|
|
Post by punkrockbowler805 on Aug 27, 2016 5:34:18 GMT
I read this story called "the Forest of Time" by Michael Flynn where the states split over the Articles of Confederation and Pennsylvania becomes a German speaking Prussia analog with the local dialect a variant of the Amish dialect. It is at war with a Dutch patroon ruled New York.
This is an interesting point. A Balkanized America would leave scope for new regional languages and dialects. Ideas I thought of included a Russian Alaskan dialect or a French Creole and Cajun and Plains Tribe mix in a French Louisiana territory.
|
|
|
|
Post by MinnesotaNationalist on Aug 27, 2016 6:08:01 GMT
Are we assuming the same ethnic groups migrate to the same areas as OTL, despite the lack of a united American Government there?
|
|
|
|
Post by Krall on Aug 27, 2016 9:39:50 GMT
Would Native American languages be more likely to survive and remain in use without a united America expanding westwards?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jasen777 on Aug 27, 2016 19:03:56 GMT
I read this story called "the Forest of Time" by Michael Flynn where the states split over the Articles of Confederation and Pennsylvania becomes a German speaking Prussia analog with the local dialect a variant of the Amish dialect. It is at war with a Dutch patroon ruled New York. This is an interesting point. A Balkanized America would leave scope for new regional languages and dialects. Ideas I thought of included a Russian Alaskan dialect or a French Creole and Cajun and Plains Tribe mix in a French Louisiana territory. Dialects may fracture a little more I suppose, and maybe language enclaves can last longer, but English is still going to be the first luggage everywhere, unless there's massive changes in the immigration pattern. The patroon system in New York died right before the revolution and it's very unlikely to come back. They independent states are still going to be very connected economically, and the west is going to be settled by a mixture of people from the old sates (and new immigration). |
|
|
|
Post by Jasen777 on Aug 27, 2016 19:17:57 GMT
Would Native American languages be more likely to survive and remain in use without a united America expanding westwards? They'll still likely to be drowned by the tide of settlers. Longer local resistance should be possible without the U.S. army, so maybe more loan words into English? I'm highly skeptical though that things will be better in the long run for the Native Americans themselves. |
|
|
|
Post by eDGT on Aug 28, 2016 10:53:53 GMT
Without the backup of the US Cavalry western expansion would be incredibly slow and steady, with genuine deals being made with the tribes rather than the old stories we hear about entire states being bought for beads and stuff like that. A tribe which feels hard done by the little town which is growing in their land is going to deal with it the old fashioned way, and they're not going to have to worry about their families being gunned down on the reservation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Krall on Aug 28, 2016 18:47:34 GMT
Without the backup of the US Cavalry western expansion would be incredibly slow and steady, with genuine deals being made with the tribes rather than the old stories we hear about entire states being bought for beads and stuff like that. A tribe which feels hard done by the little town which is growing in their land is going to deal with it the old fashioned way, and they're not going to have to worry about their families being gunned down on the reservation. This is generally what I was thinking too - the power balance between a Native American tribe and a single state is a lot more even than between a tribe and all states working together, especially if the states are competing with one another and thus are likely to make alliances with the Native Americans on each other's territory. Plus I don't see any individual state being able to purchase and incorporate the Lousiana territory, even if their settlers may not respect the territory's border, which puts another dampener on the colonisation of the North America's interior by Europeans. |
|
|
|
Post by punkrockbowler805 on Aug 28, 2016 21:00:30 GMT
I would think the west would be Spanish speaking still and eventually the Californias and New Mexico might become independent republics.
|
|
|
|
Post by punkrockbowler805 on Aug 28, 2016 21:10:49 GMT
Florida too.
|
|
|
|
Post by eDGT on Sept 7, 2016 17:26:02 GMT
This is generally what I was thinking too - the power balance between a Native American tribe and a single state is a lot more even than between a tribe and all states working together, especially if the states are competing with one another and thus are likely to make alliances with the Native Americans on each other's territory. Plus I don't see any individual state being able to purchase and incorporate the Lousiana territory, even if their settlers may not respect the territory's border, which puts another dampener on the colonisation of the North America's interior by Europeans. It'd be kind of cool to see how French and Irish Republicanism would be affected by a United States which tore itself apart in infancy. But anyway, assuming there's a butterfly net which allows France to turn out as iotl, along with Napoleon, a sale could still be made so long as some sort of confederal government still exists. Even if it's just a Congress with minimal power to override the states and a ceremonial President someone could still make the case that all states will benefit from opening up the west to settlement, and I can see pretty much all of them bar New England being open to the idea. Bruce did a fair job at showing how a divided US might look if they still expand to the west.  So then you've got a whole mess of problems. There's the fact that with no Federal military to protect settlements the frontier is going to be even more dangerous, and after that there'll be endless arguments between the states over who actually owns what land. |
|
|
|
Post by huojin on Sept 9, 2016 17:23:30 GMT
This is generally what I was thinking too - the power balance between a Native American tribe and a single state is a lot more even than between a tribe and all states working together, especially if the states are competing with one another and thus are likely to make alliances with the Native Americans on each other's territory. Plus I don't see any individual state being able to purchase and incorporate the Lousiana territory, even if their settlers may not respect the territory's border, which puts another dampener on the colonisation of the North America's interior by Europeans. It'd be kind of cool to see how French and Irish Republicanism would be affected by a United States which tore itself apart in infancy. But anyway, assuming there's a butterfly net which allows France to turn out as iotl, along with Napoleon, a sale could still be made so long as some sort of confederal government still exists. Even if it's just a Congress with minimal power to override the states and a ceremonial President someone could still make the case that all states will benefit from opening up the west to settlement, and I can see pretty much all of them bar New England being open to the idea. Bruce did a fair job at showing how a divided US might look if they still expand to the west. So then you've got a whole mess of problems. There's the fact that with no Federal military to protect settlements the frontier is going to be even more dangerous, and after that there'll be endless arguments between the states over who actually owns what land. Oooh, what's this from? |
|
|
|
Post by eDGT on Sept 10, 2016 15:33:20 GMT
One shot by Bruce, inspired by a similar but not as highly detailed map by Ephraim Ben Raphael. |
|
