James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608 
Likes: 8,817
|
Post by James G on Jun 25, 2018 19:19:10 GMT
How can North America end up mirroring South America?
The POD would need to be before 1900. I'm thinking of a United States rise post-revolution being forestalled and crippled. There is no US expansion westwards. As Spain loses its Empire, separate Spanish-speaking countries form in the west. Florida retains a post-Spain identity. France retreats to Louisiana and other nations form in their former region.
By the end, we have many nations. Florida. Tejas. Louisiana. California. Pacific NW nation / nations. A few land-locked but big, empty countries in the middle. Quebec. A different, smaller US. Maybe a maritime Canada too.
More ideas welcome!
|
|
spanishspy
Fleet admiral
Posts: 10,366
Likes: 1,586
|
Post by spanishspy on Jun 25, 2018 20:22:03 GMT
In order to do this you'd have to break up the Viceroyalty of New Spain, which would become Mexico and much of Central America plus a significant chunk of the Western United States. Otherwise you'd have a 'Mexico' that dominates the continent from Puget Sound to the Isthmus of Panama.
Stunting the growth of the US to the east of the Mississippi (most likely ending there as that was the line drawn by the Treaty of Paris) is a good idea. You may also want to find a way to split Quebec from the Anglophone parts of Canada.
|
|
James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608
Likes: 8,817
|
Post by James G on Jun 25, 2018 20:57:14 GMT
I was thinking California as a Chile - Alta and Baja - and a Pacific NW as Peru & Ecuador. Inland up to the Rockies as a Bolivar.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,426
Likes: 12,037
|
Post by stevep on Jun 26, 2018 9:14:28 GMT
In order to do this you'd have to break up the Viceroyalty of New Spain, which would become Mexico and much of Central America plus a significant chunk of the Western United States. Otherwise you'd have a 'Mexico' that dominates the continent from Puget Sound to the Isthmus of Panama. Stunting the growth of the US to the east of the Mississippi (most likely ending there as that was the line drawn by the Treaty of Paris) is a good idea. You may also want to find a way to split Quebec from the Anglophone parts of Canada.
James
New Spain might break up naturally given its size, especially if it had anything like the OTL poor leadership. Possibly also some European intervention, either overtly military as with Napoleon III's adventure or say assorted powers encouraging secession in regions to gain influence and protectorates.
With the US then possibly there's never agreement on a constitution and various states and regions go their own way. Although given their population resources unless they become seriously unstable with widespread corruption and possibly military coups their likely to push west anyway. Albeit much slower and probably with less success.
Not sure what to do with Louisiana because if something like the French revolution occurs and then Napoleon, unless you have him win, in which case it may stay French and get a lot of settlement its either going to be sold as indefensible [as OTL] or taken by Britain.
Similarly with Canada, Spanishspy is right in that you really need to break it up in some way or, especially backed by Britain's power and wealth in the 19thC its likely to fill in the vacuum so to speak and end up with large areas of the OTL west and central US. Unlikely to have quite the same population and economic development as the US unless it goes a very long way but still going to be the major power north of a rump Mexico and probably more powerful than that.
In all you have to cripple four powers, New Spain/Mexico, France/Louisiana, Britain/Canada and the US. Doing any one or pair of them isn't too difficult but doing all 4 could be difficult.
Thinking about it possibly US never unifies and splits into competing and sometimes warring states in the 1780s. Napoleon wars occur on schedule and also Napoelon's occupation of Spain. With no coherent US to sell Louisiana to either it [or at least its southern reaches] get seized by Britain or possibly by some combination of southern 'US' states, which effectively leaves the rest a power vacuum.
Mexico gains independence as OTL but suffers from poor leadership so is continually split by dissent, civil wars and fragments. Possibly 'helped' in this by intervention from Britain and other European power, while Britain starts to expand from OTL Canada, pushing southwards.
There is a more reactionary government in Britain - reform was slow enough OTL - and it ends up in a civil war and the overthrowing of the monarchy. This finds refuge in Canada but since the king - due to events elsewhere - is the highly reactionary and anti-Catholic Ernest, OTL Duke of Cumberland and king of Hanover, see Ernest_Augustus. This prompts the division of Canada with a rump kingdom in the Maritime provinces, Quebec successfully revolting and gaining independence and Upper Canada/Ontario and points west and south being largely isolated, limiting its growth into the power vacuum to the west and south.
Add in a Russian presence in the NW which may take in British Columbia and possibly parts of Oregon and say a major influx of people to California when gold is discovered, which could prompt a final break from Mexico if it hasn't already.
Your still going to have a power vacuum in the centre of the continent and the likelihood of some state starting to unite a lot of it sooner or later, although a balance of power as in Europe could develop to prevent that. However it might get what you want James. Initial thoughts on it anyway.
Steve
|
|
dalecoz
Petty Officer 2nd Class
Posts: 28
Likes: 5
|
Post by dalecoz on Jul 28, 2018 1:33:15 GMT
Not easy to do, but if you could get the US to stick with the Articles of Confederation rather than switching to the historic Constitution, you're well on your way toward a poor and fragmented North America..
|
|
steffen
Ensign
Posts: 300
Likes: 18
|
Post by steffen on Jul 30, 2018 16:56:32 GMT
there is a simple answer to this question: Let the british colony revolt, but shortly after tear apart in some different "nations" who fought each other (First part of the plot). Give em different (!) supporting european nations, say prussia support after the napeolonic wars the "modern USA", some northeastern-states like Maine and others (as a small country at the canadian border reaching the large lakes), the spanish support Louisiana, Florida, UK support Virgina and the Carolinas... so basically you have 4 states who fight each other. Add in that the native americans are not exterminated from 1778 on but defend their "borders", still fighting each other, but also "together" the evil white man... so the deep and brutal conquering of the middle west does not happen. Basically empty area full of natives who hate each other with passion. in the west you need naturally mexico, who keep the area up to vancouver (a 400-500miles broad zone along the pacific coast) under control, but also fight for a century native americans, some white (english) settlers... who work with each other, then fight each other.. after 1866 /still the french mexican adventure this "supermexico" break apart, russia never give up alaska, but post 1918 there is a white-russian exile government in that zone, holding also the far east (with some russian border in the middle of sibira between communists and whites) The "pacific area" separates in a slaveholder south and a "free north", sponsored and supported by canada... now we have - russian area (1) north california (2) south california (3) maine-area (4) Virgina-Area (5 - strongest state in population) Southern area /6) Texas  (7) Central plain native areas (5-10 of these, from the canadian border to texas, along the missisipi) With this you break the power of the USA apart, lots of weak, influenced states who could be stronger, sometimes even take areas, but with the european powers "controlling" their allies.... you get the picture... |
|
(7)