Isn't the President Arnoldo Schwartzenegger? Nik 22:12, 17 Feb 2005 (PST)
- probably Arnoldo Negro--Marc Pasquin 18:23, 14 Apr 2005 (PDT)
Yes, the president should be Arnoldo Schwarzenegger. Doobieous 21:39 PST, 13 April, 2005
- 1 Proposal 1
- 2 Proposal 2
- 3 Offical History
- 4 Cooperation and Proposals
- 5 Sea Islands
I've moved this from the main page, because as maintainer and owner of AC, I was not consulted about this. So, if both histories are proposals, they should go here before being ratified. - Doobieous 17:40 PST 17 Apr, 2005
In 1822, when the Mejicans declared independence and begun their insurrection, they claimed the whole New Leon (New Spain *here*, i.e. Mexico, Texas, California and Central America), however they had very little power to control the perisphere, mainly because the white aristocracy moved to the northeast (Tejas) where they could resist, the loyalist controlled Central America, and they did not actually care for California.
So, from 1822 to 1834, California (and Montrei), had an odd status. Claimed by both Castile and Leon and Mejico, the authorities send from the Great Viceroyalty at Santa Fe basically went, stayed, and did very little to piss off local population, which in fact was ruled by a local Junta.
In 1834, the Californians declared their independence, and fought against the Castilian garrisons in Yerbabuena and Los Angeles (quite and easy battle, as the Castilians never send reinforcements).
By this time Mejico had a much better army and did not recognized California independence. They easily invaded, and could control the major cities.
In 1840, Mejico suffers a Civil War, and the Californios fight for their independence.
So far, Montreianos are quite conformed by the situation. The nominal but weak control by either the Castilians or the Mejicans, is enough for them, as they are left alone, but when the independent Californian government is stablished, they issue and try to implement laws that are not liked by the Montreians and they fight for their independence.
While I appreciate Carlos' desire to write up the histories of various Castillian speaking nations in the western Hemisphere, My thoughts are this:
As fun as it may be to have Mejico attack the garrisons in Los Angeles and Yerba Buena, it doesn't really work well, as the nearest garrison in Los Angeles was in Santa Barbara. The biggest one I believe was actually in San Diego. I also really can't see a reason why Mejico would send ships as far north as Yerba Buena (San Francisco) just to prove a point, when there's plenty of targets within Mejico proper).
1822 marks the beginning of divergence for AC and Mejico. In 1822, Mejico declares independence from Castille and Leon, And Alta California at first declares allegiance to Mejico, realizing that Mejico has much more power than Castille and Leon does in the New World. The other incentive is that anyone who swears loyalty to Mejico is given a land grant (which were plentiful, and there is still visible evidence of those around evem here). Most of the big ranchers support this move as it preserves their ranches, and the smaller land holders do as well (because Mejico also threatens to take land from those who support Castile and Leon).
By 1834, the promises of Mejico fail to materialize. Mejico ignores AC almost entirely, focusing on matters closer to Mejico City. Californios see themselves as on their own, as well as distinct in culture from their Mejican overlords. A call for rebellion goes out, almost unheeded by Mejican authorities, who chalk up the stirring to ignorant backwards northerners who are no threat to the Mejican military.
However, by 1840, Mejico enters a civil war. Seeing this as an opportunity to fight back, AC, along with Tejas begin a civil war on the northern front. Mejico, concerned more with controlling its inner territories decides to cut its losses and caves in to the demands of the rebels in AC, who demand all northern territories granted under the old Spanish government, as well as Baja California (which Mejico allows, because it is sparsely populated, and of little interest to Mejico).
AC begins to prosper, and interest begins to center around the Los Angeles to San Diego area. AC begins to divide its territory into provinces, and creates among others, the Provincia de Monterey. The capital of the State of Monterey is kept in Monterey, but the capital of Alta California is moved down to Los Angeles,
Times remained unsettled in the new nation. Feelings of independence were still stirring among the populace, and the two major areas of civilization in AC were the Los Angeles - San Diego areas, and in the north the San Francisco - Monterey areas. These were hotbeds of revolutionary fervor. Those in the north, in San Francisco (changed from Yerba Buena for some unknown reason) to Monterey began to see themselves as separate from their southern countrymen. Primarily due to speaking a different language at home (Montreiano) as well as differences in culture (although minor, still significant enough). They also had felt ignored by the new government in the south (at this time the entire northern part of AC was uninhabited by non-indians).
When Tejas began to stir, and escalated age old border conflicts into all out war, the Montreianos in turn saw it as a chance to break away. AC and Tejas began heavy fighting along their borders, which sparked revolution in the north. It wasn't a major battle in the north due to relatively low numbers of those loyal to AC (primarily governmental administrators), but it was enough that it was causing AC to split its resources on two fronts - controlling those in Montrei, and fighting Tejas). Montreianos presented a list of demands to AC, and declared that they would cease fighting if the Monterey region was given independence.
AC saw the intelligence in granting these demands, seeing Montrei as not worth the trouble, so they signed the Treaty of San Carlos. They didn't have much of a choice -- fighting against Montrei was draining valuable resources away from AC's coffers, which they needed desperately to use for fighting against Tejas.
AC thought they were getting rid of a "diseased branch", so to speak, because they saw the Monterey region as worthless backwoods country. Doobieous 22:17 PST 13 Apr 2005
As I am the maintainer of Alta California, and there was no discussion from anyone else, what is on the main page for Alta California is now official history. Doobieous 13:07 PST 1 June 2005
- Okay... there is still some inconsistencies between the official history of Alta California and the official histories of Mejico and Castile-Leon.
- According to Mejican and Castilian history it would be odd for Californians to plight loyalty to Mejico in 1822. Mejico is too weak and too Native. OTOH, well, Castile-Leon is also pretty much weak.
- Mejicans, between 1822 and 1828 have a theorical claim on California, but no way to support it or to even nominate bureaucracy there.
- Given this, it seems more reasonable that C-L plays the role of Mejico: promises to Californios as land grants, etc. if they are loyal to the crown... but by 1834 they are unable to hold any promises.
- No last word from me yet.
- — Carlos Th (comments) 11:58, 21 Jul 2005 (PDT)
- 1. You said it yourself, Castille and Leon is also pretty weak. Why shouldn't Mejico offer land grants to the people living there? The Land owners already were benefitting from the Haciendas the Spanish had already gave, and as I've laid it out, the common folk would gain from siding with Mejico rather than Castille (who'd already proven that they weren't about to give the common people control over the large haciendas.) Remember, the Indian population in Alta California wasn't as decimated and they, along with the peasants would likely be dissatisfied with Castille.
- Well. I doubt 1822 Mejico *there* would give land grants to white ranchers in California. If Castile wouldn't do it either... How would rich white Californians behave? My guess: ingnore both Mejico and Castile.
- 2. So, how would the Castillians have supported Alta California or "nominated bureaucracy" there? Spain here never saw Alta California as a source of Revenue, and it's unlikely that Castille would've seen it that way either. Remember, the reason here and there the Castillians even settled California was as a sort of "tripwire"-- if foreigners encroached it was an excuse for them to go to war. They were only interested in California to prevent the English, or the Russians from claiming the land and setting up their settlements.
- Castile is weak in the region but has still a pretty large public service overall. *There*'s 1822 Mejico is a nacent state that has fought against Castilian bureaucracy, unlike *here*'s Mexico. So appointing governors to California is something Castile-Leon can do better than Mejico. Sending those governors to California is also more in the realm of Castile-Leon than in the realm of Mejico (C-L is weak but still has a navy, unlike Mejico). Now, having large garrisons in California is something C-L is probably not willing to do (Mejico is far more important than California, and home is far more important than Mejico), so I do not claim that a Castilian nominated governor would have any power to control local elites.
- Now, by 1828 the situation is much better for Mejicans. They have a much more controlled situation in central Mejico and have developed a military that can be sent to Alta California or Tejas, so, well, your version can hold... just not right in 1822 but sometime in the 1822–28 period. (except for giving land grants to white aristocracy...)
- 3. I don't see any incentive that Castille, would have to even keep a territory that it never paid any attention to, which as I said above, was never seen as anything but a "tripwire" type situation. *Here* the entire Spanish speaking population numbered only 4,000 people at the time of independence, and these same people saw themselves as Californios first, Castillians second (which means, why would they even want to stay loyal to Castille?) I really can't see them siding much with Castille unless they were the large land owners, and even then, it's not likely they'd be all that loyal anyway.
- I don't see either white Californians as loyal Castilians. Neither as loyal Mejicans. Now, Prince Carlos is interested in not letting the empire fall appart so, even if Alta California is unimportant, it is a territory that should be protected. Camacho, who is really in charge, has a more practical point of view, but would not defy Carlos in seeming too uninterested. Hmmm. Well Camacho is not interested either in giving too much power to local elites...
- I highly doubt the Indian population would be swayed by the promises of the Castillians either, especially since the Castillians were their overlords who put them into servitude on the haciendas and missions. It's more likely they'd see hope with Mejico rather than Castille who had treated Alta California always as if it barely existed.
- Well, Indian population in Alta California is far more likely towards Mejico than towards Castile-Leon. Granted. They never saw the Aztecs as enemies so they have no prevensions against the Mechica government in Mejico, while they do have prevension against the C-L government.
- White aristocracy, on the other hand, should feel more threatened by Mejico than by C-L.
- I think the problem I had with your original proposal is that it is so different from the history in the state *here* (which I wanted to keep a lot of, because I saw no reason to change it that radically, even just to add "spice" to it)
- I honestly can't say I can agree to your proposal. I hate to have to be a hard head about this, and I also didn't hear any input for a few months on this, which is why I declared the history QSS. So, unless anyone else can give some convincing arguments as to why I should radically alter what I've established, then I can't agree to what you've proposed. I originally felt a bit like my toes were stepped on on the conculture list when you proposed a radically different history of Alta California than what I'd thought up. As far as I knew, I was the maintainer of AC even then, and had not been consulted about the history offlist to make sure I could agree to it. I really don't like the radicalness of your proposal, Carlos.
- Well, I do not pretent my version to be radical. It is different than history *here*, but much of that is given because Castile-Leon *there* is different than Spain *here*. No Hapsburgs, no Bourbons, no complete imposition of Castilian values on the Mechica population, etc. So pretending that after all this Itirbude would emerge as the great Emperor of all continental New Spain, from Costa Rica to Alta California, would be to streach things a little.
- I have tried to give posibilities for having my Mejico and your Alta California co-exist. I see some adaptations to both versions that would not change the essence of either (or so I pressume). Just now I see adjustments.
- I am sorry about not having consulting you offline, ignoring your interests in AC, when trying to see the whole Iberic America as one process, let's now try to work something out. Now, if you definitively need *here*'s Mexico with a minor spelling reform, let's have *here*'s Mexico and call it Mejico.
- — Carlos Th (comments) 07:58, 22 Jul 2005 (PDT)
- I'm glad you recognize your error, and I hope that this will never happen again.
- Anyway, there's a big problem with all of this talk of "white ranchers" and "aristocracy". California *here* and *there* was never a place that true aristocracy would've ventured. There never was a true aristocracy or much of a stratification of society based upon class. Mobility upward was based not upon skin color or familial lines but upon skill. There was no draw out here for the aristocracy (no reports of gold, which wasn't found until the late 1800's), and as I keep saying, Castille largely ignored it. All of the rancheros *here* and *there* were former soldados, who were often conscripted from prisons or the poor. Many of the early settlers *here* were of the lowest strata of Mexican society, which I see no reason why that should be any different *there*
- There, outside of Montrei, the immigrants were from villages in Mejico, and were people of low-birth and of the peasantry. I don't think that their descendants would readily go with Castille, as many would remember their Mejican heritage, and they would remember that they are not respected by the white Castillians, and being mestizos, would likely cheer on the revolution there. In the Montréi area, there would be more "whites" but these would also not have come from families with prestige or social status, as they headed for Alta California to escape persecution, loss of language and culture, and poverty in Castille. Also, by the time of the revolution, you'd have immigrants from Mejico, as well as local mestizos. Any of the aristocracy would've stayed behind in Castille or headed to the areas of Latin America where they could make a profit.
- Another thing that's important is that the people in Alta California *here* pretty much quietly accepted the change from Spanish to Mexican hands due to the lack of contact with Spain and the lack of any Spanish control there. -- Doobieous 01:55 July 25, 2005 PST
- Well, Barry. I am now much more convinced on AC history from the Californian point of view. I still have reservations on the dates but this should not change either your or my history line. I want now you to check Mejico's history and address to me any think (no directly related to California, which will be rewritten) that could mean any problem. Thank you in advance.
- — Carlos Th (comments) 12:28, 27 Jul 2005 (PDT)
I've been reading some of the recent discussion about Mejico, A-C and vicinity and wish to make the following official statement in the hopes of clarifying our group's means of operation and also of heading off any interpersonal difficulties between Members.
One of the cornerstones of how IB as a group project works is the use of the Proposal as a means of creating history. Especially usefull in areas like western North America where the interests and designs of several Members meet (in this case, mine, Dan's, Carlos's and Barry's). This pretty much boils down to the application of the Cycle of the Proposal: Proposal ==> Discussion ==> Modification ==> Further Discussion ==> Acceptance or Rejection. It is important that in situations were two or more Members' interests are at stake, we don't simply alter the history of the other person's territoriy (as this history falls under QSS). Rather, it has always been our tradition to publicly discuss such proposals and, given what has already been devised, work on mutually acceptable alterations. Sometimes, the new proposals are rejected, other times they might be accepted in toto, still others, they might be modified. It is also the case that, after a period of no counterdiscussion or counterproposal, that an original proposal is quietly accepted as fact. What is important is that we try to avoid stepping on each others toes by respecting accepted boundaries and using the traditional means of creating history for this group project, compiled at Five Pillars.
I am not assigning blame, nor am I going to try and figure out who did what to who first. All I can say is that both of you are valuable members of the project and I'ld rather avoid any bad blood. Please, let's let the past be the past (as much as is humanly possible!) and begin the new day with our group's accustomed cooperation! It's the only way we've gotten as far as we have, and it's the only way the project will continue to prosper! Elemtilas
I have a proposal. This should be minor enough not to affect history much. In our world, Mexico claims the Revillagigedo archipelago, off the west coast of Mexico. Here they were attached to the state of Colima, and Juarez wanted to make the islands a penitentiary, but never did anything with the islands. My thought is that the islands were claimed by Alta California during the war of independence from Mejico, and Mejico not seeing much worth to them decided "what the hell" and handed them over since to them, after seeing the volcano erupt on the island, the Mejican government decided against setting up habitations on the island due to cost and perceived danger. Alta California then makes them a nature preserve and a naval post for operations in the Pacific (although seriously underfunded due to the war). Is this proposal too outlandish?
Also, any of the islands immediately off the coast of Baja California or off of its western shores should be part of AC. My eyes are mostly on Guadalupe and Cedros islands (two incredibly unique islands, because they both have species similar to California. The native pine is a subspecies of the native Pinus radiata which is native in here's California). My plan is to have these islands uninhabited due to the poorness of AC, so the flora and fauna there doesn't go extinct or seriously endangered like here. -- Doobieous 20:46 PST September 22, 2005