The Historical RP Group HQ 2

[Paketo]

calt, why exactly is the west rebelling?

[Alleniana]

ehe lel

hey allen you wanna op?

nho wtf i havn't op'd anything decent sized since NI

[Caltarania]

calt, why exactly is the west rebelling?

1. In Cali, NM and the other previously-Mexican states, Hispanics form the majority of the population. The US government, some years prior to the beginning of the war, passed a bill which basically said that Anglos who were migrating from the East coast to the West were able to claim compensation from the government in order to start up businesses; basically this was a whole thing about making the Hispanics a minority by forcing them to emigrate elsewhere or fully adopt American culture.
2. Texas is Texas 'n' shit.
3. The Mormons and Deseret and shit.
4. The Western European powers actually seem to be supportative of them, so why the fuck wouldn't they? California and Texas especially have the potential to be independent, with all the other things in play it makes sense that they'd see the Federal government - which would have grown in power and all - as a natural enemy against their autonomy.

hey allen you wanna op?

nho wtf i havn't op'd anything decent sized since NI

eh better than my résumé

[Alleniana]

hehehe ni that

[Paketo]

calt, why exactly is the west rebelling?

1. In Cali, NM and the other previously-Mexican states, Hispanics form the majority of the population. The US government, some years prior to the beginning of the war, passed a bill which basically said that Anglos who were migrating from the East coast to the West were able to claim compensation from the government in order to start up businesses; basically this was a whole thing about making the Hispanics a minority by forcing them to emigrate elsewhere or fully adopt American culture.
2. Texas is Texas 'n' shit.
3. The Mormons and Deseret and shit.
4. The Western European powers actually seem to be supportive of them, so why the fuck wouldn't they? California and Texas especially have the potential to be independent, with all the other things in play it makes sense that they'd see the Federal government - which would have grown in power and all - as a natural enemy against their autonomy.

Texas wouldn't secede unless slavery was being threatened and that would cause the rest of the south to secede. Anglo's already had a hold on texas as can be seen by the texan war of independence and wanted to be part of the US as seen by the willing annexation. in conclusion, texas doesn't make sense at all. the Cali and new mexico/Arizona don't make sense as well due to the large presence of Anglos there as well who would control the government but they could possibly have a armed takeover

[The Jonathanian States]

...
Also, there is no way in hell I am Oping this, I fucking hate Oping.

Heh, smart.

[Sveltlana]

...
Also, there is no way in hell I am Oping this, I fucking hate Oping.

Heh, smart.

How is that reboot of ELB coming along?

[Caltarania]

1. In Cali, NM and the other previously-Mexican states, Hispanics form the majority of the population. The US government, some years prior to the beginning of the war, passed a bill which basically said that Anglos who were migrating from the East coast to the West were able to claim compensation from the government in order to start up businesses; basically this was a whole thing about making the Hispanics a minority by forcing them to emigrate elsewhere or fully adopt American culture.
2. Texas is Texas 'n' shit.
3. The Mormons and Deseret and shit.
4. The Western European powers actually seem to be supportive of them, so why the fuck wouldn't they? California and Texas especially have the potential to be independent, with all the other things in play it makes sense that they'd see the Federal government - which would have grown in power and all - as a natural enemy against their autonomy.

Texas wouldn't secede unless slavery was being threatened and that would cause the rest of the south to secede. Anglo's already had a hold on texas as can be seen by the texan war of independence and wanted to be part of the US as seen by the willing annexation. in conclusion, texas doesn't make sense at all. the Cali and new mexico/Arizona don't make sense as well due to the large presence of Anglos there as well who would control the government but they could possibly have a armed takeover

In regards to Texas, did you even read by last point? The central government is strengthening itself. That in and of itself is a threat to slavery considering that the majority of the American population supported - to some extent - the emancipation of the slaves. In addition to that, the Texas in this Alternate History is an expanded one, which reaches into the modern-day Mexican state of Tamaulipas, so has a much larger Hispanic minority than in our own timeline. Not to mention the fact that Texas joining the Union was pretty much a given; there would be no way that Texas could survive a Mexican attack alone during it's time of independence. Now, however, Mexico is severely weakened and if anything the federal US government is holding Texas back. With the choices of becoming a major state in the Americas or dwindling away to irrelevance as a state with less powers, it makes sense for the Texans to side with the Coalition.

The presence of Anglos is assured, but they don't completely control the government. The Hispanic populations of the West may have been repressed and so on, but the government in Washington wasn't entirely convinced that appointing English-speaking governors would be the greatest idea, especially with their much larger expansions into what is today Northern Mexico. They basically alternated, appointing Hispanic or Anglo governors when it suited them. When most of the West gained statehood, the Hispanics still had a decent majority, mainly due to the fact that more Hispanics moved north when the Mexican Republic began to collapse following the Third American-Mexican War (look I will write a whole lore thing, basically Mexico is utterly crushed by the US, and to this day has not completely recovered, what with having to form a new nation with Central America). Because of this majority, the governments of the Western states are pretty Hispanic with large Anglo minorities. Utah is a minor exception, what with the Mormons and all.

[Alleniana]

Any Louisana French in the equation?

[Caltarania]

Any Louisana French in the equation?

Probably, but I was having Louisiana stay loyal because borders. Though, there could be a split between the majority 'French' Louisiana and the majority Anglo/Irish/Italian N'Orleans.

[Valentir]

East vs West: Tales of an Alternate Civil War
1861 AH RP

---

Premise:

stuff

Civil War Factions:

The United States of America
The Free Coalition of America
Pocatello's Confederacy
The Mormon Uprising
The British Empire
The Dominion of Canada
The Republic of Mexico and the Central American States
The Second French Empire
The Southern Slave Rebellion
The Spanish Empire
The Papal Volunteers

Interested in the Spanish.

[Alleniana]

Any Louisana French in the equation?

Probably, but I was having Louisiana stay loyal because borders. Though, there could be a split between the majority 'French' Louisiana and the majority Anglo/Irish/Italian N'Orleans.

make them the quebec of america

[Caltarania]

Probably, but I was having Louisiana stay loyal because borders. Though, there could be a split between the majority 'French' Louisiana and the majority Anglo/Irish/Italian N'Orleans.

make them the quebec of america

Bitch please, that's impossible.

There are already New Yorkers and Texans to be analogous to Tykes.

Tentative map: http://i.imgur.com/y4J6yT9.png

[Paketo]

Texas wouldn't secede unless slavery was being threatened and that would cause the rest of the south to secede. Anglo's already had a hold on texas as can be seen by the texan war of independence and wanted to be part of the US as seen by the willing annexation. in conclusion, texas doesn't make sense at all. the Cali and new mexico/Arizona don't make sense as well due to the large presence of Anglos there as well who would control the government but they could possibly have a armed takeover

In regards to Texas, did you even read by last point? The central government is strengthening itself. That in and of itself is a threat to slavery considering that the majority of the American population supported - to some extent - the emancipation of the slaves. In addition to that, the Texas in this Alternate History is an expanded one, which reaches into the modern-day Mexican state of Tamaulipas, so has a much larger Hispanic minority than in our own timeline. Not to mention the fact that Texas joining the Union was pretty much a given; there would be no way that Texas could survive a Mexican attack alone during it's time of independence. Now, however, Mexico is severely weakened and if anything the federal US government is holding Texas back. With the choices of becoming a major state in the Americas or dwindling away to irrelevance as a state with less powers, it makes sense for the Texans to side with the Coalition.

The presence of Anglos is assured, but they don't completely control the government. The Hispanic populations of the West may have been repressed and so on, but the government in Washington wasn't entirely convinced that appointing English-speaking governors would be the greatest idea, especially with their much larger expansions into what is today Northern Mexico. They basically alternated, appointing Hispanic or Anglo governors when it suited them. When most of the West gained statehood, the Hispanics still had a decent majority, mainly due to the fact that more Hispanics moved north when the Mexican Republic began to collapse following the Third American-Mexican War (look I will write a whole lore thing, basically Mexico is utterly crushed by the US, and to this day has not completely recovered, what with having to form a new nation with Central America). Because of this majority, the governments of the Western states are pretty Hispanic with large Anglo minorities. Utah is a minor exception, what with the Mormons and all.

The central government strengthening itself would pose no threat to texas unless a abolitionist president was put in power so that point is largely mute unless you have a abolitionist president which would cause the other southern states to secede. It would make more sense if your going to have texas expand into tejas that the hispanic majority south secedes while the northern part stays with union as a predominantly anglo region compared to the south

[Caltarania]

In regards to Texas, did you even read by last point? The central government is strengthening itself. That in and of itself is a threat to slavery considering that the majority of the American population supported - to some extent - the emancipation of the slaves. In addition to that, the Texas in this Alternate History is an expanded one, which reaches into the modern-day Mexican state of Tamaulipas, so has a much larger Hispanic minority than in our own timeline. Not to mention the fact that Texas joining the Union was pretty much a given; there would be no way that Texas could survive a Mexican attack alone during it's time of independence. Now, however, Mexico is severely weakened and if anything the federal US government is holding Texas back. With the choices of becoming a major state in the Americas or dwindling away to irrelevance as a state with less powers, it makes sense for the Texans to side with the Coalition.

The presence of Anglos is assured, but they don't completely control the government. The Hispanic populations of the West may have been repressed and so on, but the government in Washington wasn't entirely convinced that appointing English-speaking governors would be the greatest idea, especially with their much larger expansions into what is today Northern Mexico. They basically alternated, appointing Hispanic or Anglo governors when it suited them. When most of the West gained statehood, the Hispanics still had a decent majority, mainly due to the fact that more Hispanics moved north when the Mexican Republic began to collapse following the Third American-Mexican War (look I will write a whole lore thing, basically Mexico is utterly crushed by the US, and to this day has not completely recovered, what with having to form a new nation with Central America). Because of this majority, the governments of the Western states are pretty Hispanic with large Anglo minorities. Utah is a minor exception, what with the Mormons and all.

The central government strengthening itself would pose no threat to texas unless a abolitionist president was put in power so that point is largely mute unless you have a abolitionist president which would cause the other southern states to secede. It would make more sense if your going to have texas expand into tejas that the hispanic majority south secedes while the northern part stays with union as a predominantly anglo region compared to the south

Thanks for disregarding the rest of my post, I appreciate it.

The fact of the matter is that, to put it simply, you're incorrect. A central government strengthening itself poses a threat to any kind of autonomy in any kind of system of government. You need only look at Europe and the transition from feudalism to capitalism for an example of this. The lands used to be ruled by Lords and Barons and Dukes who were mostly autonomous with very little in the way of authority above them, other than their King or Prince or whatnot. Then suddenly; Industrialization. The government begins to develop as a separate entity from the monarch - either through a constitutional monarchy or... well... y'know France - and realizes the inefficiency of feudalism and local autonomy. The government is strengthened because y'know they literally run everything, and autonomy is nearly completely a thing of the past (unless you are a wealthy land owner in which case you were unaffected or even benefited, but anyway). Point is, centralization is interchangeable with strengthening the government, and centralization is almost entirely incompatible with federalism. There is a threat to Texas, undoubtedly.

[Paketo]

The central government strengthening itself would pose no threat to texas unless a abolitionist president was put in power so that point is largely mute unless you have a abolitionist president which would cause the other southern states to secede. It would make more sense if your going to have texas expand into tejas that the hispanic majority south secedes while the northern part stays with union as a predominantly anglo region compared to the south

Thanks for disregarding the rest of my post, I appreciate it.

The fact of the matter is that, to put it simply, you're incorrect. A central government strengthening itself poses a threat to any kind of autonomy in any kind of system of government. You need only look at Europe and the transition from feudalism to capitalism for an example of this. The lands used to be ruled by Lords and Barons and Dukes who were mostly autonomous with very little in the way of authority above them, other than their King or Prince or whatnot. Then suddenly; Industrialization. The government begins to develop as a separate entity from the monarch - either through a constitutional monarchy or... well... y'know France - and realizes the inefficiency of feudalism and local autonomy. The government is strengthened because y'know they literally run everything, and autonomy is nearly completely a thing of the past (unless you are a wealthy landowner in which case you were unaffected or even benefited, but anyway). Point is, centralization is interchangeable with strengthening the government, and centralization is almost entirely incompatible with federalism. There is a threat to Texas, undoubtedly.

could you give how they are strengthening the central government then? The government would have to pass amendments to the constitution to make the centralization happen and the senators of the west and south could block almost anything considering they would put it below 2/3 majority usually. To have anything to pass that would endanger states rights that much to have succession would either involve slavery or require a major political view change in the south.

[Alleniana]

so, uh, is my Stati Uniti Americae reservation valid?

[The Jonathanian States]

Heh, smart.

How is that reboot of ELB coming along?

There'll be an interest/history discussion thread for that within the next couple days, if things work out properly, in order to avoid OOC conflicts regarding land and history.

[Alleniana]

How is that reboot of ELB coming along?

There'll be an interest/history discussion thread for that within the next couple days, if things work out properly, in order to avoid OOC conflicts regarding land and history.

yus yus yus huahuihue

Also goodnight.

[Epraria]

Well that alternate American civil war Rp seems interesting. What nations are already reserved?

[Reatra]

Well that alternate American civil war Rp seems interesting. What nations are already reserved?

The Free Coalition of America ist mein.

I AM ZE CALIFORNIA!

Unless they are extremely decentralized and I could be JUST Cali, and part of the rebellion.

[Caltarania]

viewtopic.php?f=31&t=320088#p22433598

[Alleniana]

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=320088#p22433598

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[Emilio Aguinaldo]

Just to clear the stereotype that every Filipino has at least 1 gun in their household you should watch this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOndtUcRXdU
It ain't a stereotype, cause it's real. I'm still surprised that they made an Accuracy International Arctic Warfare sniper rifle and an RPG essentially on their backyard.

[Altito Asmoro]

Just to clear the stereotype that every Filipino has at least 1 gun in their household you should watch this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOndtUcRXdU
It ain't a stereotype, cause it's real. I'm still surprised that they made an Accuracy International Arctic Warfare sniper rifle and an RPG essentially on their backyard.

Philippines is really that dangerous.