HOME | DD
KantiaCartography β Rio Grande Statehood 1858
Published: 2012-05-27 04:35:50 +0000 UTC; Views: 16865; Favourites: 108; Downloads: 151
Redirect to original
Description
So I made this map to test out textures which Ive never used before, so sorry if it looks kinda strange and low resolution.So this is what happened....
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
1836- The Republic of Texas wins its independence from Mexico. Instead of being annexed to the USA, it remains independent. The USA recognizes its independence and supports it, causing tension with Mexico.
1840- The Republic of the Rio Grande declares its independence from Mexico. (POD) The USA recognizes its independence creating more tension with Mexico. Later that year, the Rep. of RG is defeated and annexed back into Mexico.
1845- The Rep. of T is annexed by the USA, claiming lands owned by Mexico, which the USA supports. Tensions continue to grow between the USA and Mexico.
1846- The Republic of California wins its independence from Mexico and is taken over and claimed by the US military. The USA and Mexico go to war in the Mexican-American War.
1848- The USA defeats Mexico and creates the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which 1). Ended the war and created peace between the two nations 2). Ceded Alta California & New Mexico to the USA for $18 million 3). Forced Mexico to give up claims to Texas 4). Forced Mexico to recognize the Rep. of the Rio Grande as an independent and sovereign state.
1849- The Rep. of the RG is annexed to the USA due to boundary disputes and debt problems with Texas.
1850- The Compromise of 1850 redrew Texas borders to give RG some of its land claims. In exchange, it was agreed that the rest of the origional Rep. of T borders would be used to create 2 new, smaller, more managible states. With the admittance of Texas, New Mexico, Cristo, and Florida as slave state, the Rio Grande, California, Superior, and Oregon were admitted as free states to balance the power in the Senate. The Oregon Country previously owned by Great Britain is ceded to the USA for unknown reasons.
1854- The Baja Purchase gave the Baja Peninsula owned by Mexico to the USA for $15 million. This was to improve relations and give the USA a longer, more valuable, pacific border. California is ceded the upper portion of the new Baja Territory and the state of Shasta is created from Northern California by the US Senate when they feel that California is to large.
1855- The long proposed Mormon state of Deseret is finally admitted to the Union as a free state. This gives the free states more power in the Senate.
1858- The free state of Minnesota is created from the Minnesota Terr., again without a slave state balance. Tensions rise between free states in the North and West and slave states in the South
Related content
Comments: 56
π: 0 β©: 1
Itβs 8 years old
π: 0 β©: 0
Where did the Cristo name originate from? Or is it a place ITTL? Also Cristo really reminds me of Idaho...
π: 0 β©: 1
I can't really recall (this was six years ago), but it was probably a place name. It's only now that I realize that it literally means "Christ" so it was probably a local place name. Not too imaginative.Β
π: 0 β©: 0
I agree that such a scenario would most likely have been preferable to Latin America's long history of regional conflict, but I don't know what it would have taken for such a union to even be feasible. The Spanish-speaking portions of the Americas are so geographically widespread, with large populations centers thousands of miles apart, that I don't see how such a union would have been sustainable in the early-to-mid 1800s.
Another thought - If Spanish colonial America had been united under one, democratic government, then would it not be likely that the Anglo-Saxon inhabitants of Texas would not have rebelled at all? I mean, it might have happened anyway, but the trigger that set off the rebellion was Santa Anna's suspension of the Mexican constitution and subsequent states rights. Without Santa Anna or a volatile Mexican government, the Texas Revolution would not have occurred in such the way that it did OTL.
π: 0 β©: 1
Spain was a colonial power with technological and financial superiority (up until the 19th century). And Pedro I would have had a much harder time if he had to simultaneously fend off the Mapuche to the south, Anglo-Saxon settlers thousands of miles to the north, and two dozen or so regional uprisings spread across millions of square miles of mountains, jungles, deserts and forests. Maybe not impossible, but certainly unlikely. I can't think of any other comparable union - multiple powerful population centers geographically isolated from one another held together from within, without colonialism. All of the largest nations in the world today; such as Russia, Canada, the USA, China, Brazil, etc, all have populations disproportionately distributed along one coast, plain, river, etc.Β
But I do agree that many (probably even most) Americans certainly did covet Spanish territories and even set events into motion to annex said territories. But public opinion was never universal. There have always been isolationists and moderates in varying quantities.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
I feel like at this point we aren't really having a discussion. I would like to read about this proposed tri-part kingdom if you have a link.
π: 0 β©: 0
I have a feeling that Cristo would be split in half due to the whole Mason-Dixon Line fiasco that caused Texas to loose most of its Northern Panhandle in the first place.
π: 0 β©: 1
I'm just rambling all of this off from memory, so correct me if I'm wrong, but the Mason-Dixon Line forms the boundary between Maryland and Pennsylvania/Delaware and only delineates the banning of slavery in the Atlantic states. The Northwest Ordinance banned slavery in the mid-west states and the Missouri Compromise banned slavery north of the Arkansas-Missouri border, but only within the Louisiana Purchase. Texas and the Mexican Session were outside of those previous agreements and were open for debate. The only reason that Texas gave up its panhandle was because of its massive debt to the U.S. government. When it was admitted as a state, it included lands north of the Missouri Compromise. Still, you could be right. It wasn't a coincidence that the Compromise of 1850 resulted in a northern border that coincided with the Missouri Compromise.
π: 0 β©: 1
You're right. I'm actually thinking of the Missouri Compromise. Always seem to get those mixed up.
π: 0 β©: 1
If I remember the situation correctly, the U.S. government was split on whether or not to allow slavery in the Mexican Session and Gadsden Purchase and was not able to come to a compromise before the outbreak of the American Civil War.
π: 0 β©: 1
Ah. That part of American history I do not realize. I know that Texas lost the Oklahoma Panhandle due to the Missouri Compromise and the fact that they were a slave state and were not allowed to be a slave state and have land north of the Missouri Compromise Line. That's why I asked about Cristo being split.
π: 0 β©: 1
Actually, the Missouri Compromise only applied to the Louisiana Purchase. It did not apply to lands west of the Mississippi watershed, such as Texas, the Mexican Session, and the Oregon Country. When Texas was admitted as a state in 1845, it still had all of its territory north of the Missouri Compromise. The issue was that no one knew which territories would allow slavery and which ones would ban it. Four different regions applied for statehood: Texas, California, Deseret, and New Mexican, which all had overlapping territorial claims. Texas applied to be a slave state and California applied to be a free state, but no one knew whether Deseret and New Mexico would be slave or free states. In the end, only Texas and California were admitted as states and New Mexico and Utah (Deseret) became territories, with the question of slavery in those territories left unanswered. To deal with the dispute between Texas and New Mexico, the federal government redrew the boundary. Texas lost much of its land in exchange for massive debt relief. When they were drawing the new state borders, there were many proposals. Eventually, they went with a proposal that kept Texas south of the Missouri Compromise. I'm guessing that this proposal was most popular because of the fact that many wanted to extend the Missouri Compromise to the Pacific Ocean, but it never was. So yeah. The decision to keep Texas south of the Missouri Compromise had a lot to do with the Missouri Compromise, but it wasn't actually stated in the Missouri Compromise that annexed lands, like Texas, had to follow the same rules.Β
π: 0 β©: 0
Thanks, but if I were to redo this I wouldn't include the northern half of the Oregon Territory and I would include the "Forsyth Purchase".Β
π: 0 β©: 1
Flagged as Spam
π: 0 β©: 1
Simple. As is mentioned in the description, the British ceded its half of the Oregon Country to the USA for no apparent reason, after the compromise had already been arbitrated. If the map had an earlier POD, then it would probably be possible, but then it would be almost identical to a newer map I made. That map also has the Forsyth Purchase.
dafreak47.deviantart.com/art/Uβ¦
π: 0 β©: 1
Am I missing something, what is theΒ Forsyth Purchase?
π: 0 β©: 1
Itβs been a while, but there was once an American politician or businessman who proposed the purchase of Baja California and northern Sonora around the same time as the Gadsden Purchase.
π: 0 β©: 1
Ah, I've heard of that just didn't know that was the name
π: 0 β©: 1
Honestly I read it in a book but Iβve never been able to find reference to it on the internet. The politician/businessman did exist though.
π: 0 β©: 1
Since it never happened, might as well go by theΒ Forsyth Purchase, what else would we call it that doesn't sound dumb?
π: 0 β©: 1
The book is "Lost States" by Michael J. Trinklein. The politician was U.S. Minister to Mexico John Forsyth Jr., but I still can't find anything on the Internet about his proposed purchase.
π: 0 β©: 0
Thanks, but if I redid this map it would look a lot better. This was my first pathetic attempt at texture.
π: 0 β©: 0
I always found it very curious why did the Americans took Northern California from Mexico and let the Californian Peninsula ... ?
π: 0 β©: 1
Well, realisticly it was because Alta California and Baja California were 2 separate territories in Mexico and Alta California had a large population of American settlers and more enticements than the underpopulated desert filled Baja California
π: 0 β©: 1
Oh, so basically it was an ethnic based annexation.
π: 0 β©: 1
That and imperical. The strong belief in Manifest Destiny woould have had a large part to do with it, even if the American settlers in the area hadnt revolted
π: 0 β©: 1
Indeed, the imperial attitude given by the Manifest Destiny probably has 90% to do with the occupation of those areas.
π: 0 β©: 0
america aallllwayysss wants part of the great white north
π: 0 β©: 1
We are certainly aggressive
π: 0 β©: 1
we are indeed xD
π: 0 β©: 0
Mexico is still around. Isn't that enough?
π: 0 β©: 1
That's one consolation.
π: 0 β©: 0
Actually, I have two maps like that, and I think youve seen them so i dont know why Im telling you this
π: 0 β©: 1
I'm not sure if I've stumbled on them.
π: 0 β©: 1
Well actually youve favorited both of them and commented on one of them
π: 0 β©: 1
I do have a map(an old/bad one)where the Mexican-American War never happened and Mexico kept all of its northern territory. This one just had a POD that helped to start the MAW instead of stop it
π: 0 β©: 0
Mexico had virtually no control over it's northern provinces, If they didn't defect to us they would have just become independent.
π: 0 β©: 2
Really? Was early independent Mexico that unstable?
π: 0 β©: 1
While Santa Anna was in control 5 states seceded from Mexico, Rio Grande, Texas, Sonora and Baja California, Yucatan, and Alto California.
π: 0 β©: 2
Makes me wonder what would have happened had Santa Ana never rose to power.
π: 0 β©: 1
| Next =>