Jump to content

Help with alternate U.S. history?


lynnlefey

Recommended Posts

Anyone interested in helping me work out an alternate U.S. history?

 

I'm gearing up for a game, and would like a reasonable explanation for events in an alternate reality.

 

In this alternate world, The United States is fractured into five separate nations, although they are now on reasonably good terms.

 

The division is: Pacific Union (Washington, Origon, California, and Utah), Union of Texas (Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma), The Christian Coalition (Missouri, Kentucky, Tennesee, North Carolina, and all states south of that line), Union of New England (Virginia, Maryland, Pensylvania, and all states northeast, and the Midwest Union, containing all other states.

 

As in the Civil War, Missouri was divided in loyalties, wars were fought, and the region eventually deligated. West Virginia could be either with N.E., midwest, or Christian Coalition, but there's nothing there of great strategic importance.

 

This history starts to deviate in the 80's when the attempt to assassinate President Reagan succeeds, and brings us up to modern day.

 

These nations should all be rather extreme in their views and laws. This is sort of a nightmare dystopian alternate world.

 

Thoughts appreciated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Help with alternate U.S. history?

 

The first question you have to ask in determining this is: Why did the various regions of the country suddenly break away? We have had presidents assassinated before, and while things have gotten sectarianism before in the country, no one has seriously done anything to break away.

 

I can see that if one part broke off, other regions might have joined the stampede out of the union, so having five instead of just one or two small sections can be believable. But you need to have a reason why one region actually did split, and why the others felt leaving was a better option than staying.

 

Also remember that if the break point in history is relatively recent, that there are going to be people who remember a single country. This is going to color how people view certain events. Some will be glad this happened, while others will be bitter about events.

 

Remember, WHY things happened is going to influence what follows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Help with alternate U.S. history?

 

Hmm... I think you're going to need some radical political developments from the top down to justify such a massive shift. For starters, I'd recommend having VP Bush's tenure as President after Reagan's assassination run only to the end of Reagan's first term, to clear the way for a more radical (from whatever end of the political spectrum) successor. You'll also need to define issues for each region that would be profound enough for them to separate. These will probably be defining elements of the character of each "nation" in your new world order.

 

There could have been some influence on these regions from their nearest neighboring major countries. I'm thinking that Canada, Mexico and Cuba could have been contributors politically and/or economically, and will probably be major allies or enemies of one or another of the new countries.

 

I'll have to give this more thought and get back to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Help with alternate U.S. history?

 

Here's another thought: With a name like "Christian Coalition," that state sounds ripe for some type of fundamentalist regime to have taken power. It's certainly stereotyping of the "bible belt," which might offend some people; but I have to admit that I would enjoy the balance of a portrayal of Christian extremism for a change. It's not like it's never happened before in history. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Help with alternate U.S. history?

 

The entire point of this exercize was to make Missouri in an alternate world something like a Fascist state, with persecution of 'Undesirables'. The 'Christian Coalition' is indeed a Theocracy, and a very severe one.

 

The design of my fracture has already built some conclusions, one of which is a somewhat reasonable division of the country by population. I think the Pacific and New England unions would have a lot more economic power, maybe followed by Texas. This doesn't leave a lot of power for Midwest and the south, but they have land mass and agriculture on their side.

 

This setup is not to knock Christianity, but to take all views to the extreme. The pacific union would be radical liberals, for instance.

 

Battlestaff... I don't think you're following my request. I have a desired outcome, and want to work backward toward events that caused the outcome. The known in this equation is how I want the world to be, and about how long ago the deviation started. The desired outcome is a reasonably logical progression of Early 80's U.S. history to how things got so wrong. I hope that clarifies.

 

Certainly, it could have been a matter of one state or a block of several having strong feelings over a federal ruling. But that's what I started this thread for... what event? What could have fractured the union?

 

I think it'd be interesting if the two superpowers both died at about the same time.

 

I suppose I should say that the first BIG difference (noticable by someone viewing historical events after the fact) would be Reagan's assassination. Other smaller clues might surface with a very close examination.

 

I appreciate the input so far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Help with alternate U.S. history?

 

After Reagan's assassination the right to bear arms is re-considered by Congress, and a Fedral ban on private firearms ownership is passed. As part of the deal to get it through, a Federal ban on Abortion is also passed. Saddam never invades Kuwait, which avoids a unifying war at this crisis point. Red states are furious over the loss of the right to bear arms, women in blue states are furious over the loss of the right to control their own bodies, and the fracture begins.

 

Not at all realistic, but you can probably massage it out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Help with alternate U.S. history?

 

This history starts to deviate in the 80's when the attempt to assassinate President Reagan succeeds, and brings us up to modern day.

 

These nations should all be rather extreme in their views and laws. This is sort of a nightmare dystopia alternate world.

 

Thoughts appreciated.

 

I think you might need to deviate a bit earlier than 1980. You can still keep the split at 1980, but introduce the seperating factors long before then, then have the 1980 event be the catalyst for the breakup.

 

I'd start, for obvious reasons, during the Reconstruction period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Help with alternate U.S. history?

 

Big event, huh?

 

Well, let's consider some of the legacy of Reagan's tenure as President. His economic policies, while socially divisive to a sizeable degree, largely benefited the industrial power block in the United States, cementing their support. He was definitely sympathetic to the more conservative elements of American society, as well: "family values," Christian ethics, etc. His massive spending on defense put pressure on the Soviet Union's economy which contributed to its collapse. While Reagan ultimately accepted the moderating world political trend and made overtures to the USSR, his earlier stand was far more confrontational.

 

So, let's say the Reagan influence gets terminated far earlier, as I suggested. A more left-leaning Democratic candidate is elected with a radical (for the time and society) social program, more populist but not at all accomodating to big business. The new President is much less concerned with defense and more with accomodation, working for closer ties with the Soviet Union and even opening relations with Cuba.

 

The Soviets, emboldened, embark on a new imperialistic expansion, perhaps in the Middle East to secure oil fields there. They are also accused of direct involvement in Grenada, threatening American territory. The United States government attempts negotiation, perhaps even appeasement, but in the meantime oil prices soar, damaging the country's economic health. Accusations fly that the President is collaborating with the Communists, perhaps even a Communist himself. Evidence is presented to that effect (which may be trumped up, but might even be real), leading to impeachment proceedings. Oil prices and political instability drag the economy down, and protests by supporters and opponents of the President lead to riots. A rogue element of the American military attempts a preemptive invasion of Grenada without the President's approval, prompting other military leaders to challenge the President's legitimacy to lead. A military coup attempt fails, but its leaders garner sizeable public sympathy.

 

The situation could certainly spiral out of control from there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Help with alternate U.S. history?

 

The division is: Pacific Union (Washington, Oregon, California, and Utah), Union of Texas (Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma), The Christian Coalition (Missouri, Kentucky, Tennesee, North Carolina, and all states south of that line), Union of New England (Virginia, Maryland, Pensylvania, and all states northeast, and the Midwest Union, containing all other states.

 

I'd put Nevada & Idaho in with the Pacific possibly, but I could see Utah wanting to go seperate. (And politically & culturally, wouldn't go with the Pacific)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Help with alternate U.S. history?

 

After Reagan's assassination the right to bear arms is re-considered by Congress' date=' and a Fedral ban on private firearms ownership is passed. [/quote']

 

This alone might be enough to rile up states like Missouri.

 

Also, according to some conspiracy-theories, John Hinckley's family knew the Bush family.

 

Perhaps the success of the Reagan assassination, leads to the ties between the two families getting greater scrutiny and making enough people believe that the Bushes are trying to establish a coup and use their families' power to do this. It would especially be damning if George Bush Sr. was one of the architects of the new firearm ban (which would really freak out his base in Texas).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Help with alternate U.S. history?

 

Idaho is a strongly conservative state. Certainly too conservative to be lumped in with California. I forgot to list Nevada, part ofth Pacific Union. Utah, I'd entertain notions of them being in another union.

 

I also considered Montana trying to split to individual independance, but thee's not enough population to seriously hold it by force.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Help with alternate U.S. history?

 

You might also consider the possibility that as the situation deteriorated, some of the northern states might consider some sort of union with Canada. Ties between Canada and various cross-border states are often close, and if times became that uncertain they might feel that Canada would be a more stable option.

 

OTOH Canada might have fractured too, even joining with some of your American unions. The early '80's were a particularly fractious period in Canada's history: powerful independence movement in Quebec, disaffection with federal policies in the Western provinces, perennial economic problems in the Atlantic provinces. With Canada so interconnected with the States, some provinces may have felt they had to choose sides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Help with alternate U.S. history?

 

I considered various ideas of northern states joining with Canada, as well as Texas annexing parts or all of Mexico. Neither appealed to me overmuch, but may eventually be the case. I can't see a great benefit to either, but I'm no political economist.

 

One thing I'd thought wabout was trying to keep the Midwest Union from being landlocked, which is part of why the great lake states got put into the Midwest union.

 

If the Midwest Union were part of (or strongly allied with) Canada, would it really be a great benefit to the Midwest states?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Help with alternate U.S. history?

 

If the Middle East is owned by the USSR (or is in chaos after the collapse of the USSR), then West Virginia would be the center of a three way fight between New England, the CC, and the Midwest. All that coal can't be ignored if there's no oil.

 

Another point: I'm not sure New York through Virginia would be happy with the name of their new country. New England is the far northeast. If the lower bunch of states is going to stay with them, the name will need to be more neutral, probably going with the fact that they still have Washington DC (and hence, are still the USA) or else something along the lines that they are the majority of the original 13 states (plus a couple). Or maybe there's a long official name like the "United States of New England and the Middle Atlantic Seaboard", and everyone except the citizens of those non-New England states just calls it "New England" as a shorthand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Help with alternate U.S. history?

 

I considered various ideas of northern states joining with Canada' date=' as well as Texas annexing parts or all of Mexico. Neither appealed to me overmuch, but may eventually be the case. I can't see a great benefit to either, but I'm no political economist.[/quote']

 

If the economy of the United States became compromised as I suggested previously, I could see the states bordering Mexico become increasingly concerned about illegal immigrants "taking jobs away from Americans." If the federal government didn't take strong enough action to stem that influx, I could see your Union of Texas taking matters into their own hands. The Union's border could be heavily defended by armed troops, which would doubtless be a source of great friction with Mexico.

 

If you wanted to get really gritty with your setting, the reaction in the U of T against Hispanics could snowball to apartheid-style segregation of them, other immigrants and perhaps even visible minorities generally. Mexico might be threatening an invasion of the Union to "liberate" their kinsmen.

 

One thing I'd thought about was trying to keep the Midwest Union from being landlocked, which is part of why the great lake states got put into the Midwest union.

 

If the Midwest Union were part of (or strongly allied with) Canada, would it really be a great benefit to the Midwest states?

 

The question is more why the Midwest would not want to be allied with Canada. :) Those states already have very close ties to southern Ontario and Quebec, the most populous and among the most prosperous regions of Canada. Canada controls the rest of the Great Lakes, so cooperation on that front is unavoidable. Similarly, Alberta is a huge source of oil and natural gas to the US, and your Pacific Union would very much want secure access to them.

 

Keep in mind that Canada is the largest trading partner of the United States, both for importing resources and as a market for your goods, so control of trade with Canada would be of considerable strategic value. As it stands the Pacific Union, Union of New England, and Midwest Union would be in a position to practically cut off the Union of Texas and Christian Coalition from that trade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Help with alternate U.S. history?

 

Another point: I'm not sure New York through Virginia would be happy with the name of their new country. New England is the far northeast. If the lower bunch of states is going to stay with them' date=' the name will need to be more neutral, probably going with the fact that they still have Washington DC (and hence, are still the USA) or else something along the lines that they are the majority of the original 13 states (plus a couple). Or maybe there's a long official name like the "United States of New England and the Middle Atlantic Seaboard", and everyone except the citizens of those non-New England states just calls it "New England" as a shorthand.[/quote']

 

I would think that some section of the former US would like to retain the name "United States" from both sentiment and the desire for prestige. Washington would be a logical center for such a state. OTOH if the President was the trigger or focus for the divisive conflict as in my suggested scenario, I could see him being forced from Washington and setting up a "government in exile" elsewhere in the country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Help with alternate U.S. history?

 

You might also consider creating a sixth region, since the large percentage of Mormons in Utah, Idaho and northern Nevada would probably be a big influence towards consolidating those areas together into a regional power, which most alternate historians tend to call Deseret. While it would be landlocked, the Idaho corridor would allow trade access to Canada.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Help with alternate U.S. history?

 

I think you need to put more work into this alternate U.S. History.

 

As it stands now, I'd have serious problems playing in this scenerio because it has not possible justification. None. There is no way, as you have currently outlined, for the end state you described to come about.

 

Also, as others have mentioned, your regional divions need some work. Virginia, would never be part of a country called New England.

 

If you want New England, then make it New England (Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Connecticut)

 

TB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Help with alternate U.S. history?

 

Utah? Extreme liberals? I...don't...think so. Well, maybe the Pacs militarily occupy and rule the locals with an iron fist. Or Utah could just end up as it's own nation.

 

OK. Step one.

 

Impose martial law. Suspension of civil liberties is always a good first step toward dystopia. Therefore there must be convincing indications that the assassination was the result of not a lone whackjob but some kind of conspiracy. I suggest killing Vice President Bush as well in a coordinated strike to decapitate the American government. Then you can have Alexander Haig impose martial law and order the arrest of Tip O'Neal and some other leading Democrats for treason. Unfortunately I have no idea who was President Pro Tempore of the Senate in 1981 and can't seem to find out. Maybe use a fictional character, or just assume whoever it was stepped aside in favour of Haig. Scrabbling desperately for support, President Haig nominates James Swaggert as his vice president. Non-biblebelters freak.

 

Step Two: Create the secession movements

 

Governor Brown of California announces that he has no intention of turning over his part of the national guard to federal control when the current President is illegitimate. Other governors in the pacific area follow suit as do governers in the northeast who are O'Neal partisans.

 

Step Three: Go broke.

 

The American credit rating immediately smashes because of the instability and this creates economic chaos world wide, especially since Reagan's ballooning deficit means that the United States is now totally unable to service its debt. Swaggert's nomination for VP is never ratified since much of congress thinks Haig isn't even rightfully President. Saddam Hussein takes advantage of the confusion and conquers Kuwait. The U.S. dollar plummets in value. Overstressed, Haig commits suicide but there are widespread suspicions that the O'Neal Conspiracy has claimed another victim.

 

There are now two people with a claim to be President, O'Neal (still in prison indicted for treason) and Swaggert, nominated but not ratified.

Governer Brown refuses to recognise the legitimacy of either of them under the circumstances and demands an emergency election to settle the issue of who is in charge.

 

Step Four: Wrap things up.

 

The election never happens. Swaggert refuses, and large parts of the country (and the military) refuse to accept his authority. War breaks out but the bankruptcy of the nation makes it impossible to properly prosecute it. The troops sent out to secure the missile silos rebel because they aren't even being fed properly. From there, everything breaks apart in short order. Texas announces its secession to get away from the federal debt, Brown and Swaggert both set up their own nations on their power base, and umm...Donald Trump appoints himself successor to Tip O'Neal, who died in custody.

 

Meanwhile, massive starvation and rioting in the USSR causes it to fall even harder than in reality and the Saudis have fallen to be replaced by a fundamentalist regime which, in combination with Iran and Afghanistan are fighting Iraq. The disruption to the world petroleum market is substantial with most of the major producers having taking a major hit. The Midwest Union is considering going to war with Canada.

 

Something like that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Help with alternate U.S. history?

 

One other thought.

 

Nevada could end up going it alone, since the collapse of the central banks across the nation opens up an opportunity for a state like Nevada to establish itself as a sort of American Switzerland, with "no questions asked" banking and a currency that other regional powers may use as a means of barter among themselves. Of course, it could then afford to hire militia forces from surrounding states to defend it from Mexico, which might be tempted to do a little land grabbing. I'm not sure what Nevada has in the way of armed forces.

 

I doubt Canada would try the same thing, so the northern border would likely be relatively stable. Of course, the reverse might not be true. A regional power could attempt to annex parts of Canada, which would add to the fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Help with alternate U.S. history?

 

Teflon Billy... This is a minor part of a one-session game. It doesn't need to be bulletproof, it needs to be workable. The names... such as 'New England' are working titles. The divisions are a first crack. This scenario is going to have supernatural horror elements. Poly-Sci perfection is not what I'm looking for. I'm looking for workable. This is not a 'it couldn't happen' thread. If that's your belief, feel free to not participate. I've suggested things I'd like, but the parameters are not absolutes. If you don't like the parameters, then suggest what you consider a workable scenario. The only truly important thing is the end product, a fascist state in Missouri in 2006.

 

Lord L... I understand the benefits that one would get if partnered with Canada, but I'm saying why actually be under a single government?

 

D.J. some interesting ideas. Thanks.

 

Steve... I think any state that would attempt to go it alone would be absorbed (possibly by conflict) by another body.A solo state might not be impossible, but seems unlikely to survive, unless it give a benefit to all its neighbors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Help with alternate U.S. history?

 

Lord L... I understand the benefits that one would get if partnered with Canada' date=' but I'm saying why actually be under a single government?[/quote']

 

Hey, you guys are always making jokes about "making Canada the fifty-first state." Turnabout is fair play. :P

 

Seriously though, I didn't suggest any substantial number of these States formally joining Canada; in fact I went the other way if Canada were to also experience breakup. However, I could see a few smaller/less populous border states considering union with Canada for purposes of mutual defense and economic stability, especially if they had reasons to be reluctant to join one of the other fragmented Unions.

 

OTOH if all you want is background for a scenario, that's probably more geopolitical reality than is called for. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Help with alternate U.S. history?

 

What happens to the armed forces and bases overseas. If they have been withdrawn then what keeps China out of Tiawan and North Korea out of South Korea. Who has control of the us navy. Or would the services abroad have all been run down over your 26 years history. Also what would have happened to Israel if the soviets are strong in the middle east. Never thought I'd ever really think/say this but God bless America

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...