5
$\begingroup$

The Republic of Indian Stream was a small area of land near Quebec (or New Hampshire for you Americans) that was a result of a poorly worded border claim, it resulted in a 731 square kilometer section of unowned land named the Indian Stream. Despite being just a lack of foresight in the wording of the treaty, the 300 residents of Indian Stream took it very seriously, declaring themselves an independent republic on July 9th, 1832.

Even assuming it keeps its borders and doubles in population every 46 years, it would be the 176th largest nation (Taking Singapore's place) with the second smallest population, only better than the Vatican State. Obviously, such a country couldn't be strong or powerful, but that is not necessary.

In the real history, The Republic of Indian Stream was annexed by New Hampshire in 1835, but does this need to happen? What is the smallest historical difference I can make to prevent this annexation?

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Could you tell us a little bit more about the people in this glorious Republic, and the geo-political situation surrounding their annexation? For example, if this group were hard-core Catholics, maybe the Pope could be persuaded to campaign on their behalf with the leaders of Europe, or something along those lines. They need some major political capital to achieve their goals. Who can they intimidate, or ingratiate themselves with? $\endgroup$ – AndreiROM Sep 27 '16 at 17:29
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @AndreiROM all of that can be found in the linked page $\endgroup$ – TrEs-2b Sep 27 '16 at 17:38
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Reading?!? Boo ... :-P $\endgroup$ – AndreiROM Sep 27 '16 at 17:57
4
$\begingroup$

Bad news 1: the size of the Republic makes them insignificant in any political and diplomatical sense, and it is at the mercy of its neighbours.

Bad news 2: USA at the XIX and first half of the XX had that pesky "Manifest Destiny" doctrine by which they claimed all of the land they could grab from their native habitants or its neighbours.

Good news 1: the size of the Republic makes them insignificant economically, so if they get recognition by their neighbours there will be little interest in changing the status quo.

Good news 2: Since 1812 there has been no war between USA and Canada/UK, so there is little strategic interest.

One possibility is that both parties to the treaty (UK and USA) keep their interpretation of it, and make clear to the other party that if, should they infringe against their sovereignty, it will mean war. This allows the country to keep their independence even if unrecognized; with enough time it just becomes "natural" that the region is neither controlled by Canada/UK nor by the USA, and the lack of negative consequences of this situation allows the leadership of both sides to be less anxious about changing the situation.

You can add to this PR feats by inhabitants of the region (vg. Streamist soldiers joining the Union army as "foreign volunteers" during the Civil War, or an intrepid Streamist exploring the depths of Africa for the glory of the British Empire) to give them some international, if not recognition, at least publicity.

Of course, during all of this you need your fellow Streamites to be very convinced of the need to preserve their independence and that their neighbours know that they will fight for their freedom to the end, to the point that it is well understood that annexing the country will need military action.

$\endgroup$
4
$\begingroup$

The annexation itself seems to have arisen from them expelling tax collectors from both New Hampshire and Quebec, they didn't want to pay double taxes. This led the sheriff of Coos County, New Hampshire to call up the militia and annex the area. He had 2 companies of infantry (150-500 men) easily more soldiers than the entire population of the Republic.

It is very unlikely they could withstand even this small military of local militia's without some extreme outside help.

The smallest difference could be a different sheriff in Coos County, one less likely to call in the militia over unpaid taxes, this might have delayed the dissolution of the republic, but eventually Canada and the US would have clarified their borders and one or the other country would formally claim the territory, at that point there is nothing the people could do about it without outside help.

Given the size and low population of the territory, It seems unlikely any outside power would take an interest in the issue. An appeal to the Canadian or US governments would only end in their being incorporated into one of those countries, although possibly as a new state or province under their own government.

A long shot would be a direct appeal to the British crown to join the empire as an independent nation.

If you look at most micro-nations surrounded by other larger countries, most exist as city states (high population density) and have outside allies supporting them militarily. The Republic of Indian Stream had neither and is unlikely to exist as an independent nation without both.

Further the declared Monroe Doctrine of 1823 made it very unlikely that a European power would interfere without drawing action from the United States.

$\endgroup$
4
$\begingroup$

Have the New Hampshire militias refuse to mobilize for the invasion. Such an act was not unheard of, as militias sometimes mutinied, disbanded, or refused to muster when they thought the fight foolish, unjust, or impractical, as in the War of 1812 with the abortive invasion of Canada and the fight in New England.

After that initial hesitancy, you can have the higher officials in the US and British governments learn of the dispute and, because they are fearful of a war over a an insignificant piece of territory (as they apparently were in real life), put the kibosh on any future aggressive action. Provided that the people of Indian Stream are content to be independent and not isolated from commerce with either the US or Canada, you can just have the status quo carry forward until its independence becomes accepted as a matter of course.

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

They Incorporated in Late 1814 Rather than 1832

What a difference 18 years makes!

In the year 1814 - towards the end of the War of 1812 - the people of the Republic of Indian Stream discovered the ambiguous wording of the Treaty of Paris while a few men debated which side of the war they should fall under. Not seeking competition with two actively engaged countries at war, a representative was sent to both Canada and the United States with a unique offer - ratify RIS as a neutral territory for use in diplomatic discussions!

And so it was.

Unfortunately for the soldiers who were wounded or lost their lives, the processes involved with ratifying the RIS as a neutral country took sufficiently long to resolve (~6+ months) that the country was never used as a convenient location for civil discussion on alternatives to continued aggression.

Following the war neither country had an appetite to attempt to capture the territory as the RIS was a symbol of joint, peaceful cooperation.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.