Alternative History
Advertisement

Big concern with this - it completely disregards the QSS information that I've written up about Utah/Deseret. Louisiannan 23:25, January 27, 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel that way, I read The Utah, NAU, PUSA and related history articles before writing, and I hoped that I had stuck with the known facts. there's a something of a disregarding amoung the articles themsleves, and the article is very much open to any changes from the author of either the NAU or Utah. Here are facts I've gathered from the two articles to explain the stance taken here

  • problem number 1: both northern deseret and the state of Idaho incorperate in the same year, 1995. Northern Deseret incorperates in a majority vote, Idaho is "Created after several southern Idaho city-states petitioned for membership in PUSA. "
I feel this has been addressed by Mitro, and I think that reducing the size of Idaho that joins the PUSA would be an acceptable solution.
  • the territory composing the State of Idaho is almost Completely in Northern deseret and the part that is not is devoid of towns, let alone city states--therefore, the same towns the same year publicly requested/approved becoming part of two seperate entities.
I would argue against them trying to join two national entities. I think that there could be overlap much like the border of Switzerland and Germany, where there are cities and small areas that are technically part of one country and encircled by another, and that there might be a rigidly defined border, but that the city-states that exist are able to continue their existence. I would imagine that Idaho, for the PUSA, is more of an afterthought, and largely not the focus of their concern in any way. Given the larger influence of Utah, I think that PUSA-aligned city-states would be treated more as "not-aligned" or lawless places, and that most Deseret citizens wouldn't be involved.
  • Northern Deseret was created after the Distance from Fillmore became "increasingly apparent": the route to the specified part of Idaho includes a lake and either a hundred mile detour or multiple mountain passes.
This is true, but as I mentioned regarding the oil industry of Utah, there would be oil and gas for the governmental vehicles, and the telegraph and other forms of communication would be quickly established to unify the region. I look at it as Fillmore being the capital of the new nation and the regional capitals acting as state capitals, densifying the bureaucracy, but also addressing local needs in a more timely manner.
  • I'm assuming that the spokane war turned south to Utah rather than spending resources invading a smaller population farther from established holds.
Yes, but largely due to the density of population and the continuing use of technology, something that the Spokane junta really, really wanted to get a hold of. The northern areas were largely depopulated during the process of the war to reduce civilian lives lost. Because of the depopulation of Pocatello, Twin Falls and Burley to a minimum of soldiers to defend the cities, they were largely unscathed. The populations was returned, however, following the war.
  • Just on a Cultural note, which makes the whole thing really dumb, the disputed part of Idaho is the most mormon part of the state, with Mormons forming over a third of the population.
Which is why I think that Lemhi, Clark and Fremont applying to the PUSA might be a more likely thing - aren't they less LDS-aligned than the likes of Rexburg, Twin Falls, etc.?
  • I'm going off of your statement "most people in the area hold fealty to Utah over the NAU since the NAU is seen as a distant entity making a land-grab, of sorts"
  • neither Government has really taken action, yet both continue to claim the territory, and the PUSA article maintains the disputed capital is in the disputed area. (actually, its been moved from its former location of 20 miles from the Utah border), so I take it that either one government is not running the place (but a capital is maintained in Dubois and NAU is seen as a distant entity), the two governments are working together (which does not appear to be the case) or the area actually runs itself as a member of both organizations. I chose the latter.
I felt that there had been a great amount of action made by Utah with regard to the southern counties of Idaho - maybe I didn't express that in the article, but there has been as much infrastructure upgrades made for Southern Idaho as have been made for the central valleys of Utah, as well as efforts to guard/improve/maintain the I-15 corridor to keep contact with the north.

the article started as a proposal to Mitro on the PUSA talk page when it was still a proposal. the first link to idaho was on the talk page, as a proposal to sort out the above listed situation. He put it on main talk page, though wether he did so as part of housekeeping or because he liked it is unclear to me. Make any changes you want to the article. I do realize its in an area written about by both the founder of the wikia and one of its most active admins, and the purpose of it is to clarify rather than to create a region that did not previously exist. Its still very much in the works. I hope that I have stuck with cannonDesert viking 00:57, January 28, 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the maps on the NAU and PUSA articles that the state of Idaho isn't technically in southern Idaho. I realize now where the confusion came from and I will try to erase "southern" from the pages. Specifically it covers the counties of Lemhi, Clark and Fremont. Mitro 03:58, January 28, 2010 (UTC)

I see-- that's quite a small state-- I thought Lemhi was part of Lincoln. allright, how do you get rid of an article like this?Desert viking 04:23, January 28, 2010 (UTC)

The state of Idaho claims most of Idaho south of the state of Lincoln, though its never enforced since the NAU wants to maintain good relations with Utah.
As for this article, well we could delete it or you could rewrite it. This article could cover all of the city-states and nations that control or claim parts of it territory. Mitro 04:26, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
I think the appropriate resolution to this would be to rewrite it to reflect the state of Idaho made up of Lemhi, Clark and Fremont County, although there will be notable tensions in Fremont, given that it does overlap with the Rexburg Micropolitan area here, and Rexburg has long-been a highly concentrated Mormon area (born there, actually). As such, I could see some fuzziness of the border between the two rival governments for the area.
I've addressed the points you made above, Desert Viking. Here's to our fruitful collaboration. Louisiannan 18:25, January 28, 2010 (UTC)

Renewed Article

I like this direction much better, accepting the proposal you've made and incorporating what I had in mind. I think this could be ready to be graduated in the not-too-distant future, if you wanted. Louisiannan 22:04, January 28, 2010 (UTC)

I'll work up a flag proposal tonight, and post it tomorrow, DV. Louisiannan 22:54, January 28, 2010 (UTC)

Capital

On this page it says the capital is Dubois, and on the US page it says the capital is Salmon. Can someone correct one or the other to what the capital actually is? Thanks. Daeseunglim (talk)

Capital and Largest City

In the territory under Idaho’s control, there are two larger cities, Idaho Falls (1980 Census: 37,739) and Pocatello (1980 Census: 46,340) that are more suitable than Salmon (1980 Census: 3,308) or Dubois (1980 Census: 413) are.

I think Idaho Falls is better positioned, being more centrally located in the state, as the new state capital. However Pocatello is canon as being in Idaho and has the state university in it, so that might make it more ideal.

Daeseunglim (talk) 16:26, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Advertisement