HOME | DD
KantiaCartography — The Two Americas 1900 (iPad Idea #9)
Published: 2014-02-22 18:23:50 +0000 UTC; Views: 22276; Favourites: 159; Downloads: 191
Redirect to original
Description
I didn't do any research for this so don't be too drastic with the critique. If you have any advice, let it be how to make the idea more plausible, not how unlikely the whole idea is in the first place.
POD: Battle of Antietam September 17, 1862
USA:
-After the British joined the war on the side of the CSA, the USA ignited a revolt in the Red River Colony of Rupertsland.
-After the CSA won its independence, with the help of the British Royal Navy and French supplies smuggled across the Mexico border, the USA purchased Alaska as a way to boost national spirit and use as a launching point for a possible invasion of British Columbia.
-When negotiations with the British over war reprisals broke down and the Confederation of Canada was formed in the east, the USA invaded British Columbia and Rupertsland. With the help of its small but powerful ironclad navy, the USA was able to fend of the British while it conquered vast amounts of land and sieged cities like Ottawa and Montreal. By 1869, Canada had been conquered by the USA
-In 1898, with the CSA spreading across the Pacific and Caribbean, the USA officially annexed the Hawaiin and outlying islands.
CSA:
-After winning independence from the USA, the CSA looked to expand to the Pacific Ocean and create a "Tropical Empire". The assassination of the Mexican Emperor and the revolt against the occupying French force gave the CSA the opportunity it needed. With the help of the French, the CSA invaded and annexed all of Mexico.
-Santo Domingo was willfully annexed as a location to send unruly slaves.
-Haiti was annexed as a matter of national security.
-Under the mask of a "Roosevelt Corollary", the CSA invaded, plundered, and annexed all Central American Countries down to Costa Rica.
-Fearing Confederate annexation, Colombia did not enforce its former border dispute with Costa Rica.
-In exchange for equal administrative rights to the canal in Nicaragua, Great Britain seceded its claims to British Honduras and the Mosquito Coast to the CSA.
-Seeing Cuba as ripe for the picking, the CSA tried to purchase the island from the Spanish. When Spain refused, despite the long and costly Cuban revolt, the CSA declared war. The CSA conquered Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Philippines, the Spanish East Indies, the Canary Islands, Spanish Sahara, and Spanish Guinea.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
- AB Absaroka
CA - California
CO - Colorado
CT - Connecticut
CU - Columbia
DA - Dakota
DE - Delaware
EI – Edward Island
GP - Gaspesia
HD - Hudson
HU - Huron
IA - Iowa
ID - Idaho
IL - Illinois
IN - Indiana
KA - Kanawha
KS - Kansas
MA - Massachusetts
MB - Manitoba
MD - Maryland
ME - Maine
MI - Michigan
MN - Minnesota
MO - Missouri
MO - Montreal (Oops I’m too lazy to change it to ML)
MT - Montana
NB - New Brunswick
NE - Nebraska
NH - New Hampshire
NJ - New Jersey
NS - New Scotland
NV - Nevada
NY - New York
OH - Ohio
ON - Ontario
OR - Oregon
PA - Pennsylvania
QC - Quebec
RI - Rhode Island
SK - Saskatchewan
SU - Superior
UT - Utah
VC - Vancouver
VT - Vermont
WA - Washington
WI - Wisconsin
CONFEDERATE STATES OF AMERICA
AL - Alabama
AR - Arkansas
CH - Chihuahua
CR - Costa Rica
DG - Durango
ES - El Salvador
FL - Florida
GA - Georgia
GU - Guatemala
HS - Honduras
KY - Kentucky
LA - Louisiana
MS - Mississippi
NA - Nicaragua
NC - North Carolina
OZ - Ozark
RG - Rio Grande
SC - South Carolina
SO - Sonora
TN - Tennessee
TX - Texas
VA - Virginia
YU - Yucatan
Related content
Comments: 57
I'm confused was Theodore Roosevelt a Confederate President in this? He was born in the North, and while he might not have been the most progressive man on race relations but he was fare for his time, and was a staunch opponent of lynching. It's not hard to see him as perhaps a social reformer for the Confederacy. Another interesting idea would be the idea of Robert E. Lee becoming President, if that happened he would most certainly have been a social reformer on the matter of race relations as towards the end of the Civil War he suggested that they allow any slave who fought for the Confederacy their freedom. Odds are once armed the slaves would have turned on the CSA more willing to take the guarantee of freedom offered by the Union than the possibility of freedom offered by the Confederacy.
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
Certainly a very creative idea of alternative USA & CSA after a Confederate victory.
Weird to modern standards but kind of plausible condsidering the standards back then.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
A very nice idea who doesn't even need a desptriction
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
oh, just one more thought,
had Texas remained outside the Confederacy it would have immediately retaken its prior claim to all land on the east side of the Rio Grande in 'New MEXICO and Arizona' , would definitely taken the Northern Mexico provinces save Baja, but I'm doubtful of Durango being included.
the Republic of California would have added Nevada and Western Idaho, while the free state of Utah would have taken eastern Nevada and maybe that part of Arizona state above the divide line, with Santa Fe area being added to the state of Colorado.
thus there would be four to six United States.
or, if the French had made peace with Germany before 1870, then the Brits may have sold western canada to the North allowing the north to reannex California and forcing Utah back into its fold, while the Confederacy would have reacted by annexing Texas back and forcing Georgia-Florida back into its fold.
Once one gets started on this there are so many wonderful variables.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
hi, like the idea, since you say you did not do any research may I suggest a few true events into your timeline which may alter the boundaries slightly.
1) in 1842 the Yucatan was a separate republic and the USA actually discussed annexing it instead of Texas. Thus had that happened, you might have a separate republic of Texas, albeit tied economically with the Confederacy.
2) in the 1850's there was serious talk by the USA annexing 'Santo Domingo', this would have been the Spanish side of the island of Hispaniola. It would be interesting if the North had managed to hold onto it while the Confederacy annexed Haiti.
3) had the so- called Pig War in the Puget Sound allowed the British to take over what is Washington state and the panhandle of Idaho, then Russian dominance in alaska would have kept Ft. Ross (Mendocino) in California but lost the the Alaskan panhandle islands to the Brits,who, thru their Hudson Bay Company would have kept the prairie Provinces. The lower Canadian provinces would probably have elected to be annexed by the US, otherwise a war would have to have been won by the North against the Brits, which would seem unlikely unless the North gave concessions to France such as Newfoundland and islands in the Caribbean.
4) it is unlikely that Kentucky east of the Kentucky river and Tennessee northeast of Knoxville would have remained in the Confederacy as these areas were extremely pro-Union. Your divide line of Missouri seems correct but the far northeast corner of Oklahoma would have stayed with the North. Also Georgia and Florida were never 100% loyal to the idea of a Confederacy and they may have indeed bowed out probably by 1880 due to economic reasons.
5)I don't believe the Confederacy would have moved across the Atlantic and taken Spanish Sahara, but Sierre Leone would be feasible, along with Gabon and flexing its muscle against the German activity along the Gold Coast.
6) The Republic of California would have pulled out of the USA after the war taking Baja and Oregon with it. It would have moved into the Pacific and taken Hawaii, Phillippines, Samoa, and again some of the German islands off Australia.
7) Doubtful the USA would have put up with Quebec, allowing it to be a puppet state tied economically to it.
8)all this assumes that France was rightly kicked out of Mexico, and the British interests in Belize and the Mosquito Coast were
taken over by an expansive Confederacy. One that would have (whether it retained Texas or not) a sizeable Spanish speaking minority. The Confederate Constitution stated that slavery was perpetual, but no slaves could be imported into the states, however, annexation of slave holding areas was allowed. The Mexican provinces outlawed slavery as did the Spanish. However, it remained in Portugal which took hold of the Amazon area when they realized the Spanish had no interest in it. A Confederate move into Amazon against a rather poor Portugal is feasible.
9) Lincoln (assuming he lived) may have wanted to keep the Capital in DC but it is unlikely his successors would have, Philadelphia being the best spot. until some time had healed some wounds and the capital moved back to DC, probably in time for the 1900 elections.
overall, very good concept. look forward to your next effort.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
1) Kinda irrelevant to the timeline.
2) Could have been, but it wouldn't have been extremely smart. It would have to enter waters dominated by the Confederates, British, and French, and there wasn't exactly an external motivation to annex it, seeing as how they didn't need a place to send the freed slaves.
3) Also not really relevant. Sorry, its been a while and I'm not really up to a lot of speculation at the moment.
4) Nothing is 100%. Sorry, I'm lazy right now.
5) Western Sahara was the only thing that it really could take. It wasn't about to start snatching up colonies from the British and French, its' powerful allies.
6) Seriously though. You can make a map. I've actually made multiple maps of this sort of scenario, but I'm just so tired right now.
7) Sure. Sounds good.
8)
Sorry man. You might have to wait until the summer to get a real discussion out of me. I sadly don't have the time at the moment.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Nice, but if the USA was going to invade British Canada they wood of invaded Newfoundland as well.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Separate dominion. I wanted Great Britain to keep some land in Canada and the Caribbean. Sort of a compromise. Its too old for me to really want to think about.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Where do you think the capitals would be located? In your opinion, Would they still be in the District of Colombia and Richmond or would they be moved over time?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Moved, definitely. The USA would never keep its capital in the District of Columbia, across the river from the CSA and in the middle of Maryland, a state only prevented from seceding because of immediate Union military prevention. Many men of western Maryland traveled south to join the Confederate army. The CSA only moved its capital to Richmond to convince other southern states, like North Carolina and Tennessee, to secede from the Union. Richmond is much to close to the Union border.
Philadelphia is the most likely new capital for the Union, away from the Confederate border to full of American history.
I would say that Atlanta would be the most likely new capital of the CSA. It was proposed before it was moved to Richmond, it was at the relative center of the country, and it wasn't a state capital.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Maybe the Confederates built a new city somewhere & named it Davis D.C. "District of the Confederacy"
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Philadelphia would have been my guess for the USA capital. I had always wondered way Lincoln would keep the capital so close to the border. National pride is an expected theory by some.
Atlanta, in terms of today's standards, would be a good choice for a capital after the war. It is an economic power in the South today.
Thanks for the insight!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I would say Lincoln kept the capital in Washington D.C. because (1) he did not recognize the CSA as a legitimate country or its claimed borders and (2) he probably didn't have the authority to move the capital without consent from the House and Senate, half of which were in the South supporting succession, and the other half of which did not recognize the CSA as a legitimate country either.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Did the CSA keep slavery? I only ask because history wise, there was evidence that the entire system would have eventually collapsed so it would make sense, even with the added territory that Slavery would eventually die.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I managed not to mention that in the description. With the added territories in northern Mexico, slavery survived for a time, maybe as far as the 1890s, but eventually the industrialization of states like Virginia, North Carolina, and Texas spread across much of the nation and slavery became obsolete and unsustainable. The obvious problem of the situation is that millions of former slaves were then freed from slavery but still without rights or true "freedom". The solution was to deport many of the former slaves to colonies like Hispaniola, and later Guinea, in order to avoid having to deal with them. And those who still reside in the South have essentially no rights and exist as virtual slaves to their white "masters". Basically a form of apartheid in which the blacks are an unfortunate minority.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
With that in mind, do you see a possibility that in this timeline the two nations will form back together, because there would not be that big of a reason for them to remain separate.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Actually, I believe that a split at such a critical moment in history would result in a permanent separation of cultures and political agendas. While the USA would most likely be open, if not eager, to the idea of uniting with/annexing the CSA, it would be precisely for that reason that the CSA would find such a merger unacceptable. For some time after Confederate independence, the USA would view the nation as illegitimate and continue trying to sabotage the CSA's infrastructure to someday bring it back under US control. THIS, would be the ultimate fear of the Confederate populace, and political relations would evolve from there. Any attempt by the USA to even bring up the idea of a merger would be ridiculed as a diabolical scheme to rob southerners of the rights they fought and died to protect. The only possible scenarios in which I could see the CSA rejoining the Union would be 1) if the CSA slowly broke up and the weak, downtrodden states were annexed individually or 2) the CSA as a whole failed to adapt economically after the end of slavery and was forced to rejoin the USA just to feed its people. Even in these two scenarios, there would still be a more noticeable culture split than OTL.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
What about Newfoundland? And why is the borderline between Ungava and Labrador the one fixed by the Privy Council in 1927?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The Dominion of Newfoundland is still in union with Great Britain. The border I just didn't want to put too much thought into. I can never find any good alternate Labrador borders, so keeping the border at least similar to what it was OTL helps people to recognize its absence.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
This looks like an alternate result of what happened after the Civil War.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Wow, I wonder where you got that idea.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Whys you 'mericuns dun gotta be takin over mah canerdas?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Cause we Muricans like ta ski.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Have you seen the film CSA: Confederate States of America?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Why yes I have. Not the most realistic scenario, but indeed entertaining.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And biting satire too. Totally unrealistic that slavery would have persisted until today, though.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
After the C.S.A. annexed the U.S.A. I stopped taking anything it said seriously.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yeah. I don't think it was meant to be taken seriously. It was still good though.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
This is cool and I respect the work you put in on it. I do have one major criticism though: I dont think the Confederacy would have been in any kind of condition to expand. Since you mentioned British intervention you're no doubt aware that Britain and France were major markets for Southern cotton. However, it still would have been a massive hit on the Southern economy to lose its much bigger market in the North United States, even if only temporarily. Also, the Southern economy was in a shambles because of the loss of slaves. When Lincoln finally signed the Emancipation Proclamation it was to take advantage of an already existing situation: that thousands and possibly millions of slaves had already left southern plantations and the ones who made it to Union lines could be used as laborers and soldiers. This had begun at the beginning of the war and only increased as time went on. Its hard to imagine the carnage that the South would have had to carry out to 're-enslave' its slaves and especially with heavy military losses by 1862/1863 who knows if they could have done it? Similarly, Ive often seen alternative histories assume that Mexico would have remained a distant third behind a divided USA/CSA, Im not at all sure thats true. Mexico was still fairly strong as the French found out and with the possible support of a bitter USA I think there is good reason to believe that Mexico could have turned the tables on a weakened CSA. Lastly no way Haiti would allow itself to be enslaved again, its the only slave nation in the history of the world to free itself and stay free, also Haiti was paying reparations to France by this time (one of the reasons Haiti was driven into poverty) and France would not have liked another power to cut off those payments by taking Haiti over.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Battle of Antietam. The Confederates forced the Union Army out of Maryland, convincing France and Great Britain to join the war and never giving Lincoln the victory he needed to pass the Emancipation Proclamation. After 1862 the front never lower passed Maryland and Northern Virginia. It ended earlier than OTL. By the time the Civil War ends, the CSA and France are allies. Both the CSA and France fought to end the Mexican uprising and fully handing over control to the Confederates did nto occur until some time later. The USA did not try to stop the CSA from invading Mexico because at the same time it started its occupation of western Canada. Already struggling to defend the St. Lawrence against Great Britain, it did not agitate the preoccupied France and Confederacy. Haiti didn't exactly have a choice. The CSA had already annexed Santo Domingo and Haitian raids, pirating, and instability were threatening order. This was some time after the Civil War, in the 1890s, and it didn't take much effort. The CSA was known for exacting European debts from the countries it annexed.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Wow, this is eerily similar to my own project: parasky.deviantart.com/art/The…
Same name and everything (not that I'm implying you copied me or anything)! I think I like yours better though.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Oh and this is just me letting my thoughts flow \/\/\/ I don't mean to be offensive or anything.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
When I first saw your map series a few years back, it got me thinking. You put so much thought into the story line, so many details, and yet there were many incongruities in the maps themselves. I got the name and the general idea from you, but all of the research is mine. These are the things that I found incongruous in your original map that I changed in mine.
-West Virginia: The people of the western counties truly did want to secede from Virginia and remain a part of the Union. Not all of the counties of course, but mainly the counties of the original state of Kanawha. It would make more sense for the CSA to cede Kanawha to the Union in exchange for something else it did not control, such as Kentucky or Missouri.
-Greer County & No Man's Land: At the time of the Civil War, Texas claimed Greer county and No Man's Land was not a part of the Indian Territory. It would make sense that if the CSA won and the Missouri Compromise was out of use, that Texas be given Greer County and No Man's Land.
-Arizona Territory: In your map, the CSA only received half of the OTL Confederate Arizona Territory and it gave the land to Chihuahua and Sonora. Idk why you only gave them half and I don't believe that the White population in Mesilla would appreciate being subjugated to the Mexican government in Chihuahua.
-Mexican states: One of the strangest things about your maps are the huge Mexican states that are far larger than any of the states in the original CSA, minus Texas. Your states of Durango, New Texas, and Chiapas are absolutely massive.
-South America: I can see the CSA annexing Mexico, with the aid of France, Central America, and the Caribbean, but never do I see it conquering all of South America, at least not before the 20th century. Regardless of whether or not it has the weaponry or technology, it will simply never have the manpower needed.
-Bahamas, Jamaica, & the Virgin Islands: Yeah I just find it hard to believe that the USA would conquer all of these Caribbean islands, far away from its mainland, open to Confederate attack, and belonging to multiple powerful European countries.
-Canadian states: All of the borders you used were not in existence at the time Canada was annexed and not all of the states would have the population to be states.
Other random things that I changed because why not.
-CSA gets the Philippines, cuz why would the USA risk it.
-They split Missouri in two.
-The USA still gets Hawaii, cuz if they can take Canada then they can most certainly take Hawaii.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I see! I've since moved that project into scraps, it does have a lot of problems. I did a lot of research on it, but not enough. That was way back when I was first getting into alternate history, and I was more focused on telling a story than making it plausible (I was also learning how to make maps at that time, so in the later maps I put more time into the actual art of the piece rather than the historical content). Quite a few of my maps are that way, actually. Well I'm glad my series could have an effect on somebody, even if it wasn't the greatest!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh! and I live in SE Kansas, and based on this map my town would be about half an hour from the Confederate border... Should Two Americas me be worried about that?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Just wondering but what app do you need to create cartography like this.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The free app is Sketch Book Express.
I use Sketch Book Pro. It cost money, but has more layers, more options, and larger canvases.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Is it restricted to just Apple products?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I wouldn't know, I only use Apple Products at the moment. The main thing to look for in an art app is layers.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So what are layers exactly?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Multiple canvases on top of each other that you can hide, delete, or change the opacity of.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oooh. Thanks^^
Can I ask your opinion on an alternate history idea?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Sure, as long as you realize I'll probably start making suggestions
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It is basically what if William Jennings Bryan won the 1896 presidential election.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Not a subject I'm very familiar with, but I'd assume that American industrial growth would have slowed and the USA would never have gotten so involved in Latin America or the Pacific. Not having been involved in imperial dealings or gaining prestige in the Spanish-American War, I assume the USA would have stayed neutral during WWI and things of turned out very differently.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well from what I have read Bryan was VERY enthusiastic about
going to war with Spain because he envisioned a USA that would
spread democracy throughout the world. So I believe he would
have gone to war earlier than Mckinley, but would have let them
become republics and assist in their nation building.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
As it turns out, Bryan was a major hypocrite when it came to war with Spain. In any case, the "Treaty of Paris" would have granted independence to all of Spain's colonial holdings in the Caribbean and the Pacific and the USA would never become a major influence in the Caribbean or the Pacific. My stand on WWI isn't as clear now.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well I also believe that if Bryan wins in 1896 it would have
convinced the Republican party to nominate someone more
progressive like Roosevelt, or La Folette.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That is where the extent of my knowledge on that subject stops. Go for it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
| Next =>