Talk:American Spring (1983: Doomsday)

Archive

New article
I created this article to act as the beginning of my proposed world event, similar to 2009 Saguenay War (1983: Doomsday), the Second Sicily War (1983: Doomsday) and other events where more than one editor collaborated. I am hoping that the dispute over the future of the former United States can be directed to something creative instead of just having to create a new archive page to store a never-ending argument. I do this not because I am changing sides, but only to hopefully bring the community toward some consensus. Mitro 17:25, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

PS: Feel free to change the title of the article. It was the first thing that came to my head and I am in no means attached to the title in anyway. Mitro 17:28, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

I plan to make JFK Jr. a central figure in this drama. Due to the research done by Lahbas long ago, he had a very good chance of surviving Doomsday due to the fact that he was in India at the time. So far I am assuming he found his way to Australia where other Americans were gathering and that later down the road he joined and rose through the ranks of CRUSA. Since he died in 1999 OTL he seems like a perfect candidate to be one of those obscure historical figures who rose to greater prominence in the post-Doomsday world. He would be 50 years old now, but he would likely be young enough to lead the project.

On another note, I am looking for contributions to this article. I want this to be a true collaborative world project. Due to how controversial this idea is, however, we will be following the moderator format we used for the Saguenay War and since this is my article I am going to appoint myself moderator. Please before contributing content to this article add your proposals to the talk page first. Mitro 18:14, March 21, 2011 (UTC)


 * My vision is more like an agreement between nation-states rather than a popular uprising against repressive governments as is assumed in a "Revolution" led by the CRUSA. The legal means established by the USA government should be just as much of a catalyst as the activists of the CRUSA. However, I will go along with the concept, assuming that a groundswell similar to the TEA party in OTL will prefer the old constitution to the separatist "nations" that have arisen.


 * I like the introduction of JFK, Jr., into the mix. I remember a discussion on survivors that had him out of the country at the time of DD. With the son of an American icon at the helm, the CRUSA will be a voice listened to by many states that might be inclined against reunification. Meanwhile, in the south, the "states rights" advocates that might be inclined to stay as independent in order to avoid the abuses they saw of the federal government pre-doomsday will have to weigh the significance of the US constitution rightly interpreted according to the rule of law. SouthWriter 18:55, March 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * Mitro, you're my hero for doing this. God Bless the United States of America 19:02, March 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * GB: Don't praise me just yet. I still do not agree with everything you, South and other proponents of an enlarged US believe. I am basing this proposal on a recent article I read that compared the current protests going in the Middle East and North Africa with other revolutions that happened throughout history. To sum it up: revolutions tend to be long, bloody and the end result is altogether different from what the original revolutionaires wanted. I am keeping that in mind as I contribute to this world event.
 * South: Obviously I do not feel your vision is all that plausible, no offense, but I am going to be using elements of it as pound out the outline (which will probably come sometime tomorrow). I do this in an effort to build consensus instead of promoting divisions.
 * Also on the constitution, don't be so quick to to assume that there is a right way to interpret it. As a historian and attorney, the correct interpretation of the constitution often depends on many factors, including historical timeframe, Supreme Court make-up, regional culture and personal opinion. Meanwhile, there is a reason why it is the shortest governing documents ever drafted. But that is all I will say on that matter since I do not wish to cause a NC/NC violation. Nevertheless I am at least going to keep that in mind as this world event progresses. Mitro 19:23, March 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * I expected you wouldn't, but still this does deserve praise.God Bless the United States of America 19:33, March 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * Mitro, I hope that you do not use your seniority in this time line to force a bloody revolt on the editors. I don't think the majority of the nation-states and city-states would resort to armed suppression of the movement. This is especially true with the express purpose of the USA for this to be a voluntary, though legal process. I wonder what the ANZC is worried about in an expansion of the boundaries and strength of the USA, for the ANZC is just an extension of the ANZUS alliance any way. I am all for consensus and will not be contributing to violence within the states I oversee (presently only Piedmont, Neonotia, and the USAR). The offer from the USA seems to be consensus, so I take credit for that - a non-violent attempt to restore the former USA to a measure of greatness.
 * I had forgotten your longtime interest in alternate history, Mitro, though I am well aware of your status as an attorney. As far as the revised constitution, I am assuming that the document is to be interpreted literally, thus stripping many of the past interpretations of much of their legal standing. The historical timeframe is the 1990's post-doomsday reality, and the Supreme Court is practically "brand new" and largely conservative at this time. As states join, the court will probably change as well (I haven't researched that part), but the lower courts will most certainly become all new. This means that any questions of intertpretations will first come through the lower courts first. I don't see this as a NCNC argument, for this is concerning the alternate time line and not our time line. But that is as far as I'll go with that as well.
 * I look forward to the debate, but I will hold that the existing governments of the successor states will not result to totalitarian measures such as are seen in mideast and Africa at present. The governments of most political entities in TTL are elected and under the constraint of their constitutions and political systems. And so, let us procede as equals in this colaborative effort. SouthWriter 20:11, March 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no plans to force my ideas on any editor and certainly I do not plan some violent bloodbath. But I see any expansion of the restored US as to require some violence. Nevertheless, the change on the scale we consider is certainly "revolutionary". Whether it will be a "Glorious Revolution" as you suggest still remains to be seen.
 * Speaking of my seniority, it has given me some insight into how this TL has evolved. And one thing that has always has been a constant is that we do not own our articles, or to say it another way we do not have absolute control over the content. For example we are all restrained by canon and plausibility. When making a world event like this, we need to be willing to accept that we may have to add content to our articles that we may not like. That is a con of a collaborative projects. I am not promising violent upheavel throughout the southeast, but if consensus comes to something that you might not like South, sorry but too bad. Consensus is not unanimous and if you are not willing to accept that than I already worry about the practicallity of this world event. Mitro 20:38, March 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no plans to force my ideas on any editor and certainly I do not plan some violent bloodbath. But I see any expansion of the restored US as to require some violence. Nevertheless, the change on the scale we consider is certainly "revolutionary". Whether it will be a "Glorious Revolution" as you suggest still remains to be seen.
 * Speaking of my seniority, it has given me some insight into how this TL has evolved. And one thing that has always has been a constant is that we do not own our articles, or to say it another way we do not have absolute control over the content. For example we are all restrained by canon and plausibility. When making a world event like this, we need to be willing to accept that we may have to add content to our articles that we may not like. That is a con of a collaborative projects. I am not promising violent upheavel throughout the southeast, but if consensus comes to something that you might not like South, sorry but too bad. Consensus is not unanimous and if you are not willing to accept that than I already worry about the practicallity of this world event. Mitro 20:38, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

Speak for yourself. The Virginians would be all too eager to supress any sort of violent revolt. They have been preparing for one since the Republic's formation. Though I doubt these preperations would be necessary in the long-term. CRUSA members are extremely unwelcome in Virginia, and have mostly been either killed or deported. Virginian authorities would use any form of violent uprising, especially one sparked by the CRUSA, to permanently dissolve the organization in Virginia, execute the leaders for treason and use the members for hard labour in radioactive lands. So if their is any form of violence in Virginia, it will not turn out good for any CRUSA supporters. --Yank 20:39, March 21, 2011 (UTC)


 * First, Yank, it is my understanding that the modus operandi of the CRUSA is for non-violent activity akin to the civil rights demonstrations of the 1960's. There is nothing in the history of the CRUSA to indicate the least bit of violence in their activities. It is only totalitarian governments that will bring about violence within their borders. From your words above, you seem to indicate that the government of Virginia still has a long way to go toward democracy and free speech.


 * Mitro, I have no intention to go against consensus nor to propose anything implausible. Earlier today I opened up the southern part of "my" state to development by another editor if he so desires. It was not by permission, per se, for I have pretty well given that part up for now (I haven't even done anything with the upstate in ages). Also, I just posted the opening of the American Spring as the movement is known in the USAR controlled islands. Though the government is in favor of the proposed union, some are afraid that the militaristic nature of the government will result in a coup. The military on Navassa has even called on allies in Jamaica to be on alert for "possible trouble." I am not a "trouble maker," but only an elder statesmen for the American spirit. SouthWriter 21:22, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that there is consensus on the issue yet, most of the American editors do seem to agree on some form of reborn U.S.A. However just as we all agreed to scale down the socialist union even though only a few of us are from that area all editors will have to make their views heard before we agree that there is consensus. I for one would oppose any USA that could challenge the Socialist Union in terms of power simply because Canon states that because of the USSR's larger size it survived better. As well as this any fully reunified USA is impossible without huge violence because as Yank said states like Virgina will fight to maintain control. In addition to this you will still have the radioactive areas along the coast and Canadian states that won't allow there American parts to break off.Vegas adict 21:16, March 21, 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, Vegas. I am glad to see an "outsider" admit that Americans speaking on behalf of America are hoping for "some form of reborn USA." I don't see the fact that Socialist Siberia "survived better" as the driving principle of what emerged in that whole discussion. I assume the discussion is archived under the main page, for the controversy is not at the Socialist Siberia talk page. That being said, I will just have to disagree with your premise by memory. The austere conditions of the USSR, and the militaristic and totalitarian nature of its government, is what helped it survive. The people in Siberia were used to hard times, and the military was able to invade nations to the south that could provide food for the survivors. The concept of QSS and QAA, aka known as "canon," does not dictate what a nation might become, only what it has become.
 * And I think you are confusing the stated ideal (mission) of the CRUSA with the intentions of the USA. Though the CRUSA is the instigator of the movement - a non-violent movement - the USA will be the one to "make it happen." The goal of the USA is not to "out do" Siberia or even the ANZC, but only to reclaim as much of the nation that is willing to come aboard by legal means. Those states created and maintained by Canadians, for the most part, will not be going along. That is fine with me. Any state created and maintained within North America by Brits or South Americans (if there are any) may or may not go along. Again, fine. SouthWriter 21:56, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

Mitro, you better be ready to bludgeon some of these guys down and enforce things. As the effective author of the two wars, believe you me, it'll happen, lol.

South, the USSR discussion you refer to is indeed on the main page archives, somewhere.

The idea of JFK Jr. playing a major role is a good idea.

There needs to be a far better time-frame with this, for starters, than only mentioning March. North America nations do not have easy communications, nor do they all think the same. The demonstrations, unless you have subversive moves by CRUSA that plan all of it, simply couldn't start at once. Heck, not even the current otl demonstrations started at the same time or started one right after another, and atl is much worse with communications and technology, hindering its spread.

While it does sound good, the name really doesn't work, in my mind. The American Revolution was violent, yet in most cases this won't be. A better name would be something more to do with peaceful protests, not fighting like the word "Revolution" does.

The idea that this will force nation-articles, and their creators/caretakers, to do things, is just wrong. In both of those wars, the two parties and their authors came to agreements over everything. As such, I see no reason to try and force anyone here, either. Only thing I would make everyone do is mention the protests/rallies, and have something to do with them happen. But nothing that forces anyone into something that they don't want or is not in their plans for their nation.

In several cases, CRUSA will likely have brought in outside members to several of the American survivor nations. No one likes being dictated to, even if they are inclined in the direction of the person dictating to them. Can't see those cases ending well.

There will be nation-states that don't have anything going on in them either, I'm sure, as well.

Lordganon 11:02, March 22, 2011 (UTC)

I think revolution doesn't necessarily infer violence. Look at the Industrial Revolution, or the Quiet Revolution in Quebec. It just means major change. 2nd American Revolution infers similar circumstance to the first one, as well as many Americans referring to the War of 1812 as the 2nd American Revolution. So maybe something more like New American Revolution or something.Oerwinde 18:06, March 22, 2011 (UTC)

The sole goal of these protesters is the complete reunification of the United States. Not only do I think that this is completely impossible, but quite a few nations would probably want nothing to do with the US. Especially Virginia. To them complying would be to dismantle their national government in favor of the nation that abandoned them for 26 years. As far as the Virginian authorities think, that makes any CRUSA operative or supporter guilty of treason. Ever since Reagan fled America like a sniveling coward an increasing number of Virginian citizens think that the US can go curl up an die for all they care. After all, if Reagan knew about Torrington, why didn't he just go to Torrington instead of flying to (and dying on the way to) Australia. So why is it just me who doesn't think that every single survivor has warm and fuzzy memories of America, especially when communications are improving and more and more people hear of Reagan and Bush's disgraceful actions. --Yank 18:37, March 22, 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, Yank, it is only you that has such an overtly anti-American attitude which you project on every citizen in what is now called Virginia in TTL. The reason Reagan did not go to Torrington is because the superstructure was not there at the time. The government at Torrington only knew that a contingency plan was in order. The military only made contact with Reagan after his advisers - key among them being Bush - had convinced him that the agreement with ANZUS was the best bet for survival (a bad decision, I agree, but it is what was written from the very beginning). No one is saying that "every single survivor" has the same ideas, though the "memories of America" would only be tainted by those with motives prejudiced against the former nation. Your two largest American nation-states were founded by illegitimate rulers - a renegade general and the mayor of the capital city. The general came from outside and took over, the mayor took over a city and claimed a state to be a nation. But that being the case, the USA does not "want" these nations to be the forced to join any union against the will of the people. As for the CRUSA, these people were opposed to Bush's APA from the very beginning, and they "have a dream" which is not in full accord with that of the NAU or the USA. To brand them as traitors is irrational. If they came into Virginia demanding the overthrow of the government, they would be criminals. I suspect that they are wiser than that, and would take a different tact to reach any sympathetic Virginians. Either way, though, violence against non-violent protesters is not the democratic way. SouthWriter 19:35, March 22, 2011 (UTC)

More like "2011 American Protests" or something similar, Oer. Even the Industrial Revolution, with the Luddites and Rural violence, and Glorious Revolution, with the fighting, had their fair amount of violence despite normally being written off as peaceful. The Quiet one, self-evidently, is an exception, though even then it was a "fight" against the established elite. But unless they are put down, violence is unlikely with simple protesters, so revolution itself is likely not the best name.

Yank, while that may be the "goal" of the protests, even South and GB admit it's not going to happen. Though you do have a point about the abandonment being an issue in at least a few areas, as well as Regan's movements, considering he chose to abandon the West Texans, something which will quite possibly kill the CRUSA movement in the entire region.

Lordganon 12:54, March 23, 2011 (UTC)

You have to look at it through Virginia's perspective. To achieve the theoretical Virginian CRUSA supporters primary goal, the Virginian government would need to be either dissolved or reduced to a state government. As far as the Virginians are concerned they are just as legitimate a country as the US. So that would make any CRUSA supporters guilty of treason to Virginia. And while it is true that General Thompson forged Virginia, they have adopted a democratic (though militaristic) constitution, and have had democratic elections. Yank 20:30, March 23, 2011 (UTC)


 * You speak of Virginia as a monolithic world power with no opposing views. Or, if they are, they are not allowed to speak for fear of being jailed or run out of the country. I suppose you are speaking of the powers that be in Charleston -- the established regime run by the military. It has been conceded that your creation will not go along, so we cannot expect any positive feedback from you concerning this project. Though Mitro reminded us that even the creator of an article cannot make it blatantly contradict canon, we have come to recognize Virginia for what it is. The arguments have been made, differences of opinions smoothed out, and we have let things move ahead. Judging from what you have written above, though, free speech is still not quite up to the same standards as those of the original Virginians. --SouthWriter 21:17, March 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * interesting

Outline
Alright I finally got a chance to work on the outline for the world event which is provisionally being refered to as the "Second American Revolution". Here are my thoughts:


 * Name of event
 * Let us stick with Second Revolution unless as we write a new and better name is adopted, though I do like American Spring
 * Articles that need to be created, graduated or further developed during the ongoing world event:
 * 2010 US Congressional Report on the Continuation of the US Government (1983: Doomsday)
 * John F. Kennedy, Jr. (1983: Doomsday)
 * Elizabeth City (1983: Doomsday)
 * Missouri (1983: Doomsday)
 * International Falls (1983: Doomsday)
 * Florida (1983: Doomsday)
 * Natchez Accords (1983: Doomsday)
 * Spokane (1983: Doomsday)
 * Municipal States of the Pacific (Ignition point)
 * Disputed elections still causing problems.
 * CRUSA agents organize pro-democracy revolts, but they unexpectedly take on a pro-unification tone.
 * Violence between Civic Rights Party supporters and Jefferson Nationalists supporters.
 * Old US flag used be protesters. CRP government collapses.
 * Protesters now call for reunification of United States to prevent such "tyranny" from happening again.
 * CRUSA goes into high gear
 * JFK Jr., chairman of CRUSA, plans spur of the moment speaking tour across American survivor states to take advantage of events in MSP.
 * CRUSA agents step up presence in North America.
 * Disputes with USA, how do they smooth out their differences (liberal CRUSA vs. conservative US)
 * Pro-unification sentiment spreads through Pacific Northwest and California
 * Victoria has a minor crisis with Americans in its territory. Cross-immigration in both American and Canadian territories. Debate about whether they should stay independent, join US or Canada.
 * SNU hit by protests (where is Fx in all this discussion, he fought too hard with Arstar over this country to be kept out of the discussion now)
 * Vislia again violently suppresses any pro-US movement in its territory, officially denounces US claims to legitimacy, due to their actions south and central California likely to go to Texas/Mexico alliance
 * Chumash and Slavers, though do not act as violently as Vislia, still suppress any protests
 * North American Union issues
 * US ecstatic about future
 * Utah, Navajo and Lakota officially take anti-unification stance. Some protests.
 * Canadian states meet along Hudson Bay to finalize talks of reunification, especially between PC and CRP.
 * Protests spur consolidation talks elsewhere.
 * Texas and Florida speed up unification
 * Texas would rather stay independent, grows closer to Mexico and neighboring states
 * New Florida gov considers joining either provisional southeast gov (see below), the ECF, the Natchez Accords or remain neutral
 * Arizona, New Mexico and Oklahoma survivor states build toward consolidation
 * Arizona and New Mexico survivor states join the Mexico/Texas alliance
 * Oklahoma is likely to join Natchez Accords
 * Tennesse: Jackson and East Tenn begin unification talks along with other survivor states
 * Minnesota: Assinobia and other Canadian states work to keep this are away from US, possibly join enlarged Canada
 * Pennsylvania unifies but follows the Vermont Doctrine
 * Dakota announces intention to join US
 * Lakota leaves NAU and declares war to prevent being surrounded by the US
 * Non-Lakota in territory rebel
 * International reactions?
 * ANZC? Against Hawaii or Alaska joining larger US but not exactly against a stronger US, especially considering their rivalry with SAC
 * ANZC Associated states
 * Alaska: Some pro-US sentiment, but generally happy with current situation especially since they think only the ANZC can protect them from the Soviets
 * Hawaii: Some pro-US sentiment as well, demonstrations in major cities but no majority support
 * Belau: Vehemently anti-US, anyone with pro-US leanings is attacked
 * SAC? Against the idea of a larger US for fears of anglo-imperialism, will finance anti-unification movements across North America. Financial support to Mexico/Texas alliance, Virginia, etc.
 * USSR/Cuba/Communist nations? Probably anti-American expansion, would use whatever resources/influence to prevent
 * Canada? Probably a lot like the ANZC, ok with a stronger US as long as it means an equal is created, probably would go anti-expansion if Victoria chooses to join the US
 * LON? They like to intervene in places, will they intervene in North America?
 * Mexico really does not want reunited America, stronger ties with Texas, Louisiana and other southern survivor states in an expanded Natchez Accords
 * Panama: Some former American military warlords declare support for US, SAC intervenes to eradicate them once andRR for all
 * Anti-unification stances:
 * Virginia: rather see EAA evolved into something more, but not under the control of western states
 * Hawaii and Alaska: happy with ANZC
 * Superior: much like Virginia
 * Declares itself the true successor to the United States (most people refer to them though as the United States of Superior)
 * Invites UC states to join heir version of America, but only Wisconsin agrees to join, other states consider it though
 * Vermont: rather stay independent, convinces rest of New England/Northeast of this as well
 * Southeast US
 * More pro-unification as news of events in western America spread.
 * Talks of forming a provisional confederacy until it becomes practical to unite with the US out west. Blue Ridge wants to join this.
 * Crisis with EAA: Kentucky/Virginia split, conflict in region
 * Superior secures control of Great Lakes region
 * Quad Cities takes opportunity to rid Central Illinois of brigand problem
 * Louisiana strikes deal with communities in Mississippi, but against further unification, seeks strong alliance with Texas and Mexico
 * USAR approves unification with America, symbolic only though until it truly becomes practical to unite, US needs coast
 * As time passes movement begins to change relationship to a Commonwealth status
 * NAU reforms
 * Attempts to reconcile events around continent and Second Lakota War before organization ceases to exist
 * Vermont, Texas, expanded Canada, US of Superior and other states join following reforms
 * New England
 * Events elsewhere spur Keenist supporters to stage similar protests throughout New England
 * Libertarian sideshow only, no support of pro-unification
 * Use same tactics though as CRUSA
 * Wildcards?
 * Republic of Lincoln?
 * "Central America" or the territory that the USA will need to go through to get to the Southeast, what is going on there?
 * "Central America" or the territory that the USA will need to go through to get to the Southeast, what is going on there?

Note: As you notice I did not add dates. I am assuming this event is going to take most of the year if not more to write out. As we discuss and get more specific, the outline should change.

Anyway, comments? Mitro 18:13, March 23, 2011 (UTC)

Discssion of Outline

 * Just a few remarks concerning the USA in all this. The USA is not a big backer of the CRUSA, nor is the CRUSA a full supporter of the present USA. Their goals are not the same. There will be some co-operation, and supporters of the unification movement will be divided among the radicals and the moderates (those who want to proceed in an orderly legal manner). The "conservatives" may very well be those who are happy with the way things are (status quo). The government, though, will be with the moderates, wishing only to extend the reach of the US to its legal limits. The most the USA can expect is international recognition of its legitimacy and its day in "court" to defend its rights as such. Any militaristic movement to secure former US territory would be futile even if it were to have the forces to try. It will only be through democratic elections in successor states (and any unaffiliated city-states).


 * I feel this is an uphill battle given the outline. I know it is just your thoughts, Mitro, and based on what some major contributors have written so far, but you carry a lot of weight on this wiki (and especially this time line). One contributor, though, has presented statements of support -- that is Zack, creator and maintainer of Kentucky and affiliated states. I foresee a breakup of the EAA if he stays true to that notion. That might alienate Virginia, causing regional conflict as well.


 * I've got to go -- real life calls -- I'll check back with you guys later. SouthWriter 21:51, March 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: I have updated the article on the "Report on the Continuation..." Let me know if it sounds right or if it trashes canon. :-) SouthWriter 05:04, March 24, 2011 (UTC)

Here are my thoughts regarding the countries I am caretakers of:


 * Mexico - they really would rather not see the U.S. reunify, but do not necessarily stand opposed to it. Only if it becomes a threat to Mexico's growing status as a regional superpower. its view (and mine) is that a new USA could only be a direct threat if rearmed by the world's current superpowers. If that happened, Mexico would perceive the real threat from that superpower, not necessarily from the reunified U.S. Also keep in mind that Mexico has been helping rebuild Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and also most of the Southeast, Oklahoma, New Mexico and Arizona survivor states, so it has an economic incentive to help bring them back into the OTL 21st century. The thing is a less-powerful USA out west and an EAA in the east, allied with Mexico, is what Mexico really prefers.


 * Texas - wants to be independent politically. Economic and political alliance with Mexico is seen as the best option not just by the politicians, but by many Texans. Remember West Texas offered itself as the new home for the APA, and it was rejected. Texans have by and large not forgotten that. Instead of harboring ongoing resentment towards Bush, though, they have seen it as an opportunity to build a new country, independent, taking the best American values with it into the future. Friendly towards Torrington.


 * Hattiesburg/Louisiana - want to be allied with Texas. They know, and trust, Texas and Mexico. They are curious about Torrington, but don't know it. In their minds, they will not submit authority to anyone in the former USA just because they claim to be the bona fide successor to Washington. Given post-DD history and what Mexico and Texas have done for them, they would give up their sovereignty to Midland or Mexica before Torrington or, even, the APA and ANZC. Would be friendly to Torrington, but nothing more.


 * Blue Ridge, East Tennessee, the former CSA states in the southeast - strongly prefer to be in some sort of union or confederation with the other regional survivor states (especially the East American Alliance, and Piedmont). They would trust Torrington much more than Mexica or even Midland. I see them as being the most likely of the survivor states I'm caretaker of to join the Torrington USA. On a side note, I could see East Tennessee, south central Tennessee and Jackson reunifying as the successor to the state of Tennessee (with EAA help).


 * Vermont - strongly prefers to be independent. Unless the pre-DD USA magically appeared, Vermont prefers to be the North American Switzerland, and more importantly control its own affairs. Would be friendly to Torrington.


 * International Falls - I haven't done much with it, but would be willing to rejoin the USA as its own state or the successor to the state of Minnesota.


 * Hawaii - likes its status as part of the ANZC.


 * Alaska - The question here is whether ANZC status or rejoining the USA would be the best option for Alaska. I also suspect the ANZC would not be willing to give up the Alaskan oil.

--BrianD 01:58, March 24, 2011 (UTC)


 * It is rather a shame that the original paradigm had such a drastic abandonment by the Reagan-Bush administration. But I agree with your assessment of both Texas and Mexico. As for the Natchez Accord partners, I am not so sure that alliance to Texas and reunion to the USA are mutually exclusive. It is pretty certain that Texas is not interested in annexing Louisiana and its neighbors, so their association with Torrington might actually be to their advantage. I agree, though, that they would be wary of the USA until further information surfaced.


 * I believe that the relationship of the southern Appalachian states to the EAA will be altered drastically when and if Kentucky breaks with Virgina. Any help that these states might have from the VR regime will turn quickly to opposition if it does not have its powerful neighbor as an ally. We'll have to wait for Zack to weigh in on that (he has indicated the CK would rejoin the US under the proper conditions).


 * In Minnesota we have International Falls in the north (friendly to the US, but what about the Canadian side) and the Christian Republic of Olmsted in the south (wary of the US, or any secular government, due to the theocratic nature of the community). Neither can much claim the government of the state. International Falls, both sides, could probably join the US in much the way the USAR does, though.


 * With Alaska, it's a real toss up. I think the government would weigh the legal merits of the case and then prefer their "free" status in alliance with the Pacific power. However, since they ARE free, the oil they have is not technically the ANZC's to claim, is it? Just asking. SouthWriter 05:04, March 24, 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree Victoria would have some minor crisis, mostly in the more recently acquired south though. During reconstruction of Washington there was a lot of cross immigration, Americans moving to Vancouver Island, Islanders moving to Washington to aid in reconstruction and hoping to take advantage of the economic vacuum. More recently a lot of the more hard-line pro-Americans have moved to San Juan, so the question of reunification with either Canada or the US is a tough one.Oerwinde 08:06, March 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright I updated the outline with some of the discussion that has been going on. Check it out. Mitro 15:08, March 24, 2011 (UTC)

Alaska has always been a touch more independent-minded. Heck, since they're free they'd get more out of the oil, anyways. The ANC seems more like a stable market than anything for the oil. Besides, with the position of Victoria they'd be more isolated than ever from the USA if they were to rejoin.

The International Falls article is a touchy one. Really doesn't go into too much detail, and it doesn't talk about anything north of Fort Frances, like it probably should. But, given the Canadian aspect and their position between Assin~ and Olmsted, reunion is probably unlikely.

American Spring would be a much better name for the article. I like the thought of it starting in the MSP as well.

Visalia, which I turned into the militaristic and Latin absolute monarchy "The Kingdom of San Joaquin," actually had the jailing of several CRUSCA members written into it. Given that and its history, it can definitely be said that any protests there will be met with blood. May do a second rebellion there over the matter, but the ruling classes control the place, so not likely.

Prescott, the only survivor state in Arizona besides the Navajo, and given that state and its canon probably the only one, is indeed more Mexican and Texan aligned and would go that direction, despite it's formal name of "State of Arizona" which is more so intended as in "Nation-State." Given the definite reputation of it as a "Wild West" town, some people could be run outta town on rails too, lol. Should be noted that the Texan view of the APA runs true here too.

Oswego will let them protest all they want, but in the end, it's not aligned that way, either.

Superior.... that's an odd case, that one. They are molding themselves in the image of the USA, and even let CRUSA openly operate. Yet, at the same time, they have an obviously independent mindset. Myself, I'd like to see them be another nation to declare themselves an official successor to the USA. Really don't know how they would react, however, though joining the USA is most likely entirely out of the question. Protests would be left alone, for the most part.

Now, Arstar told me to keep an eye on his articles for him, and has told me his views on the future of this timeline in the past, so I figure I'll leave a few notes on here for him too based on those, though they may or may not be right in the end.

Arstar favors unification, by his own admission, as a general rule of thumb. Though I don't think in all cases this applies to the USA, given things, either.

Essentially, the UC states stay that way. Wisconsin goes to Superior. Penn~ unifies, though I've no clue from him there past that.

California goes to the USA, given that for all purposes it's a provisional state government.

Plymouth would probably go with Vermont's views.

I really don't see the need for the Canadian governments to have any sort of conference - though the Hudson Bay coast of the CRP is the most likely spot if so - as they all have been long talking over the matter. Though the CPR and PC would have a shining moment to finally get their reunification talks dealt with.

Lordganon 17:24, March 24, 2011 (UTC)

More updates. I also prefer the "American Spring" as a title. Unless there are any objections I will rename the article.

Speaking of the MSP, I used it to start this whole event for two reasons: 1) it had those recent disputed elections which provided a good opportunity to start some protests and 2) being the first American survivor state ever created makes it symbolically important when writing this world event. Mitro 17:49, March 24, 2011 (UTC)

It's more like South-Central California with Visalia. But, it's more of a not liking anyone thing than a pro Mexico/Texas view, though that will likely happen eventually anyways lol. The Slaver states - and the Chumash - will probably have opinions along the same lines.

Don't really see Superior pressuring most of the UC, as that would implode the thing. Don't think Arstar wants that. Not that I won't try a completely different route of that on my own lol Glad that someone likes the declaration part, mind.

Yeah, I figure the Penn government going the Vermont path would be likely.

Lordganon 18:00, March 24, 2011 (UTC)

Quick input on "my" states: Since I remain officially on break, BrianD can be the one to handle both the Pacific islands and Keene, should they come up, since he more-or-less oversees both regions to which they belong. Has anyone besides me done any Panama-related writing? If not, then developments there are left to group consensus. Benkarnell 18:18, March 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * Hawaii: don't discount the potential for division over this issue. Hawaiian nationalism has been the main current for 20 years or so, and CRUSA identified mostly with a cooky fringe. But this largely arose from a perception that the USA was finished. A great many Hawaiians have not forgotten their American identity. There are unlikely to be calls to join some kind of revived Union, but the changing circumstances on the Mainland will definitely influence attitudes on the islands. You may see a pro-US reaction assert itself after lying dormant for so long.
 * Keene: The citiznry still consists of activist-pioneers who passionately revere the USA's Founding Fathers while decrying the very concept of the nation-state as outdated and destructive. Don't look for any support here for "the new imperialism."
 * Former American Samoa and Micronesia: Both had been tied to the US as an economic benefactor; not only has ANZ taken up this role, but both island groups are now part of the ANZC. Possibly some pro-US nostalgia here, but no political or economic reason to join the movement.
 * Belau: Here, opinion is probably actively hostile to the memory of the USA. If this thing takes off, there might well be anti-US protests here.
 * Former American soldiers in Panama: The only ones who stayed in Panama (rather than leave for the Virgin Is.) were diehards who had embraced the role of regional warlords. The few who remain are aging and well-armed rulers of petty fiefdoms - though a few still do things like fly the Stars and Stripes and claim to act on behalf of the US Armed Forces. Interesting stories could come out of Panama!

Interesting. American reunification would certainly shake up this timeline. I'm not going to comment on what states would take what positions because I not too well versed with the American articles. But as far as the protestors go, could this develop into a widespread terrorist/insurgency movement either within individual states or across America? Hardline unification supports might turned to armed rebellion in countries that refuse unification. While most nations would probably experience peaceful change, if any, it could transform into a long-term militancy movement. This doesn't necessarily have to take only a year. The "American Spring" could be a long-term event that would last up to a decade or be the beginning of a wider movement. Caeruleus 22:49, March 24, 2011 (UTC)

I'm really intrested to see what happens with this, I'm wanting to come on the devlopment of Indiana..I know alot of you are going, 'here we go again'..but I'd really like for Indiana have some part in this..if we could do a group project or clean up Provisional Indiana. -Sunkist- 03:29, March 25, 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I'm all for unification, but I think a slower unification may be better. I used to be all for it until I realized during my haitus how much of a wasteland much of the US truly would be and that completely reuniting even half of it would be difficult. Also, you'd be stripping too many people of their nations only to be added to the US and I think it'd be best for this "Second American Revolution" to occur mainly west of the Mississippi, but that's just what I think.

I have to go to bed, but I'mma just quickly state which of my nations I would like to join this protests/unification and which don't (forgive me, I'm not really sure what exactly's going on).

I'm up for California joining either the MSP or the NAU/USA (or both, if the MSP joins.) No problem with Stillwater, in fact I'd prefer for that to happen sooner than later, and I'd like for the US Atlantic Remnant to strike a deal of some sorts with the mainland US, making them an official Commonwealth or self-governing participate which would eligible for statehood later on. The Republic of Florida is also on my list to be joined to the US, but I'd like to give it 2 years growing time at least.

States I would not/never like to join the US include Superior, Niagara Falls, and Plymouth, but Niagara most of all. Superior is a state that I'd like to open relations with the US, and maybe even join the NAU under looser circumstances than other member states, but I don't see them joining the US for at least another 10-20 years. North Penn is tentative, depending on whether or not I can get Zack's cooperation with uniting the two Pennsylvania states. Wisconsin would go to Superior rather than the US/NAU, and I don't think Superior would pressure other member states of the UC to join the NAU, as the UC has its own thing going on.

Later guys, Arstar 03:53, March 25, 2011 (UTC)
 * More updates to the outline. Also a note on the time frame of this world event: the actual demonstrations this article covers will probably only be a few months, but the events they spur will last far longer. It is one of the reasons why I see this as a very ambitious world event. Any editor who ever wrote an article on an American survivor state will have to be consulted. We also will need every active editor editing articles to keep pace with the new content this world event will inspire. We have 2-3 wars in the future, several nations ceasing to exist, several more nations arising from their ashes and many existing organizations will either disband or evolve into something completely different. Plus we are going to need a new world map! I am starting to get a little excited about this. Mitro 13:21, March 25, 2011 (UTC)

Superior will not even offer at this time like that to the UC. That'd kill the whole organization, as it's not that kind of organization, and Superior is far from the big fish there now. Wisconsin is too far away as well, that joining is some time off. They've also got control over as much of the lakes as they'll get, Wisconsin/Minni/Michigan coasts asides. And, just the Republic of Superior, not the United States of Superior. Don't need that title to declare themselves the successor. Come to think of it, that would probably mean the USA tries to keep them out of the NAU, lol. Lordganon 14:58, March 25, 2011 (UTC)


 * Addendum to what I said above: I had missed that the Spring would start as a Pacific Coast phenomenon. Seeing that it is, I ought to reveal my plans for the Yukon. I had been planning for the Y's Territorial Assembly to vote to recocgnize Andrew as King of the Yukon when it meets late this spring. That vote would not become official for another year, though, because the delegates would have to go back to their communities and get approval from all the people before the next assembly meeting in spring of 2010 - politics in the Yukon moves at an appropriately glacial pace. Set against this backdrop, though, things might be sped up slightly - that is, the delegates might suddenly want to assert their Canadianness and decide to meet again in September to confirm the vote, rather than next year.


 * @ Mitro - That sounds good for Panama. I had neglected to talk specifically about the Canal Zone itself, but you're spot on when you say that the Spring would prompt the South Americans to decide it was time for a major new push. Which might have complicated ripple effects in the region with a Costa Rica-backed, generally anti-SAC West Panama League, a Soviet-alligned Nicaragua, etc. etc. Benkarnell 15:06, March 25, 2011 (UTC)

As for the map, at this point, there is so many small nations in NA and Europe that we need to adjust the concept of a detailed world map in those areas down to unlabeled countries. Even after everything here happens, mind.

Thought I'd throw this in here - a rough map of all the current, and proposed, nation states in North America. Boundaries are pulled roughly in a couple spots, but it should help this article.



@Ben sounds good for the Yukon. Let me know what you decide and I'll run it through if you're gone.

Lordganon 15:10, March 25, 2011 (UTC)


 * You can probably handle it. The scenario I described above will probably do it. The meeting will start in mid-April and last until mid- or late May. A special session can be called for September. Let's go with that, thanks. And on behalf of everyone, thanks for the map! Benkarnell 15:23, March 25, 2011 (UTC)


 * Didn't you give this up for Lent, Ben? :-) Mitro 16:21, March 25, 2011 (UTC)
 * Quick question, does Oregon have any interest in rejoining the United States? Or Cascadia as well? Arstar 23:18, March 25, 2011 (UTC)


 * Just browsing the articles, it would seem that while Oregon was granted the right to be the successor state after the civil war, an investigation would have to be made into Astoria first. The way the governor sort of "went bad" in upholding order turned ugly with his originally legitimate government being overthrown. Astoria is all that is left of the original government of the state. Cascadia, though peaceful, is three to four counties of two states, and not the successor of either. However, two states and the outer edge of another nation take up parts of Idaho as well. At last reading the USA was slow at returning Cascadia's call, so there is tension there right now. SouthWriter 02:45, March 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * Completely off topic, but lately with everything going on in RL, and on here about the USA, I think all of us Americans (Or any nationality) need a little Morale Boost and a perk up . God Bless the United States of America 04:36, March 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, GB. So what if you're optimistic! Even we realists can still hold onto our anthem and our motto! SouthWriter 04:51, March 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks South God Bless the United States of America 05:12, March 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * Oregon would most likely rejoin the US. They recently reclaimed democracy in the state and rejoining a restored US would likely be something that would appeal to most. Astoria is another question. They would most likely be opposed, but joining the NAU wouldn't be out of the question.Oerwinde 07:02, March 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * The USA government might investigate Astoria in behalf of Oregon, but in the end they would leave them alone. The CRUSA, on the other hand, might stir up a lot of trouble by "demanding" that the breakaway nation be dissolved due to its history of violence and its present military regime. SouthWriter 15:28, March 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * What is there to discuss or update on Spokane? The warlords were defeated and the area was absorbed into the state of Lincoln, USA. Therefore, that area is already part of the USA. SouthWriter 22:13, March 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe I am being to thorough, but it is a defunct nation mentioned in so many articles and it is located in the region where most of the world event will be happening. It seems right that the article should be made. But it is not that important to the ongoing events. Anyway I will be updating the outline soon. Hopefully we can start working on the timeframe. Mitro 23:13, March 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe I am being to thorough, but it is a defunct nation mentioned in so many articles and it is located in the region where most of the world event will be happening. It seems right that the article should be made. But it is not that important to the ongoing events. Anyway I will be updating the outline soon. Hopefully we can start working on the timeframe. Mitro 23:13, March 26, 2011 (UTC)

Here is a idea I had for this event
 * ANZC is hostile to the event for some reason, along with the USSR,and SAC.
 * It is revealed that the Aussies lied about he interior of the US, because they didnt want the APA to became independent of ANZC help (they expected the APA to dissolve, giving them the APA territory and equipment).They also told the Boss in cresent city to expect the APA, causing the cresent city crisis. (Read USS Benjamin Franklin article where the Aussie pilot went into the interior of the US, and reported a desert where we now know to be a inhabited area)
 * Due to this, many americans in ANZC have a uproar, with even some American military personal and citizens leaving for the now reformed US and the MSP in protest.This forces the ANZC government to issue a apology and begin supporting the American Spring,
 * The USSR and SAC decide to agressivly counter this by economic,political, and in the case of smaller and unaligned American survior states, Military actions
 * Faced with this threat, most of the American survior form a loose alliance to fend off this agression, with covert ANZC and Mexican help.
 * This leads to a massive war, with the ANZC and Mexico being forced into it, in support of the American side,after the USSR uses Biological weapons, and a few small tatical nukes. This leads to the dissloution of LoN,because of the many nations fightng. ADC joins in support of America because of the USSR and SAC rules of war violations, and to honor their alliance with ANZC.
 * During the war, close bond are formed between the American Survior states, due to them having to fight side by side to survive. This leads to a stronger alliance being formed and lead by the current USA, which has taken a leading role in the fight.
 * The war ends in the favor of the American side, with an Invasion of SAC and widespread protest in the USSR, forcing them to surrendor. The USSR ends its communist leadership, and becomes much more democratic.SAC replaces its anti-western government with a more liberal one. ANZC becomes strong and experiences a war time boom, but is lessened by a widespread migration of Americans back into America.ADC is also experences a boom, with canada absorbing many of its survior states peacefully,Celtic Alliance absorbs all of the former UK, and changes its name to Isle Union.ADC is repaired enough to assist France in being restarted, but this does not compare to the biggest event.The biggest thing to happen is Full American Reunification.After the war, there is close bonds between the nations, resulting in the US being reformed.It becomes a federation, like ANZC and SAC currently are, with each nation having some level of autonomy, but the main power resting in the Federal government. 1983: Doomsday ends after this, with America once again becoming a world power.
 * glorious way to end a timeline? God Bless the United States of America 01:21, March 27, 2011 (UTC)


 * Please tell me you're joking. None of that makes sense at all. Lordganon 01:45, March 27, 2011 (UTC)


 * Not to speak for GB, and I think his ideas - and that is all they are - makes about as much sense as the Reagan administration abandoning the United States at the worst possible time. He is looking at it through very young eyes, with a very limited idea of the flow of world history. The massive world war he envisions, and the political games played between nations, are indeed too much to swallow; but it is an honest attempt to resolve this mess which the past three years has made of this time line. SouthWriter 02:08, March 27, 2011 (UTC)

I have to reject the premise, GB. I don't see the ANZC acting that way at all. The desert portion was written probably by the original author of this timeline a few years back, when the consensus amongst the editors seemed to be that America was a radioactive wasteland. I don't believe the SAC and USSR are looking to start a world war, either. --BrianD 01:57, March 27, 2011 (UTC)


 * LG: Sorta, Partial a joke, and partial a hollywood blockbuster ending :)


 * South: I just hought it would be a cool way to end a timeline, with a lot of different aspects, and I totally agree with your points


 * Brian:Yeah, I agree, I just thought it would set up the events

Well gentlemen, I hope that responds to your questions and comments. Shred it up if you want, I just thought it could give us a rough outline on how to end this with epicness, and not like most timelines that have bad endings. Yeah, it does sound out of there now that I thank about it.However, lets send it to Hollywood! Just kidding, see you guys in a bit. God Bless the United States of America 02:48, March 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * South I realize you have taken GB under your wing, but comparing his statement to an element of the TL that was added by the original author himself/herself is illogical. No offense GB, but this is a serious TL and now I am starting to wonder about what exactly you are trying to accomplish. The last time I saw ideas such as that it was made by a troll who wanted to conquer all of Europe with AT-ATs. Mitro 04:21, March 27, 2011 (UTC)

GB, Mitro is right - this is a serious TL. I would expect a kid your age to come up with just the scenario you did, Hollywood and all. That's fine in and of itself, but here's the thing: this IS a serious timeline, sparked by one of the most dead-serious things that could ever happen to humanity. Each editor who comes here needs to understand that every scenario needs to either be near-likely to happen or plausible, and the TL as a whole needs to be respected. Not to say you don't respect the TL (I'm sure you do), but that you perhaps need to see it more through an adult's eyes than a teenager's. --BrianD 04:35, March 27, 2011 (UTC)

GB, another thing: though a TL with the Undead Army of The Zombie Republic of Los Angeles fighting off the Prussian AT-ATs in the wastelands of Cleveland may be fun to write up in another venue :-) working on a timeline such as this means dealing with how events play out and their reprecussions. We're not working towards an end to the TL, we are aiming to deal with events now (and in the past), with the aim of keeping it going so other editors can continue. You're learning, man. Don't give up, learn from others who have been at it for awhile, and keep creating, and soon you'll begin contributing in a big way. BrianD 04:42, March 27, 2011 (UTC)