Talk:NAL-SLC

Language Issues

A bunch of this can be redistributed now that we're on this new format. BoArthur 10:34, 23 Feb 2005 (PST)

Shouldn't Castillian be an official language now, with the readmittance of the Floridas? - Nik 13:03, 15 Mar 2005 (PST)

There should be a number of Native languages in the list too; Cherokee obviously, and at least one of the languages spoken in Aquanishuonigy. Steg

GMs of NAL

Would it be possible for someone to come up with a list of the GMs of the NAL? BoArthur 10:25, 16 Mar 2005 (PST)

I don't think we should, actually. That's probably somethign better left to gradually develop. - Nik 13:21, 28 Mar 2005 (PST)

Sorry -- of course, I went ahead and made just such a list. However, there are quite a few undefined entries. Plenty of room for creativity. And even though names and dates are defined for many GMs, most of the actual articles are empty. Also, waiting for some creative mind to come along and fill them up! Elemtilas

Provinces / Format

Should we edit the pages about various provinces in order to make use of the "SubnationalEntities" template?

-Steg. Boroparkpyro 14:19, 26 Mar 2005 (PST)

I think it would help...and maybe we should limit how much we do in defining the provinces, as Padraic may 'sub-let' these to others so they can make a contribution to IB. BoArthur

Should the flags be any specific size? Btw, does the NAL have some kind of standard for provincial flag dimensions?

-Steg. Boroparkpyro 09:33, 29 Mar 2005 (PST)

I don't think the NAL has a unified standard for flag dimensions. Elemtilas

National Songs

"O Beautiful for Spacious Skies" could actually justifiably use the phrase "from sea to shining sea", i think — referring to the great North-South expanse of the League, stretching from all the way from the Arctic to the Carribean! ;-) -Steg. Boroparkpyro 22:17, 20 Jul 2005 (PDT)

Yes, it could at that! I wonder how many *there* Americans would care to beachcomb up in beautiful Alert, UT!! I hazard the guess that few would prefer Alert over St. Augustine, EF! Elemtilas

Cities

Saint-Louis? Surely you mean Saint-Louis in the NAL to be equivalent to the East St.Louis *here*. BoArthur

That is indeed the equivalence -- don't think LA would be interested in giving us one of their cities! ;))) All the major cities and towns, particularly where there are/were crossings are doubled. Customs and similar. Some may share a common name. Elemtilas

Flags

I generated a list of official and proposed flags of different provinces, just so they'd be in one place where everyone could see them. Zahir 09:01, 1 Oct 2005 (PDT)

I vote that you should make them a page unto themselves with a link from the NAL page. This way there's not as much requirement for graphics loading on this page, and if they want to see the flags, they can go over to that page. BoArthur

Good idea. Done. Zahir 11:27, 1 Oct 2005 (PDT)

Ter Mair's flag is identical to Maryland's. [PB]

Quality Nomination

The section "Some Notes on America" I think needs to be addressed, as it's more of a hodge-podge than a cohesive article.

Have done some reworking of the article and this section in particular. Have placed most of this section "Notes on America" into more appropriate subheadings. Elemtilas

1763

Was there any equivalent to the Proclamation Line of 1763 *there*? --Sikulu 19 December 2005, 14:27 (GMT)

Could be. It might be in a slightly different configuration, and in any event would be obviated in 1803 with the NAL's recognition and incorporation of Native provinces. There are no restrictions in the NAL as to where Natives and Newcommers may live. Elemtilas 11:06, 20 December 2005 (PST)

It was imposed *here* to *protect* the Natives from over-encroachment by the Americans. I don't know the situation *there* though. --Sikulu 23 December 2005, 10:15 (GMT)

Natives were not seen as expendable or exploitable. (Civilised) Natives were seen as equal partners and the whole American experience has been one of melding and molding both Newcommer and Native alike into one functional people. Elemtilas 05:49, 23 December 2005 (PST)

Hence the Native Provinces. I'm wondering, though about the posibility of this: British Colonies 1763-76. --Sikulu 3 January 2006, 14:20 (GMT)

Thanks for the map! Even now, the present borders of several NAL provinces reflect this line: PA, CA and JA especially. Virginia and New Castreleon are the only real "violators" of the old line. And of course, New France has taken some territory that was part of Nova Scotia *here*. So, like I said before, "could be". I see no problem at all with some sort of Line of 1763 existing in IB as it did *here*. But also like I said, the events of 1803 and subsequent would have made the line moot. The formation of the several Native provinces (CN, AQ and the various in the old Northwestern Territory) would not only secure Native interests, but serve as buffers against unleashed Newcommer immigration. Mobile, Tenisi, Kentuckey and Les Plaines are the only "white" provinces west of the line anyway. Elemtilas 13:04, 3 January 2006 (PST)

Considering that the provinces of Transylvania, Vandalia, and Charlotia/Illinois are included on this map (and in most of my own Althists), I was wandering about what might happen to them in IB. --Sikulu 5 January 2006, 14:11 (GMT)

Well, Vandalia is largely Aquonishuonigy *there*. Transylvania is Kentuckey. Charlotiana was called the Northwest Territories *there* until subdivided into provinces. Illinois is Illinoise *there*. To be quite honest, I've got a lot of sources with early maps of America, and NONE of them show anything approaching "Transylvania" or "Vandalia" on them. A fascinating map, mind! Elemtilas 09:29, 5 January 2006 (PST)

Check out the University of Texas' historical maps. They are realy good. P.S. Vandalia is roughly West Virginia. --Sikulu 6 January 2006, 13:52 (GMT)

Vandalia colony, at least, seems to have been the brainchild of Ben Franklin. Ah well, perhaps in another timeline!... Elemtilas 09:29, 6 January 2006 (PST)

Compare Vandalia and Westsylvania (as far as I know). --Sikulu 9 January 2006, 15:53 (GMT)

I guess you mean "western Pennsylvania"?? Yes, it is clear from the map that it was proposed to move beyond the Proclamation Line. In both timelines, it is factual that the Proclamation Line was crossed. In neither were the proposed new colonies formed, though. Like I said before, I'd never heard of Vandalia and no maps I'm familiar with even show it. Couldn't have amounted to much of an idea! Elemtilas 15:14, 9 January 2006 (PST)

Actualy, Vandalia petitioned to become a state, but since it was in Virginian-claimed territory, that was refused. Vandalia was a proposed name for West Virginia, and there is a company called Vandalia Reserch in West Virginia which deals with biotechnology. Transylvania also petitioned, but was refused (ditto). As for Charlotia, that was the only reference to that colony I found. The Illinois-Wabash company is the best bet for that. As for these maps; they maybe obscure, but a good ten minute trawl on google or wikipedia can yield some remarkable results. --Sikulu 10 Jan 2006, 09:36 (GMT)

As an aside, was there ever any plans in IB to form an Ohio colony (i.e. in the state of Ohio *here*)? --Sikulu 10 Jan 2006, 09:40 (GMT).

Check out here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Early_American_land_companies -Sikulu 10 Jan 2006, 09:42 (GMT).

That being AQ territory, I'd doubt anything would come of it, even if there were such plans. Elemtilas 13:30, 10 January 2006 (PST)

Northwestern Provinces?

I feel that the Unincorporated Territory is too large. *Here*, there are two Canadian provinces, Alberta, and Saskatchewan, as well as much of Manitoba, in *there*'s UT. What's kept that territory from being settled? Seems to me there should be one or two more provinces up there.

Also, why is New Iceland still so small? Why haven't they incorporated more of the UT? Nik 17:37, 1 January 2006 (PST)

I agree this is rather puzzling. Perhaps the process of creating a new province or two has bogged down? Zahir 17:46, 1 January 2006 (PST)

I came up with a proposal for why the Unincorporated Territory is still in existence. See Unincorporated Territory Nik 20:24, 1 January 2006 (PST)

The UT is large mostly because it is either, as Nik says, run by Native authorities or else owned by the Company. There's also "No One There" (of any consequence); and the people that are there have not been clamouring for provincehood. What good would it do them?

We don't know what the settlement pattern was, though there could certainly be room for a couple (small) provinces to the west of New Iceland, with northern borders along *here's* N. Saskatchewan River. You think it's big now? I recall when the UT used to include everything down to Kentuckey and Aquonishuonigy!

New Icleand is small, because the Icelanding population in the region who incorporated the province is small.

Zahir might be on to something interesting, though. It could be that, for whatever reason, the process has stalled. Perhaps the people who live in those places can't agree on basic issues enough pass the Council Fire? Elemtilas 23:49, 1 January 2006 (PST)

There could have been fear by some in the already established provinces that every new entry would reduce their own influence within the league (i.e. reducing their proportional voting power). Could also be fear from within the territory that some of their autonomy and cultural tradition might get lost under pressure to adapt to League-wide standard.--Marc Pasquin 03:39, 2 January 2006 (PST)

Good points. I would think the latter would be more likely than the former. I suspect that the people of the UT are happy enough with their present condition that they don't want to upset the apple cart. Note that the Inuits who chose to form an actual province only did so in the the eastern half of Inuit territory -- the western Inuits were satisfied with the UT's present form of governance. Perhaps the separation / isolation of the eastern territory (formerly Labrador) was a deciding factor. Elemtilas 15:17, 9 January 2006 (PST)

Colonial Founders

I'm wandering as to which country founded each colony. The articles aren't always clear on the matter. --Sikulu 5 January 2006, 14:37 (GMT)

A good question! I was just reading such a list, but can't recall where at the moment. I'm sure it should come as no surprise that really only the early European "foundation states" had a colonial overlord. Keep in mind that the list reflects "colonial foundation", not actual population!

1. Alba Nuadh/New Scotland (Scotland)
2. Virginia (England)
3. Castreleon New / Niuw Batavie (Kemr)
4. Pennsylvania (joint Kemr-England)
5. Aquanishuonigy / The Six Nations (NONE)
6. New Hampshire (England)
7. Massachussets Bay (England)
8. Rhode Island (England)
9. Connecticut (England)
10. Kent (England)
11. Ontario (England)
12. West Florida (England)*
13. Ter Mair / Maryland (Kemr)
14. Carolina (England)
15. Bahamas (Kemr)
16. Jamaica (England)
17. East Florida (England)*
18. Jacobia (England)
19. Oxbridge (England)
20. Cherokee Nation (NONE)
21. Tenisi (Kemr)
22. Kentucky (NONE)
23. Mobile (NONE)
24. Illinoise (NONE)
25. Miami (NONE)
26. Ouisconsin (NONE)
27. New Sweden (Sweden)
28. Utawia (NONE)
29. Mascoutensi (NONE)
30. Mueva Sefarad / New Iberia (NONE)
31. Les Plaines (NONE)
32. Nja Island / New Iceland (Iceland)
33. Nunavik (NONE)

* Florida was a special case in that it was originally Iberian territory, but was obtained by England.

If a couple provinces should be discovered just north of Louisianne, they wouldn't have colonial sponsors either.

Elemtilas 09:09, 5 January 2006 (PST)

Kentucky came from territory claimed by Virginia, so might it "inherit" Virginia's relationship to England? Nik 21:03, 6 January 2006 (PST)

They could indeed! Note that Tenisi "inherited" its relationship with Kemr. It's a constitutional matter for each province to decide. Elemtilas 02:24, 7 January 2006 (PST)

Thanks for that. See my post about Native States though. I'm not quite sure about which tribes are supposed to go where (e.g. the Cherokee were much further north than the CN *there*. CN *there* is in Creek territory). --Sikulu 6 Jan 2006, 15:32 (GMT)

As I understand it, the region where they were most numerous and powerful was in the regions immediately west of *there*'s Jacobia -- i.e., northern Georgia *here*. So, there is very good reason for CN to be where it is and with the borders given. See <http://www.rootsweb.com/~cherokee/cn-east.html>. *There*, for whatever reasons, the Cherokee were more powerful or had a greater range still. Just because their province takes up western Georgia, Alabama and eastern Mississippi dòesn't mean that the population is 100% Cherokee! Perhaps the Creeks allied with the Cherokee and accepted the rule of their king. This also doesn't mean that 100% of all Cherokee like ìn the province of CN! I note that Kentuckey and Tennesee and northern Georgia *here* were part of the Cherokee homelands. Perhaps some also migrated south. See also <http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/D/1801-1825/marshallcases/mar03.htm>

For that matter, the fact that they maintained a state doesn't mean they didn't come into conflict with Europeans or other Natives. They may well have been forced to cede their territory in Kentucky, Tennessee, and northern Georgia, and in turn, captured territory to compensate from their southern neighbors.

Perhaps the Creek and the other Civilized Tribes remain as some kind of autonomous regions. Or even, the Cherokee Nation may be a sort of federation which simply took the name of the most powerful of the members? Nik 09:41, 6 January 2006 (PST)

Could be. I certainly don't know the entire and exact history. It makes sense that they ceded their northern lands (Kentuckey and Tenisi), but of course there are still Cherokee there! If CN were a "federation" when it got started, sort of like the Six Nations, I'm sure it would have evolved into a similar provincial structure. Elemtilas 02:24, 7 January 2006 (PST)

Native States

Maybe this map will help. http://www.tngenweb.org/maps/eastribe --Sikulu 6 Jan 2006, 15:19 (GMT)

Link doesn't work. Not for me, anyway. Zahir 09:23, 6 January 2006 (PST)

Now it will! —IJzeren Jan ^Uszkiełtu? 10:14, 6 January 2006 (PST)

Very cool indeed. It shows the Cherokee a little northeast of where they're placed in other maps. Oh well. We knów they were in northwestern Georgia and northern Alabama (see the Supreme Court article above), so I don't think there's any good reason to place Cherokee Nation elsewhere. Elemtilas 11:10, 6 January 2006 (PST)

To be fair, though, the map I found only shows the historic territories of the Amerind Tribes (as best as can be determined), before the Europeans settled there (which is why extinct tribes are also listed). The map you found would probably be beter for IB, because the Europeans are already settled, and the tribes would have had to move somewhere else. --Sikulu 10 Jan 2006, 13:00 (GMT)

Or be integrated into American society. Elemtilas 13:28, 10 January 2006 (PST)

Provincial Governments

Are the Governors similar to Canada's Lieutenant Governors, i.e., figureheads, or are they actual executive authorities, like US governors? Nik 20:59, 6 January 2006 (PST)

The latter, usually. Although nothing prevents you from setting up some province with a figurehead. The NAL really is an extremely diverse political entity. Zahir 21:04, 6 January 2006 (PST)

When would they have gone from royal appointees to (presumably) elected officials? Or perhaps they remain nominally appointed by the Crown, for the original provinces? Given that the colonies retained (nominal) allegiance to the Crown(s), it seems likely that there'd still be, at least for a while, royal appointments. Nik 21:08, 6 January 2006 (PST)

I believe that would depend on the specific colony. Zahir 21:25, 6 January 2006 (PST)

All the provinces ratified new constitutions/charters in 1803. Most opted for some kind of elected governor (I mentioned this specifically for Ter Mair), but I suspect that many had royally appointed governors into the mid to perhaps late XIX century. David is right, though, it depends on the individual province. Obviously, the new provinces that are not linked to one of the European monarchies can't have royally appointed governors. Cases in point are the Floridas and Nunavik. Elemtilas 10:57, 8 January 2006 (PST)

History

I think we need a more detailed history of the NAL as a whole, rather than just packing in the history of the provinces. -- Sikulu 10:42, 16 January 2006 (GMT)

Possible Religion for the Next President

Would it be possible if the next president (who won't even be created till like 2010, I know, I know) was a follower of the AOC? Misterxeight 22:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It is possible. Indeed, Sir Clive Parker is a potential GM and he is a member of the AOC. But we'll have to see. Zahir 07:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Certainly possible. Who are other liklies? Is religion such a big deal in American politics as it seems to be *here*? Elemtilas 20:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Confederate Greats

What happened to the heroes of the Confederate States of America in IB? Like Stonewall Jackson, Lee, Stuart, etc.   Mr.X8 Talk Contribs13:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Good question. There was no CSA for them to be heroes of. You can answer your own question by in large by researching the lives of these men (and women) and finding out what they were doing in 1858-1860. If you find that Col. So-and-so was a waggon salesman before raising a company of bravoes, then chances are good that in IB, he'll still be a waggon salesman in 1865 *there*!

To get you started, Robert Lee was superintendant of West Point and immediately prior to the War, commander of the Department of Texas and immediately prior, was appointed by Pres. Lincoln as a cavalry colonel. When Virginia seceeded, he went with (demonstrating that the US of 1860 was really not a single country -- it remains to be seen whether such a crisis would yield a united NAL or many American states in disarray).

Slide over to IB. Assuming Mr Lee exists *there* (and I presume he does), expect him to be a military man as well. I don't know if we have a West Point or a Department of Texas, but I would suspect that he would have been the super of some military academy or other. Perhaps VMI? After which he could happily retire to his home in Arlington and watch the boats run up and down the canal between Georgetown and Alexandria.

And please don't go creating scads of articles on these men just to fill up space. If you discover some key aspect of NAL history where one or more of these men might come to the fore, then an article would be warranted. See George Brinton McClellan.

Robert E. Lee was President of the NAL during McClellan's term as GM. At about the same time, the Crisis of 1875, several figures from our Civil War played prominent roles, including Nathan B. Forrest and George Pickett. George Armstrong Custer became Tomos Armstrong Kuster. I've often wondered what might have become of Jefferson Davis in particular, which rather hinges on whether his family settled in Louisianne or not. Zahir 21:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe instead of holding office in the CSA, he could have some sort of office in Louisianne.

Positive/Official

I would argue that it shouldn't be changed. If it's a popular way to refer to the place, it's certainly not the official name, else it would be marked as "Official", not "popular". BoArthur 08:43, 8 February 2016 (PST)