(Yes this is kinda ludicrous. Just roll with the prompt.)
By 1861, the pacific states feel that they’re place in the Union is tenuous. They feel friendly towards the Union. However, they feel that the Atlantic eastern focused nation won’t work for them. They fear that their interests won’t be met and the federal government won’t be able to sufficiently support them over the vast distance.
Due to this, Fremont (who stayed in California after his failed 1856 run) decides to try something else. Meeting up with leaders and intellectuals in the area, as the civil war springs to life in the east and the bull run occurs, they draft a new constitution and soon enough declare independence.
Both the Union and Confederacy are too occupied with the war to pay them attention, though neither acknowledges ledges their independence.
Instead Britain does. They fear a strong pacific power will risk their empire. They believe an independent pacific American state will be less risky to them. So they recognize the state as legitimate. (Again roll with it).
After the Civil War the newly reunited US focuses on reconstruction and maybe is even more damaged than OTL, and so sees no choice in the matter. They acknowledge the Pacific States of America as legitimate.
In this post, I am going to refer to the Oregon Territory only, but I’m sure the same principles could be applied to other areas, I just don’t know of any other than this.
From 1818 to 1846 the Oregon Territory was under “joint occupation” by the United States and United Kingdom.
Victoria 2 represents the Oregon Territory as uncolonized, but that’s not really accurate. It really was part of both countries, at the same time.
Does anyone have a good idea on how to represent this in game? Giving it to the US entirely is the easiest answer, but it isn’t accurate.
And since this is a rather rare occasion, to implement a realistic scenario may take serious overhaul to make joint-ownership viable.
Oregon, California and few other territories in Latin America (which includes Puma Punku) are legitimate territories of the Russian state, always were and always will be. The so called "Romanov" (Roman) "dynasty" was an illegal dynasty which took over the territory of Moscovian Tartaria, which was part of the integral state of the Great Tartary or Mega Territory. Other names (in other countries) were also called Scythia, Hiperborea/Giperborea, Gardariki/(after many "Gard" or Grad (cities)), Bharat(Borea), etc... Riurik, Krivich (that's why Russia is still called Krievs in Latvia and Lithuania) and Kiy's (Kievs; Kiev was not named after some "viking" but after 3 brothers and leaders; Kiy (means "scepter" in old slavic), Horiv (from which derives "Horvath" or "Croat" and Shchek (from which derives "Czech") ; their sister was Lybid which means a "swan"( also a symbol of Hyperborean daughter of goddess Lada or Lady; a white swan, older hyperborean goddess; in Vedas known Saraswati or in Russian as Zorasweta or Zarya Sveta(ya) or "holy dawn"/"white star"/"white world", etc) (in Ireland as Danu); Zora ("Dawn") or Sara(swati) (wife of Brahma in Vedas) later became the Torahic (OCCULT) "Sarah" or Sara, wife of Abraham (where A stands in Vedic Sanskrit as "opposite" (against, anti); so Anti Brahmanic = Abraham(majority of so called "names", "names of cities" are simply occult terms, which derive from Vedic, including Russian names of old Cities; for example; "Tubal" "old" Testament is simply Russian city Tobolsk; Rosh is Rus (although that "Russians" according to the "official" "history" were not invented until the 13th century (as a complete ERASURE of the old history (but this subject is so deep it needs another time to explain everything)) dynasties were LEGAL and official dynasties of Russia, there was a civil war where Romans took over Russian territories or better said to occupy it... The "Russian America was not something new, but it existed before Sophie of Anhalt-Zerbst or aka "Catherine the Great" and Peter the "great" (master mason, parasite of Russia). Peter the "great" was indeed a "purifier" of Russia(which included territories in so called "America"), he "purified" (wiped out) and cleared majority of Russian prechristian history. He also forbade the prechristian Russian/Ukrainian (Tartarian/Scythian/Hyperborean) calendar... Current year 2020 is 7528 since the creation of the Starry temple. This calendar was later absorbed into the judeochristian Sahe
... keep reading on reddit ➡Went out to a bar tonight wearing my VGK hat and had almost a dozen people come up to me and want to talk about the team. One guy talked to me for 15 minutes or so that used to be a Vegas resident. I dont know if it's an adequate sample size but a lot of Portland residents seem to be down with the Knights.
I was raised and educated in California, and my early history education presented things like indigenous history, Spanish colonization, the Oregon Trail, and Route 66 in vivid detail with field trips and required reading. Meanwhile, things like the U.S. Civil War and U.S. Revolutionary War were as abstract to me as the English Civil War and French Revolution.
It made me wonder whether settlers at the time viewed those same events, especially those with fewer family ties back east.
I would have thought that livestock would be at the top of the list of things to bring, but I can see that logistics might be difficult. I know that Polynesian pioneers brought pigs and plants with them while colonizing their islands. Wouldn't settlers heading west have also brought cattle, pigs, chickens, etc. pretty much from the get-go?
