different Nations of North America

This is a partial timeline around which I'm considering a story. Any thoughts would be appreciated.

The Foundations of the Nations of North America: the first 100 years - 1776 to 1876

The beginning of the nations of North America is found in the Revolutionary War, which ended with the defeat of Cornwallis at Yorktown, and formed the basis of the countries now known as the Northern Union and Southern Compact.

Originally governed under what is now recognized as the seriously flawed Articles of Confederation, the Articles proved to be an unwieldy form of government for a nation that wished to expand, and they were soon replaced by the Constitution. However concern from the particularly the Southern states that a strong central government would impede the rights of the co-sovereign states, and a series of twelve amendments called the ‘Bill of Rights’ was drafted and approved that explicitly guaranteed and recognized the co-sovereignty of the states, implying, although not stating directly, that states had the right to form ‘compacts’ with other states within the union, and that it was possible for these ‘compacts’ to levy taxes and fees on constituent states.

The resolve of the nation to act was soon tested when in 1790 the newly formed government was challenged by settlers in Western Pennsylvania and Virginia in what came to be known as the Whiskey Rebellion. Although this rebellion ultimately failed, in the long run it was semi-successful, causing the recognition of the West as a force to be considered in national politics, and forcing the partition of Virginia due to conflicting interests within the state. This partition was favored by a number of other states because of the territorial claims once made by Virginia.

As a result, Virginia was divided into three pieces, Virginia, Western Virginia (called Monongahela), and the mostly German areas of Northern Virginia, which were joined to Maryland.

As a result of this partition, many of the Scotch-Irish settlers of Western PA relocated to Monongahela, leaving a majority German Population behind throughout Pennsylvania. In 1794, the state of Pennsylvania accepted German as an equal language to English, soon followed by Maryland.

The economy and size of the new nation grew quickly. In 1803, the Emperor Napoleon of France offered the Louisiana Territory to the US, an opportunity that Thomas Jefferson leapt at, purchasing the lands for a mere $15 million. Although the extent of the purchase was unknown, the decision was extremely popular everywhere but in the South where concerns began to be raised that the addition of more states would dilute their importance.

Further, as more German speaking immigrants arrived, it soon became evident that the new nation must accommodate these new groups, and anti-German xenophobia began to be raised in the areas of the South, particularly in the tidewater areas.


The Growing Divide
In 1812, British seizure of American shipping and impressments of sailors from American flagged ships caused a rift in the young nation. In the North, there was a desire to protect the merchant interests, while in the South there was a consensus to protect access to English markets. As a result, while a low level naval war was fought between the two nations, war was never declared.

In 1813, with the defeat of Napoleon at Waterloo, the conflict began to die down, but in the North, resentment of the British continued, largely due to commercial competition. Conversely, in the South Great Britain was seen as the ‘mother country’, and an ‘aristocracy’ of birth was considered important.

Because of growing concerns in the Southern States about the power of the Central government, a measure was forced through Congress which ‘divested’ the Federal Government of responsibility to train officers in the service. As a result, Southern militia officers were trained at various institutes throughout the South, while the Northern States, through use of a Northern Military Compact, continued the funding of the academies at both West Point and Annapolis.

Although historians trace the roots of the final break between the North and South to earlier causes, the final cause began in the disputed election of 1828, in which J. Q. Adams was finally elected due to Henry Clay, a westerner throwing his electoral votes to Adams, leaving the Southern choice for president, J.C. Calhoun, to take the Vice Presidency.

But the nation remained unsettled, a fact born out when a disgruntled southerner assassinated the newly elected Adams, who is replaced by J.C. Calhoun. Although the Constitutional succession was assured, Northern states were outraged by this action, claiming that the South had gained through assassination what they couldn’t get through the ballot box. Increasingly, the Northern and Southern States began to draw apart.

It was hoped that the election in 1830 of Henry Clay of Kentucky to the presidency, largely on the strength of northern and western states, would sooth these feelings, but it didn’t, and the Southern Compact was founded to look after the regional interests of the South within the Union.

Increasingly, western states looked to the Northern states for aid and defense, while the Southern Compact States grew more isolated. The Northern Military Compact instituted the policy of providing cadres of men and officers to assist the new territories in their expansion and defense against both native and foreign interference.

It was in this same year, 1830, that Andrew Jackson, the general famed for his actions bringing Florida into the Union, emigrated to the newly initiated Texas settlements, where he became active in local affairs. Because of his earlier military experience, ‘Old Hickory’, as he was called, founded and led a militia to defend the newer settlements.

These settlements were part of a Mexican effort to populate its northern areas by opening Texas up colonization by both Europeans and Americans, who responded by flooding in. It has been estimated that by 1832, almost 150 thousand settlers had settled in Texas from Europe and the Northern States, with additional settlers from the Western areas of the Southern Compact States.

The Establishment of the Southern Compact
The final break occurred in 1832, when the federal government in an attempt to protect and support industrial development instituted a series of tariffs on goods from over seas. England and France retaliated by levying tariffs on agricultural products from the South. Caught between high tariffs on their goods over seas, and increased costs for the items they were buying, nine Southern states of the ‘Southern Compact’ refused to enforce the federal laws, going so far as to arrest several officials sent to enforce the new tariffs

When it became clear that no compromise was possible between the Commercial interests of the North and the states of the Compact, the Compact states with support of Britain and France, left the Union on 1836.

Texas Independence
The Union was preparing for war with the South, when the War of Texas Independence started in 1836. England’s support for Mexico in the war resulted in the Union providing a great deal of aid to the Texans, while the Southern Compact States remained on the sidelines, largely sympathetic to British goals.

However, the widely publicized British involvement in several massacres of Texas settlers resulted in wide spread antipathy for the British, and as a result even the states of the Southern Compact resisted all efforts by the British to have the Compact come in on their side.

Late in 1837, in a series of secret negotiations, the Union agreed to recognize the independence of the Compact in exchange for the promise it would not assist the British. With its Southern flank secure, the Union was free to provide more assistance to the Texan struggle, but although progress on the ground was made, the involvement of England was hindering a final settlement in favor of the settlers.

Finally, in 1839, the forces of the US launched a surprise invasion of Canada, and decisively conquering it within a few weeks, capturing large numbers of troops. Over the next year, English forces were to land in several US states, even capturing New York City at one point, but no permanent seizure of any Northern land was possible, due to fierce resistance and the great distances.

It was in this war that the value of the Military Academies proved themselves, and Union forces, both land and naval, although significantly smaller than those of Great Britain were able to claim victory in a surprisingly large number of engagements against superior British forces. Perhaps the most significant engagement was a defeat of the combined Mexican – British forces by a Texas – Union army in 1839 on the site of a mission called the Alamo. With this defeat, General Santa Anna retreated back across the Rio Grande, into the Northern Mexican states followed closely by the Texas – Union Army where he was defeated in the Battle of Monterrey.

By 1840 all sides anxious to avoid a longer, wider war, the US entered into negotiations with Great Britain, and tendered Eastern Canada back in a face-saving offer to Great Britain, but keeping the Western lands, and guaranteeing Quebec Independence.

With the US able to now fully support the Texas War for Independence, Mexico was soon forced to sue for peace, recognizing Texas’ independence.

Unfortunately during the war Texans had come into possession of several states in Northern Mexico, and had no great inclination to return them for any reason. Mexico was rebuffed by its patron, Great Britain, which, was no more anxious to extend the conflict than the Union, restrained its now reluctant allies by supporting its claims in the south. Regardless of this, Great Britain made it clear that Texas was to remain a free and independent nation in its own right, and all nations finally agreed in the Treaty of New Orleans, signed in October of 1840.

It was with great pomp and ceremony that the now elderly Andrew Jackson was elected first President of the Texan Republic. Yet even today the stories of how illiterate Texans and farmers stomped into the inauguration wearing muddy boots and carrying pistols amazed the representatives of European Countries and established the reputation of Texas forever. There is a legend that the British Ambassador was challenged to three duels that day, one of which he kept, a fact that caused him to return to London long before his posting was due to end.

Tired of war, the Union turned once more to the business of building its industry, using the agricultural and mineral resources of Texas and the Southern Compact as a spring board for its development. It finally seemed that peace had come to area, and Europe turned its attention elsewhere.

The Founding of the California Republic
In 1842, gold was discovered in the northern coastal Mexican province of California, and once again these American countries were to capture the attention of Europe as tales of riches and wealth arrived. By 1845, the population of California had grown from little more than 45 thousand to over 500 thousand, as settlers arrived from around the world.

Soon a great rumbling was heard from California that it wanted its independence from Mexico. Mexico, not anxious to test the military of the North once again, granted independence to the California Republic in 1846 after a plebiscite established that the majority of citizen in fact wanted it, but once again Great Britain insisted the Country remain separate from the Union.

Interestingly, although some in California wanted to enter the Union, the Union, still trying to absorb the vast lands of Canada, wished to avoid any conflict with Great Britain, which had finally recognized the independence of Union shipping and was proving to be a good market. As a result, despite its great wealth, the California Republic found itself to be free and independent, largely because no one wanted it.

Between 1846 and 1850, California growth was explosive as settlers wrote to their respective homes and told of its great wealth and beauty. As more immigrants came, the demand for intercontinental transportation increased. Finally, in 1851 a railway was built through Nicaragua, Atlantic to Pacific. Ships docked, and immigrants made their way to California.

Arriving in California, these immigrants added to the wealth of cheap labor, and the wealth and ambitions of the country grew through exploitation of its mineral and forest resources.

California and Alaska
It was in this period, between 1845 and 1860 that the nations of North America, with the possible exception of the Southern Compact states, began to experience great growth. After several decades of unrest, the nations were anxious to grow, and grow they did, most spectacularly when California loaned the Russian Empire almost $30 million to provide it with funds to finance a railroad throughout Russia to be built with the assistance of German industrial interests.

Unfortunately, Russia had secured the loan with its Alaskan territories, and the war in the Crimea between Russia and a British – Turkish alliance, caused Russia to default on the loan in 1853. Although not anxious to own Alaska, California took over sovereignty and made several half hearted efforts to have the area settled, giving away free land and trade concessions. While these efforts largely failed, they did increase the population of the territory to about 100 thousand.

Slavery in North America to 1870
During the period 1840 on, slavery began to increasingly become a major moral issue throughout the continent. Texas, which had initially fallowed Mexican law, effectively never had slavery. Efforts to institute the practice were never successful, as both the Mexican and European citizens of the new nation turned it down. Further, these groups refused to return escaped slaves, raising tensions between Texas and the Southern Compact.

The problem can be seen by the phrase “Gone to Texas†used to describe the course an escaped slave would take.

There had been few slaves in the North outside of Maryland and Delaware, and as public revulsion of the practice grew, these few were emancipated. By 1852, for all intents and purposes, slavery no longer existed in the Union.

Like Texas, significant numbers of slaves never existed in California. It was amusing to note that several efforts to institute such practices on ranches failed when slaves merely stole horses and joined native tribes. As a result, slavery was never legalized in California.

The problem in the South was more complex. Although many recognized slavery as an immoral institution, the economic constraints necessitated by the agrarian economy made it difficult to oppose slavery. However, by 1850 the European markets to which the States of the Southern Compact sold their commodities were beginning to balk at the purchase of Southern goods because of the use of slavery. As a result, the Southern Compact states entered into a long and progressive period of decline characterized by increasing poverty of the small farmer.

It was at this time that Louisiana, with its more European – French perspective, petitioned the Texas Republic for entry. Texas agreed, but conditioned its agreement upon the emancipation of slaves, which was accomplished in 1861, and Louisiana was admitted to the Texas Republic.

The rest of the south, controlled as it was by tidewater aristocrats, continued to insist upon the necessity for slavery, even as the poor free farmer and small merchants increasingly suffered. Finally, in 1868, free farmers in the Compact, supplied by Union and Texas interests, began to actively resist the stranglehold the Tidewater held on the rest of the Compact.

Finally, in 1868, with Tennessee, along with portions of Alabama and Virginia, under the control of the free farmer rebels, and corresponding slave revolts happening throughout the rest of the South, the Compact, hamstrung by increasing economic pressures, capitulated. In a series of measures passed by vote of the Compact’s Congress, slaves were emancipated, greater representation and power was given to the free farmers, and the central government was provided the authority to enforce the measures.

Although several tidewater areas resisted the new laws, and several fierce battles between free slaves and local militias still took place on occasion, by 1875, except for the social vestiges, slavery ceased to be an economic force in the Compact, and the Compact reentered the greater community of nations.
 
Last edited:
Very interesting, but there are a couple of things that I'm curious about. Why is the pattern of support for a war against Britain in the early 19th century reversed? In OTL, the northeastern states tended to be opposed to war, even though it was their shipping that was being interfered with, because they knew that a war and British blockade would be much worse for trade than mere harassment. In contrast, the southern and western states tended to support war because they were less dependent on overseas commerce and were angry that the British were giving some support to Indians who were resisting US settlers along the frontier. Why the reversal here?

Also, why is Texas mainly settled by people from the northern states and Europeans here? Geographically it was closer to the southern states, and southerners were used to the hot, humid climate that was found in eastern Texas while northerners and Europeans were not.

Overall, though, it's a very interesting idea. I've seen a number of timelines (including a couple of my own) that create more independent nations in North America than the 3 of OTL, but I've never seen one that did it this way.
 
Paul Spring said:
Very interesting, but there are a couple of things that I'm curious about. Why is the pattern of support for a war against Britain in the early 19th century reversed? Why the reversal here?

Also, why is Texas mainly settled by people from the northern states and Europeans here? Geographically it was closer to the southern states, and southerners were used to the hot, humid climate that was found in eastern Texas while northerners and Europeans were not.

Overall, though, it's a very interesting idea. I've seen a number of timelines (including a couple of my own) that create more independent nations in North America than the 3 of OTL, but I've never seen one that did it this way.

I guess the short answer would be politics! In TTL, the more sucessful Whiskey Rebellion creates a greater awareness of the west in the North, and the resulting movement of northern settlers into the west. Even in OTL in the disputed election of 1826, Clay (Kentucky) through his support to Adams. In TTL, the assassinationof Adams by a southerner moves the 'west' (Kentucky, Tennessee, etc), into the camp of the North.

Remember, these areas were orignially settled in large part by Northerners. (Wasn't Daniel Boone from Pennsyvania?) All that happens here is that New England is mre aware of the West as a potential political ally.

As a result, when Texas opens up for settlement, you get large numbers of these people (PA, TN, KY, etc) in Texas. (Again this is historically accurate).

Also, as to the settlement of Europeans in Texas, this is also historically accurate, when Mexico opened Texas to colonization, in addition to the settlers from the US, fairly large German and French settlements were established.
 
Interesting, but I can't see why the South Compact allowed Louisiana to secede or even thought they would allow the North to outflank them and take Texas - if only briefly. On the whole, I think the state of Lousisana either falls with the Union or the Southern Compact. Historically, both nations will be dependent its control of the Mississippi River. The quaint idea of its population 'with its more European – French perspective' is probably about 50 years old and out of date by 1861. It is a strategic position that wouldn't be allowed to slip away.

The dismemberment (whatelse can it be called) of Virginia would certainly anger me if I was Virginian - and it certainly makes to sense within the time period - conflicting interests? Like what? Oh, and be truthful about supposed seperatist movements.

"However, the widely publicized British involvement in several massacres of Texas settlers resulted in wide spread antipathy for the British," - okay, why would the British be involved in this?
 
David S Poepoe said:
Interesting, but I can't see why the South Compact allowed Louisiana to secede or even thought they would allow the North to outflank them and take Texas - if only briefly. On the whole, I think the state of Lousisana either falls with the Union or the Southern Compact. Historically, both nations will be dependent its control of the Mississippi River. The quaint idea of its population 'with its more European – French perspective' is probably about 50 years old and out of date by 1861. It is a strategic position that wouldn't be allowed to slip away.

The dismemberment (whatelse can it be called) of Virginia would certainly anger me if I was Virginian - and it certainly makes to sense within the time period - conflicting interests? Like what? Oh, and be truthful about supposed seperatist movements.

"However, the widely publicized British involvement in several massacres of Texas settlers resulted in wide spread antipathy for the British," - okay, why would the British be involved in this?

I don't see how the compact can keep Louisiana if it wants to go. The problem that a states right nation has is how do you keep them all on the farm. If we have a world that is 'shunning' all things made or produced by the Compact (or even just partially shunning to get them cheaper) then the incentives grow for a region to leave.

Since Louisiana is central to control of the Mississippi, the Compact would probably be happier to see it go to Texas (with which it has no direct conflict) than to the Northern Union (with which it has a history of conflict or near conflict).

I think that the whole Virginia territory thing is possible if one keeps in mind that Virginia already had given up large territorial claims. I do believe that the creation of a Monogehela is more likely than Maryland getting the Northern counties, but neither is impossible in the right climate.

As to conflicting interests, there are clear different interests between tidewater aristocrats and the free farmers of the west or those involved in the Whiskey Rebellion.

Finally, there are two things needed to create a 'massacre' as a public relations fiasco, first some event, and then the publication of the event that is so horrendous people are repelled. A good example is the Boston 'Massacre' or this mess in Iraq right now, it doesnt take much to cause massive public outcry.

Given the time period, and the fact that the Union had a difficult relationship with the British, it would not take much to take an incident and blow it out of proportion.
 
Norman said:
I don't see how the compact can keep Louisiana if it wants to go. The problem that a states right nation has is how do you keep them all on the farm. If we have a world that is 'shunning' all things made or produced by the Compact (or even just partially shunning to get them cheaper) then the incentives grow for a region to leave.

Since Louisiana is central to control of the Mississippi, the Compact would probably be happier to see it go to Texas (with which it has no direct conflict) than to the Northern Union (with which it has a history of conflict or near conflict).

The way a states' rights nation keeps them on the farm is by constitutionally bind the states together. That is what certainly set the Confederate States Constitution apart from the US Constitution.

Also, by the 1861, I would really look closely at the population of Louisiana in that they probably have alot more in common with the Southern Compact than with Texas. In fact, if your driving at more nations on the North American continent why not have Louisiana completely independent?

A similar division of the United States I think about is in 'Crimson Skies', where Louisiana is an independent state allied to the French. Which is fine and dandy, if everybody in the state was of French or Cajun descent - but they're not. The 'French' Americans of any consequence would probably reside in the cities and towns, such as New Orleans. But the countryside would be dominated by recent settlers that would identify with the Southern states. I think there is an overestimation of how extensive and deep the Francophile feelings of Louisiana are - let alone that they think differently than the rest of the South in 1861.

I do admit what an interesting place it is where one can say "I come from the Compact States." Would those be smaller than usual?
 
My biggest problem with the timeline is that Mexico so willingly allows California independence AFTER gold is discovered. I'd think that Mexico would want to hold onto that.

Likewise, I wonder if the outcome of the Mexican-American War would have been different if Mexico knew of the gold in California BEFORE they ceded California to the USA.
 
This is the map around which the idea is formed.

The reason Mexico gave California up was that it knew California was going any way, particularly after the British lean on them not to reinitiate conflict just when the trade relations with the Union are beginning to resolve themselves.

new North.JPG
 
Top