would be an important part of the economy alongside lots of mining and both nations would have similar backgrounds of Anglo heritage, subjugation of natives, and intense paranoia and distrust of Chinese immigrants.

They'd export a lot of raw materials to Japan as Japan opens up and industrialises and there would be a real concern that they'd be Japan's economic satellite. However, both the British and the Americans would also be good trading partners so they'd certainly have alternatives.

Russia might not be able to do much with them given the limited population and poor transportation in Siberia, plus the fact the Russians already have every single one of those resources in their territory.
 
I cannot see the USA allowing an independent west coast anymore than they were willing to allowing the southern states to become independent.
The population of the west coast was too small in those days to stand any chance of winning or maintaining independence.
Following the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (February 2, 1848) that ended the war, the westernmost portion of the annexed Mexican territory of Alta California soon became the American state of California, and the remainder of the old territory was then subdivided into the new American Territories of Arizona, Nevada, Colorado and Utah. The even more lightly populated and arid lower region of old Baja California remained as a part of Mexico. In 1846, the total settler population of the western part of the old Alta California had been estimated to be no more than 8,000, plus about 100,000 Native Americans, down from about 300,000 before Hispanic settlement in 1769.[70] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California#California_Republic_and_conquest

There are high schools with more Americans than the number of Americans in California at the time.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the reply!

What would they do with the Chinese? Considering the small population of the area and given the Pacific Federation would be their own state, I could see a lot more paranoia about the Chinese than even OTL. It still won't stop Chinese immigration entirely but they'd spend a lot more time enforcing their equivalent of the Chinese Exclusion Act. This would mean a smaller population and economy than OTL.

As you mentioned, the population of the West was too small to oppose natives and USA so they would probably be forced by these circumstances to come to terms with Chinese immigration and even encourage it. They will probably have to extend their rights in order to be able to conscript them. Probability of the invasion leave them no other chance. I would imagine that it can create racial tensions, just like with black population, and backfire in the future. This might help the economy, but I suppose international border in Rocky Mountains means no "Railway Rush" (is it called like that?) so less transport connections, therefore less economic growth. However closer connections with Canada might be created.

I doubt the CSA would let their territory go free like that, not without some sort of compensation.

I believe you propose that in that scenario CSA has a chance of signing Peace with US, of course giving up some of its territory (scenario 1). And also, you said that in the long-term USA would come to the PF after dealing with CSA. Therefore, an only option for survival of both countries (PF and CSA) might be some form of mutual defense treaty or short-term alliance of some sort against USA (CSA might give Arizona to PF for an alliance). This doesn’t mean actual "Three-way civil war". It might just be an instrument to force USA to sign peace treaty (PF and CSA surely will have to give up some territory). As I also mentioned in this TL tensions between UK and USA is much higher, and as USA attacked first, Britain might back up PF and CSA and pressure US to sign peace. I believe in OTL France and Britain somewhat were more supportive of CSA, so in this TL they can (It’s just an option) impose sanctions on US and in some way prefer trade with CSA and PF. This doesn’t mean that Us won’t conquer CSA in some decades, either economically or militarily (I thought it might be done by some analog of Zimmerman Telegram send to CSA in WWI). But after some defense preparations by PF I think an offensive through Rocky Mountains might be too bloody and difficult. And it might just be military standoff, which will continue in Cold War.

That's not really a realistic way to extend the Civil War since even with California/Oregon's resources and soldiers I do not believe it amounted to particularly much in the grand scheme of things when the war was always going to be won or lost in the East. Worst case scenario is the CSA holds out for independence by 1864/1865 (scenario 1), or holds on a little longer than OTL and surrenders 1866 (scenario 2).

Scenario 1 (CSA victory) is more damaging long-term to the US since there's less resources (no Texas oil, less coal and iron from Appalachia, etc.) and less manpower and geopolitically there's basically no chance of the US having a Pacific port

So, it is possible that due to military pressure from all sides except for east, USA has to officially end War after a few years of fighting. Later USA, PF and CSA are of course not isolationist and "fight" for international trade and support. All of them are spreading their influence in South America, starting with Second Franco-Mexican War. All these countries are more militaristic, but USA has the greatest army and economy

How? The US is still a wealthy industrial democracy even with a longer Civil War. And it's likely that although an independent CSA would resemble a typical South American country in terms of economy and stability, it would more resemble Brazil than, say, Bolivia.

I meant that the continent is more politically divided, less stable, counties are more hostile to each other, and economically and politically less powerful than in OTL. North America can become ideological playground, like south America in OTL.

I don't know about "more democratic", it would have similar political culture to the US so you'd have your blatant election fraud and machine politics as was the norm. Plus similar racial views which means open discrimination against non-whites and every excuse being used to prevent them from voting.

The US has every reason to deal with slavery as a means of punishing the South after the war. If the US is looking terrible in 1867, then the South is looking even worse and in little position to resist with a substantial amount of their own population not giving a damn if the US takes away the slaves from the rich landowners who kept the war going for so long.

Probably PF will have to become more democratic in order to boost its population by Chinese immigrants or by immigration from USA or especially CSA (I am not sure that black population of CSA can find refuge in CSA but it’s one of possibilities). Also, in that scenario USA will easily deal with slavery on territory it gained from CSA as it isn’t as huge as in OTL.

It's probably still plausible to have them sell to Britain or France, or simply not sell Alaska to begin with (or perhaps sell later down the line). In 1867 the Pacific Federation would need to be on full alert against the United States (since if the CSA is smashed, why shouldn't they be next) and thus on full military economy and churning out plenty of supplies and weapons for the soldiers, and probably building forts and warships as well. It's difficult to think of a relatively expensive purchase like Alaska when national survival is at stake and looking pretty dire given the disparities of population and resources between the two countries. There's also the matter of Indian Wars to attend to since most of Washington and all of the interior (Nevada, Idaho, etc.) hadn't been conquered yet.

I suppose you are right about PF need to focus on continental military affairs and move to construct defenses in Rocky Mountains, but I still believe that Russia won’t sell Alaska to France or Britain as its less than a decade after Crimean War. However yes, later purchase is possible. Probably PF can build up its economy by that time. And I can see no reason for USA to buy Alaska as it will not have any kind of connection with it and Panama Canal is very hardly imaginable in that TL, at least as early as in OTL.

I believe other paragraphs include above-written.

Your points are very interesting! Please give your feedback, You are helping me a lot!
 
I cannot see the USA allowing an independent west coast anymore than they were willing to allowing the southern states to become independent.
The population of the west coast was too small in those days to stand any chance of winning or maintaining independence.


There are high schools with more Americans than the number of Americans in California at the time.

So do you think that only chance of PF survival till 1960 is initial (maybe even temporary) survival of CSA ?
 
So do you think that only chance of PF survival till 1960 is initial (maybe even temporary) survival of CSA ?
To survive they would need a much larger population and a railroad connection to the east coast to both CSA and USA.
Russia could send minority groups like jews and Germans etc there. That would give them a good-sized population to start with.
They would need the protection of a large empire from outside and the US to abandon the idea of manifest destiny.
A socialist economy based on farming and mining means they could end up like Argentina and Chile combined.
A boom and bust economy based on commodity prices for food and mined resources.
Add into that earthquakes, wild fires,droughts and mudslides.
I cannot see it getting as far as 1910.
 
Last edited:
To survive they would need a much larger population and a railroad connection to the east coast to both CSA and USA.
Russia could send minority groups like jews and Germans etc there. That would give them a good-sized population to start with.
They would need the protection of a large empire from outside and the US to abandon the idea of manifest destiny.
A socialist economy based on farming and mining means they could end up like Argentina and Chile combined.
A boom and bust economy based on commodity prices for food and mined resources.
Add into that earthquakes, wild fires,droughts and mudslides.
I cannot see it getting as far as 1910.

You can read my reply to Metalinvader, written above. Some of issues you mentioned are discussed there.

As I said there, Pacific Federation government will have to tolerate and even encourage immigration of Chinese and probably Mexicans to the country. Also, Black population from CSA might want to find refuge there. This will undoubtedly raise racial tensions among population, but it is the only option of survival. Mexican Civil war may cause huge flow of refugees. Also contact of PF and Mexican governments is possible, where PF allows more rights for Mexican work immigrants in exchange of closer ties and( as an option) Californian peninsula. Close relationships with Britain might be established due to British settlers living there and also possibility of giving the Brits access to Pacific Ports. After some time, as you mentioned, deal with Russia might be achieved. In exchange for Alaska PF will have to allowing Russian companies and immigrants (including minorities you mentioned) to move and operate freely in PF. However, I suppose that all the immigrants won’t be given All the rights, which might lead to a conflict in the future.

Railroad connection will probably be established further, around 80s, after post war tensions ease a little bit.

They might be backed up by Britain, which will try to slower American economy.

After damage of the civil war is dealt with, US, CSA and PF can begin their own «Cold war» and scramble for South America, US will definitely come out on top, while in the rest of the world Britain basically takes US's place. After CSA is (for example) annexed in WWI, US can turn its eye towards PF. After USA take advantage of WWII in Europe, its might is much more significant and it starts to destabilize PF, being on the breach of war with it in 1960.
 
As you mentioned, the population of the West was too small to oppose natives and USA so they would probably be forced by these circumstances to come to terms with Chinese immigration and even encourage it. They will probably have to extend their rights in order to be able to conscript them. Probability of the invasion leave them no other chance. I would imagine that it can create racial tensions, just like with black population, and backfire in the future. This might help the economy, but I suppose international border in Rocky Mountains means no "Railway Rush" (is it called like that?) so less transport connections, therefore less economic growth. However closer connections with Canada might be created.
Canada has an even more empty midsection, and not having Vancouver would slow down the settlement of the Prairies. I'd think they'd still want the route to San Francisco since that's the largest and most important city on the West Coast. A connection to Canada would be useful to avoid too much dependence on the US and very reliant on Canadian political fears of losing the Prairies to the US if they don't build a railroad (OTL many of the settlers were Americans or otherwise people who were feared to have no loyalty to Canada/the British Empire).

As for conscripting the Chinese, I doubt it, for the same reason the CSA hated the idea of conscripting free blacks, let alone slaves. To the people in charge of the Western states, the Chinese held no loyalty to their country. It would undermine the racial hierarchy established to give them weapons and combat training, although they'd certainly use the Chinese in support positions.
I believe you propose that in that scenario CSA has a chance of signing Peace with US, of course giving up some of its territory (scenario 1). And also, you said that in the long-term USA would come to the PF after dealing with CSA. Therefore, an only option for survival of both countries (PF and CSA) might be some form of mutual defense treaty or short-term alliance of some sort against USA (CSA might give Arizona to PF for an alliance). This doesn’t mean actual "Three-way civil war". It might just be an instrument to force USA to sign peace treaty (PF and CSA surely will have to give up some territory). As I also mentioned in this TL tensions between UK and USA is much higher, and as USA attacked first, Britain might back up PF and CSA and pressure US to sign peace. I believe in OTL France and Britain somewhat were more supportive of CSA, so in this TL they can (It’s just an option) impose sanctions on US and in some way prefer trade with CSA and PF. This doesn’t mean that Us won’t conquer CSA in some decades, either economically or militarily (I thought it might be done by some analog of Zimmerman Telegram send to CSA in WWI).
Probably. If the CSA fights hard enough and foreign powers pressure the US enough then the CSA could get away with peace. They'd lose their claims to the border states and West Virginia guaranteed but could survive. I don't think the CSA would have to give anything away to get an alliance since both they and your Pacific Federation would be in desperate need of allies.

But after some defense preparations by PF I think an offensive through Rocky Mountains might be too bloody and difficult. And it might just be military standoff, which will continue in Cold War.
It's not just the Rockies, the US actually has a decent navy and could divert some ships from the blockade against the South to the Pacific (plus what already was there). I don't believe there would be much besides San Francisco, San Diego, and the Columbia River to blockade or land soldiers at, and in fact the Union would want to do this since San Diego would be a crucial port for importing things to the Confederacy (which OTL was a goal of the New Mexico Campaign). It would be a challenging fight for the US but given 2-3 years they could probably break through on both land and sea IF they actually embarked on that campaign. So you'd need to make it so they don't actually fight meaning a likely combination of seriously bad luck, human stupidity, and foreign intervention.
I meant that the continent is more politically divided, less stable, counties are more hostile to each other, and economically and politically less powerful than in OTL. North America can become ideological playground, like south America in OTL.
True, but by 1910 or so the United States will be very close to the entire British Empire in GDP (I don't have the stats with me for the South's GDP or Western states but they were peripheries) and have a larger army and navy than OTL meaning quite a bit of political power.
Probably PF will have to become more democratic in order to boost its population by Chinese immigrants or by immigration from USA or especially CSA (I am not sure that black population of CSA can find refuge in CSA but it’s one of possibilities). Also, in that scenario USA will easily deal with slavery on territory it gained from CSA as it isn’t as huge as in OTL.
Almost certainly not since Oregon at one point legally banned anyone of African descent from settling there which was overturned only by the 14th amendment, which in practice didn't matter since the law was defacto enforced anyway for many decades. The law that decreed that was not repealed until the early 20th century. Many cities and towns in California and Washington also defacto enforced similar laws as sundown towns (although this was common in many parts of the US). Plus why hurt relations with a good ally by not respecting their fugitive slave laws/comparable law they would pass when they abolish slavery (that is, more or less rename it to something else).

Besides, why take the time to flee across the harsh desert when right to the north is a country that would likely not mind accepting escaped slaves (so long as they know their place) to weaken the CSA?


I cannot see the USA allowing an independent west coast anymore than they were willing to allowing the southern states to become independent.
The population of the west coast was too small in those days to stand any chance of winning or maintaining independence.


There are high schools with more Americans than the number of Americans in California at the time.

In 1860 the US Census records the population of California, Oregon, and Washington as about 444,000 people (of which California makes up almost 85% of) which is slightly more than Arkansas or a bit over 1/4 that of Virginia's non-slave population. Very bad odds but at least there's a lot of distance and rough terrain if we assume the Pacific states wish to revolt (and probably have foreign aid already lined up).
 
Some fugitives slaves from the south COULD settle in British Columbia, however...some were welcomed in the 1850s (and after the defeat of the south and the abolition of slavery in the USA there was a reverse in the trend of the Underground Railroad as many former slaves returned...)

Governor Douglas of VI & BC himself was mixed race. A surviving CSA means a surviving underground railroad.
 
Probably. If the CSA fights hard enough and foreign powers pressure the US enough then the CSA could get away with peace. They'd lose their claims to the border states and West Virginia guaranteed but could survive. I don't think the CSA would have to give anything away to get an alliance since both they and your Pacific Federation would be in desperate need of allies.
So therefore, at the beginning of 1862 CSA is still winning. At the start of New Mexican Campaign, they need more military force in that area. PF agrees to create an alliance in exchange for Arizona (the land was anyway disconnected from CSA, militarily threatened by US and not that economically useful). Abolition of slavery isn’t a thing yet so in the eyes of Britain and France USA is an aggressor, standing in the way of cotton shipments. Therefore, now USA is surrounded by all sides, in diplomatic isolation. I suppose in early 1862 they will have to sign peace. I attached presumable 1862 treaty border, correct, if needed.
Canada has an even more empty midsection, and not having Vancouver would slow down the settlement of the Prairies. I'd think they'd still want the route to San Francisco since that's the largest and most important city on the West Coast. A connection to Canada would be useful to avoid too much dependence on the US and very reliant on Canadian political fears of losing the Prairies to the US if they don't build a railroad (OTL many of the settlers were Americans or otherwise people who were feared to have no loyalty to Canada/the British Empire).

As for conscripting the Chinese, I doubt it, for the same reason the CSA hated the idea of conscripting free blacks, let alone slaves. To the people in charge of the Western states, the Chinese held no loyalty to their country. It would undermine the racial hierarchy established to give them weapons and combat training, although they'd certainly use the Chinese in support positions.
As for conscripting the Chinese, I doubt it, for the same reason the CSA hated the idea of conscripting free blacks, let alone slaves. To the people in charge of the Western states, the Chinese held no loyalty to their country. It would undermine the racial hierarchy established to give them weapons and combat training, although they'd certainly use the Chinese in support positions.

After peace, they can focus on international affairs. While spending significant part of budget on military presence in the east, PF can start treading with British Empire, constructing San Francisco-Ottawa railroad, showing its loyalty to Britain. It also heavily enforcing (especially Chinese) immigration, while not giving immigrants all the rights.

In 1863 CSA and PF join Anglo-Franco-Spanish invasion of Mexico. PF is seizing California peninsula and a part of Sonora. CSA inflicts heavy damage on Mexico, seizing its southern states and causing Imperial victory in that war. So, the remaining of the Mexico is French puppet, though breaking away soon due to republican tensions.

Therefore, obtaining Californian peninsula, PF gets even more Hispanic population, beginning to support their immigration too, though keeping an eye on them due to evolutionistic tendences.

In 1869 Alaska is sold to PF. PF has to allow Russian business and settlers. This marks the end of PF territorial expansion.

Until the 20th century CSA and USA is in Scramble for Central America and Caribbean, which USA is obviously leading in. USA still win war with Spain, but gets only Cuba. PF is slowly expanding into Pacific Ocean, but only economically. Therefore, Japan opens later and is generally weaker due to less money from America. By the beginning of WWI USA is the richest Western power. It gives loans to Entente and send some volunteers. Due to sympathy between CSA and Germany and (some analog of Zimmerman telegram USA Conquers CSA).

I struggle to think through WWII. I think that war in Europe might unfold the same, but there will either be no war at pacific at all, or it will be less escalated.

Then there will be a cold war with USSR, where Military powerhouse of the West is probably both Britain and US

What do you think of above-written and especially 1900-1960?
 

Attachments

  • изображение_2020-11-09_173048.png
    изображение_2020-11-09_173048.png
    282.9 KB · Views: 25
Top