I was wondering if the states that seceded from the Christian Republic of America (CRA) will form their own confederation like the former Soviet Republics in TTL formed the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) in 1993 as a successor to the Soviet Union?
I think they ones with good relations kind of already are, with the Anglosphere itself. Depending on the definitions of “Successor State”, the nations that could be included as successors to the AUS are; the Pacific States of America, the Federal Republic of the Midwest (Omaha Republic), “Greater Texas”, the Christian Republic of America, and the United American Republic
The Pacific States and Omaha Republic are obviously already in the Anglosphere together. Its really doubtful that the CRA and UAR have any positive relations with each other. Actually, depending on what “normal diplomatic relations” tangibly means, its possible they might still technically even still be at war with each other. Given what we know about how their relationship with each other progresses
As expected, fixing the final border between the two powers proved the trickiest issue in the negotiations and peace talks stalled. The Philadelphia government, in violation of the international ceasefire, refused to withdraw its troops from 5,000 square miles of disputed border territory unless the CRA recognized its full sovereignty and equal status as legal successor to the old AUS. In response, the CRA maintained its naval blockade of Secularist ports, although the effects of this were mitigated by the NAO providing the Philadelphia regime access to its harbors. The CRA also refused to release 120,000 Secularist prisoners of war. In the end, the international negotiators were forced to accept a state of ‘permanent truce’ as the most that could be achieved in the Havana Negotiations. Piecemeal negotiations would continue between the CRA and its northern neighbor the next twenty years, cycling through cold peace, renewed thaw, and periods of low-level conflict. The last prisoners of war were exchanged in 1984, more than fifteen years after the end of the conflict, and the two sides finally normalized their border and diplomatic relations at the Annapolis Accords of 1992.
Secularist prisoners of war line up for release, c.1970. The last prisoners of war were exchanged in 1984, more than fifteen years after the end of the conflict
We also know the CRA has a negative diplomatic relation with all of the other American republics and Anglosphere members. Since they were closed off to foreign engagement for more than a decade until after 1979, and even afterwards they are seen unfavorably across the world. However, the information about the conditions and suppression in the CRA is talking in past tense. So, it is possible that by the “present”, conditions have somewhat relaxed and loosed.
There also is a possible interesting circumstance depending on how the BLA peace settlement actually went forward. Since Malcolm X is the leader of the army, its totally possible that like OTL he was more aligned towards the Black Separatist movement (there was also the opener in the 1960 update that hinted at the BLA). We obvious do know that there is no actually independent black state. But it is possible that the settlement involved an autonomous area, where there are at least black only/large majority sections, or Northern Ireland style type separate, "free", self-sufficient, self-managed neighborhoods. On on hand the solution is obviously absolutely horrific, as it segregation turned up to the extreme and essentially ethnic cleansing. On the other, a self governing area and community is probably one the the most reliable ways for the black population in the CRA to be safe from whatever nightmare the CRA would do completely unrestrained if it had free reign. If there is some sort of Black Autonomous self-governing entity that is within the CRA, it would definitely be notable to see what is the larger relationship it would have with the Anglosphere (and even the rest of the world diplomatically). We know the Entente provided support to the Black uprising groups and the BLA. It seems that they would obviously be inclined to communicate and attempt to form some type of a relationship with such a body. It would provide an opportunity for a liberal political entity within the CRA, without waiting for the clearly slow process it would take for the CRA to internally reform as in itself.
At the same time, the regime faced a growing threat from black nationalist movements, with Malcolm Little’s BLA launching several successful attacks throughout the Deep South and galvanizing African-American resistance to the regime.
Black Liberation Army militants, c.1966. Coughlin's regime faced a growing threat from black nationalist movements.
- - - - -
At the same time, in the Deep South, Coughlin’s focus on the war against the Secularists had allowed the African American insurgency to metastasize into a major military threat, capable of seizing and holding territory with stolen CRA heavy equipment. The BLA had succeeded in capturing Shreveport, Louisiana in May 1967, establishing it as a capital of sorts for a breakaway black republic. Unthinkably, the BLA now threatened Huey Long’s hometown New Orleans, the great America First reliquary. Inflamed by two hundred years of inter-community tensions and resentments, the insurgency in the South was bloody and unrelenting, with neither side giving any quarter. Fleeing the terror, tens of thousands of refugees poured into surrounding states and neighboring Texas, straining local resources and inhibiting the military response. The insurgency, which would continue until 1988, caused significant hardships for the population, environment and the economy of the region, with an estimated 60,000–80,000 people killed before its end.
An African-American mother and child pass CRA militiamen in Louisiana during a gun battle, c.1970. The BLA insurgency would continue until 1988 and kill tens of thousands.
In the years after the ceasefire, Coughlin’s regime turned inward, convinced of the hostility of the international system, and focused on restoring and rationalizing its economy. Following Coughlin’s death in 1979, his successor as Supreme Pastor, Wallie A. Criswell, oversaw a reform process that de-emphasized some of the more impractical and internationally unpopular aspects of Coughlin’s ideology, lauched a peace process which led to the end of the BLA insurgency in 1988, and began re-opening to foreign engagement. Nonetheless, the harsh suppression of internal dissent continued, and the CRA remained a
bête noire for international human rights groups.
Inaugural Omaha Republic President Adlai Stevenson died shortly after the end of the war. He became an iconic figure for a new generation of democrats and reformers.
So, aside from that outlet, that only leaves any potential relationship between the American republics as being between Texas, the UAR, and the Anglosphere. The Anglosphere is officially an alliance that is composed of “English-speaking democracies”. We know that by the “present”, the bloc is considered to be mainly isolationist. Which then indicates that they most likely did not obtain any new members, since its original creation as a reformation from members of the NAO-Imperial-Entente. So, if the bloc will ever grow and include new members, it would be either one of those two. (I guess they could technically include some Indian, and maybe even some African nations. But given the issues with India historically in the first place, that really feels extremely unlikely lamo. Those nations also probably don’t manage to fit the “democratic” requirement, for now anyways. So, if that were ever to happen, it would be in the far future, even relative to the “present”).
Texas feels like it would be the most likely, since it is already a liberal democracy. It also had pre-existing relations with the former NAO/Entente that were at least somewhat positive. I would guess that as a result of those earlier connections, there probably does exist some sort of links between the Anglosphere and Texas. Texas does have a history of neutrality for here though, since for a period over twenty years (between 1945 – 1969) it was in a situation where it was required to be “neutral”. Given the context, it seems as if it used this as an opportunity to form links between many blocs, which has allowed it to form both diplomatic and economic to powers like Germany/Mittleuropa. That probably created an incentive economically for Texas to stay, at least officially, outside of the alliance. It also feels like the period of enforced neutrality and only “technical” existence has led to a resentment from Texas. For a long time, they weren’t seen diplomatically as an actual, “real” nation. Which then most possibly lead culturally to a situation where they place more of a priority on their independence and sovereignty, and want to show they aren’t still at a inferior status compared to any other nation. These reasons are probably why, while Texas most likely has the Anglosphere as it natural closest partners, it isn’t now a part of the bloc. Although it seems probably as time passes on, it will drift in that direction. And its very possible it will eventually join and become a member.
Meanwhile, a separate but closely related conflict was unfolding in the Republic of Texas, or ‘Neutral Texas’ as it was internationally known. Texan neutrality, negotiated at the Treaty of Sonoma following Texas’ occupation by Mexico during the Second Civil War, had always been a contentious and fragile concept within Texas itself. Although Texan neutrality secured the country’s independence, many Texans saw their neutered international status as beneath their country’s dignity.
Official flag of the Republic of Texas (1945-1969). A Texan state flag defaced with three grey bands, the 'neutral flag' was so widely disliked in Texas that it was almost never seen, flown only by ships at sea.
Texas, undeniably emerging from the war stronger than it started, succeeded in securing international recognition for its full sovereignty, aided by considerable German diplomatic support and careful hand-holding of Mexico. Moreover, LBJ walked away with ‘Texlahomla’ and Kansas, largely because his armies were the only credible power in the chaotic bandit country regions. In a fiery speech back in Austin, Johnson celebrated the independence and inalienable sovereignty of ‘Greater Texas’.
The flag of Greater Texas (1968 - ). LBJ walked away with ‘Texlahomla’ and Kansas because his armies were the only credible power in the chaotic region.
The UAR is in a different situation, where it still isn’t yet a democracy. The information given, where it named the military junta as being in real control, was in past tense. Which means that its possible that as time went on, and Waters passed, the civilian administration eventually slowly regained oversight of the military like properly originally intended. But even if by the present there is full civilian control, like the old AUS, that is in itself undemocratic. Since the nation is most likely still using the old AUS framework for the civilian government (the government did still call itself the AUS until the time after the American Wars ended, and the constitution created was described as being “democratic-populist”, like the AUS). That system was obviously still undemocratic, since it was created by Huey to keep himself and his supporters permanently in control, create a more indirect sort of democracy, make it more difficult to change representation for the voter, and of course be a one-party state. I also don’t think its unintentional that both the CRA and UAR were given leaders that would bring them to the “present”, given if both remained as authoritarian systems with leaders for life. They’d already be most likely to probably remain as so anyways.
The wars also had profound geopolitical effects. In North America, the Wars represented the end of mainstream pan-Americanist ideology. All of the new American states emerged with distinct, battle-forged identities, and hopes of restoring the old USA were relegated to the political fringe, where they largely remained through the political and constitutional upheavals of the next two decades. After the war, the Philadelphia government – which theoretically still called itself the American Union State – reformed itself as the United American Republic (UAR). Claiming continuity from both Huey Long’s American Union State and the old United States of America, the UAR instituted a democratic-populist constitution, institutionalizing separation of church and state and other civil liberties, and renewed civilian ‘oversight’ of the military. In practice, the UAR continued to be challenged by regionalist tensions. As a result, the
junta remained firmly in control, and President General John K. Waters remained the country’s
de facto dictator until his death in 1989.
Flag of the United American Republic. The re-labelled Philadelphia junta claimed continuity from both Huey Long’s American Union State and the old United States of America.
Also, if the UAR does have the old AUS political system, Peterson will be in a position where its simple for him to become a President for life, as Long was. The same person he “represents” lived until 2011 in OTL, so as time goes on, he would probably likely become more of an institution. Presumptively he is a symbol of the civilian control, meaning that unlike with Huey, his power and influence will probably grow as time goes on. As he is always a steadfast and stable representation of civilian leadership, that will still remain in place if the junta influence start to weaken. Potentially the longer time passes, the longer Peterson is in charge, the more real influence that Peterson starts to actually then have, which allows more influence for the civilian government then in general to have, which can build more upon itself and allow that more reform. And though this is definitely a separate process from democratization, and links to the Anglosphere, issues like this do tend to sometimes begin to be linked politically in the cultural mindset.
If I had to guess, the “official” Presidents of the AUS successor states are something like
American Union State
Huey Long (1937 – 1961)
Charles Coughlin (1961 – 1962)
Christian Republic of America
Supreme Pastor
Charles Coughlin (1962 – 1979)
Wallie A. Criswell (1979 – 2002)
President
Lester Garfield Maddox Sr. (1962 – 1966)
David Turner Green (1966 -????)
United American Republic
President
Russell W. Peterson (1963 – 2011)
President General (the title possibly not official)
John K. Waters (1962 – 1989)
Mixed Junta Control, gradually reforming to civilian control, as well as separate reforms for possibly more democracy, as well as more relations to the Anglosphere.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
So even if the UAR has reverted to full civilian control like the AUS, it would still be undemocratic. There are definitely still connections between the Anglosphere and the UAR, as we know they allowed the republic to use their ports while being blockaded by the CRA. I would guess that initially while establishing itself the UAR was more independent and isolationist, like the CRA was. Then as time went on, I would guess that transfer to civilian control and political reform to increase democratization became linked to further relations with the Anglosphere.
With the Anglosphere most likely acting sort of like OTL US does when it acted to encourage reforms in nations like South Korea or Myanmar to liberalize and “democratize”. (Also, I could have sworn there was actual mention of more return to civilian control and closer ties to the Anglosphere in the chapter, as time went on. But it seems like its not there, as its been edited out, so who knows how much those deleted scenes actually count for lol) . The UAR culturally exists sort of based on the legacy of the continuation of a secular AUS, as "Huey’s vision". Which does create a cultural issue to place a slow down on the pace of reforms. Which is why the UAR most like still continuing on as some type of authoritarian in the “present”. There is also a large cultural difference between the UAR and Anglosphere perspective on the AUS, Long, and all of the more recent American history. Being on originally from different sides of the “Cold War” between the NAO and AUS, and having entirely different origins and governments, probably creates a drastic gap in the mindset between the UAR and the rest of the American Republics. Their very different mentality towards their history will probably impede reform. But as time goes on the past naturally loses its importance. And if the UAR does ever become actually democratic, these differences probably have a limit in their relevance.
Concealed by friends and allies in the north, he became a leading figure in the regionalist-nationalist movement seeking to restore northern autonomy. Following Hamlett’s failed coup, the remaining secularist elements in the military evacuated northwards, and Waters and a cabal of like-minded officers seized their chance to declare themselves the new and rightful AUS government.
Flag of the Philadelphia government. Some confusion surrounds the naming of Waters' government, as it initially continued to call itself the American Union State. To differentiate, historical sources often use the terms Secularist junta, Secularist government, or Philadelphia government.
Setting up its capital in Philadelphia, Waters’ new government continued to call itself the American Union State (in contrast to Coughlin’s newly declared Christian Republic of America) and presented itself as the rightful heir to Long’s legacy. It maintained some of the appearance of the old regime, assembling and seating a new, corporatist Congress and appointing Russel W. Peterson of Delaware as its president. However, true power lay with Waters and the other officers of the junta. They promoted regionalist-nationalist policies and had a primary goal of establishing their own independence rather than seizing control in the South. The new secularist government turned back Coughlin’s neo-segregationist policies, adopted a new flag and coat of arms, and banned the remains of America First and all other political organizations. It swiftly and harshly liquidated not only Coughlin's northern fundamentalist allies, but also the so-called 'New Left', a loose collection of post-Syndicalist democrats and socialists which had also been gathering support in the region as Long and his regime decayed.
Again, probably as time passes on, it will drift in a more democratic direction. Which is probably to some degree a linked issue to Anglosphere connections and influence. Which means it is also very possible it will eventually reform to liberalize, then later join, and then also ultimately be a democratic member. (As for the relations between Texas and the UAR, I would think that they would be perfectly cordial. There isn't any real reason I'd see for it not to be between the two. But since they don’t even have a land border, it is difficult for them to go too much actually further, even if for some reason they did want to)
I could definitely see a situation where in the far future from the “present”, the Empire, then the total Anglosphere, including Texas and the UAR (and in the absolutely very much longer future, even the CRA and
maybe even Mexico?); as time passes continue to increase their links and connections. Until they eventually might even join together in a federalized supra-state. (That all would be in the far future, though, like over the late 21st, 22nd, 23rd centuries). Like the situation in OTL with the EU, African Union, and arguably even NAFTA, today.
As for other potential CIS like entities (an organization that brings the associated nations closer than solely being unrelated, but also isn’t a “real” EU like bloc or alliance), the possible circumstance I could potentially see are:
- Imperial France and West Africa. This is the clearest parallel with a power losing it former directly controlled territories. Though it feels pretty unlikely, since unlike OTL, West Africa for here, had to fight and revolution and uprising for to independence. Relations with France and its former colonies are probably decently harsher and more negative. This later probably means there won’t be an OTL “Francophonie” type institution, in this situation.
These nations easily could still have connections to France, that will grow as time goes on. Since OTL has shown that increased time from independence commonly produces circumstances where the cultural links surpasses and exceeds most brutal and resentful colonial legacies. So potentially an organization like this could eventually form. Although an increasingly global economy will make these connections less important ahead. But as for the “present”, relations are probably still too hostile and resentful between the groups for anything too “official”
- Its unlikely, but a liberalized reformed Mittleuropa could conceivably lead to this. It feels extremely unlikely though, as its completely much more likely it develops a more EU-NATO like alliance organization. In the same form kind of as the Anglosphere
- Another option that is also very unlikely. The Japanese Empire deradicalizing could eventually lead to this if it were to go far enough. Given that it seems to still directly control Transamur in the 1994 map though, it mostly likely did not go to that scope and intensity. Making it so that most likely even in to the “present”, the Empire carries and maintains its authoritarianism and autocracy.
- I would guess that this is the most likely option of the potential situations. The Meditente could form into something like this after France lost control of the West African colonies. There are many potential transformations, and so easily could go in multiple different ways. But absolutely, one is that France remains technically the “leader” of the bloc allies, while materially all of the nations involved in the bloc act as more separate. Even if they are considerably partially directed, economically and diplomatically, by France. The bloc possibly could continue to manage substantial influence and to shape the nations, but the members are essentially sovereign and broadly sustain separately.