A Plethora of Princes (11) - A Shock to the System

[Grey Wolf]

Tell me the boarders the US has with Texas and Mexico by Geographic landmarks and I'll attempt to make you a map with state boundardies.

I don't know about geographic landmarks

I could find an OTL 1846 map. Whilst it might not delineate properly where the boundaries between Mexican California, Mexican Nuevo Mexio, and Mexican sovereign Deseret and Texas are, it should show what is NOT part of the USA, one way or another

Grey Wolf

 

[Othniel]

And why you are nameing your states: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._state_name_etymologies

Wait, California is still Mexican? It was added before the Civil War....

Assuming that includes Nevada...

Oh and Nebraska was astate in 1867, Colorado in 1876.

 

[Othniel]

I suppose this will have to do then.

 

[Othniel]

If we look at the map the area in pink is practically Texas. If we fudge around with the Treaty line we should get what we need. Colorado may not exsist as a state yet, same with Nebraska or Wymoing. Louisanne is allready smaller with a tiny bit of Arkansas being put in Indian Territory (which is technically US property.

 

[Grey Wolf]

Firstly, apologies, I was upstairs on the phone for a good while

A very interesting map and one I admit that raises many of those historical questions one knows bugger all about beforehand.

But, it we take the treaty line of 1819 to be established fact, then we're looking West of it to be Mexican or Texan. If you want to delineate, take this area then the bits which are in OTL Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, Northern Arizona and North-West New Mexico would equate to Deseret. Texas as an independent state is West of the 1819 line, the pink area inclusive of that in OTL New Mexico. The remnant of the green area of Southern Arizona and South-Western New Mexico forms the ATL state of Nuevo Mexico. California is Upper California in Mexico (as opposed to Lower or Baja California)

Looking at the states which are part of the Union in the 1870s then you're right, we need to do something with Wyoming and rump Colorado. However, given that they are contiguous to the Indian Territory (Oklahoma to be) they may not become organised in this period anyway.

By the same token, for the new states ignore Oklahoma which will remain Indian Territory for now, but look at the Confederacy as including OTL CSA states plus Kentucky, Maryland and there being no West Virginia in this ATL

My main difficulty with maps is blending them all in one. For example in the one I posted, its quit6e obvious and clear where Vandalia, Transylvania, West Florida and East Florida would be, but by the time we get to this map how am I to transfer that to here ???

How am I to identify the rump Francophone area to become Acadia (Northern Louisiana/Southern Arkansas ?), and how to identify the Yazoo area mentioned as well ?

As for the new new state names - take Franklin to be anywhere in the North of this area that has not been reassigned, and Jefferson anywhere in the South.

For Monroe take all of Maryland, peninsular Virginia and Northern Virginia not part of the old federal area (which was later reduced in size)

For Jackson take Georgia minus whatever is lost to East Florida, and plus whatever slither of land ios left between the named areas (eg Transylvania) and OTL Georgia

This should leave a rump Virginia to be Roanoke, and the Carolinas to be split in three along river boundaries

Grey Wolf

 

[Nicole]

"The term "Acadiana" refers to the area from just east of New Orleans to the Texas border, and about 100 miles inland to Marksville."
From Wikipedia, again...
Marksville is marked on this map:

I'd assume the state of Acadia to be slightly larger in size, as Acadiana has been chipped at by American settlers.

 

[Othniel]

Well I worked on it a little, but am going to have to know geographic boundaries. My guess is you end up with a general mix...I decided I wanted to know what I think the national boundaries would look like.

 

[Grey Wolf]

For Texas follow the 1819 treaty-line border, that's not in dispute.

Darn, I was gonna say more but I'm on demand on the phone tonight and my mind's gone blank

Grey Wolf

 

[Grey Wolf]

Oh yeah, the Texas upper dangly bit cut off and give to Deseret

Grey Wolf

 

[eschaton]

I'd say Acadia should be the southern half of Louisiana. Basically, if you took away everything north of the line that makes the base of the "L", you have the cajun area left.

 

[Othniel]

Well according to to your maps. (Vandallia and such) I'm getting two areas out of OTL Tenessee, Kentucky, Alabama, and Missippi. Nashboro for the more Northren part and Yazoo. Yazoo will take the areas from that river to as far north as the Teneesee, and as far east as the Alabama. Nashboro will be the area between the Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers. Acadia and Arkansas are what worries me, why not give what's left of Kentucky and Tenn. to Illinous and give Missouri northern Arkansas?

 

[Othniel]

Is this better?

 

[Grey Wolf]

Well according to to your maps. (Vandallia and such) I'm getting two areas out of OTL Tenessee, Kentucky, Alabama, and Missippi. Nashboro for the more Northren part and Yazoo. Yazoo will take the areas from that river to as far north as the Teneesee, and as far east as the Alabama. Nashboro will be the area between the Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers. Acadia and Arkansas are what worries me, why not give what's left of Kentucky and Tenn. to Illinous and give Missouri northern Arkansas?

I don't see any precedents for enlarging existing states. Missouri already exists, it doesn;t need to be reconstituted because however much it was fought over in the ACW it remained nominally Unionist. But I have never seen any instance where such a thing results in territorial aggrandizement.

I am thinking that the US administration is viewing this in a sort of double vision - anywhere that remained loyal, even as a territory, will be treated in one way. Anywhere that rebelled will be treated in another

I don't really want to see a state called Nashboro - Franklin is what I think I am looking for in this remnant area

Grey Wolf

 

[Grey Wolf]

I think Texas should have a straight down border


http://www.rootsweb.com/~tlmorris/stnchfld/data/maps/US1838.gif

http://www.rootsweb.com/~tlmorris/stnchfld/data/maps/US1850.gif

I don't see any reason for the USA to have ceded territory in the interim

I wish there was a simple way to combine all these maps !

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[Nicole]

Well according to to your maps. (Vandallia and such) I'm getting two areas out of OTL Tenessee, Kentucky, Alabama, and Missippi. Nashboro for the more Northren part and Yazoo. Yazoo will take the areas from that river to as far north as the Teneesee, and as far east as the Alabama. Nashboro will be the area between the Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers. Acadia and Arkansas are what worries me, why not give what's left of Kentucky and Tenn. to Illinous and give Missouri northern Arkansas?

I think the treaty line that the map should follow includes all of Louisiana.. For Acadia, I would think that it would basically be the bottom part of the modern state, perhaps extending a bit north of that.. Of course, its not my TL.

 

[eschaton]

You still have the texas boundry wrong Imajin. It should be the modern day border, with Texas having the OK 'panhandle'.

In addition, Texas, from what I know, should have the 'Greer County' region.

1896, March 16. Greer County decision made in United States vs. Texas

Due to an error by the surveyor of the region, and a mistake in indentifying the main channel of the Red River, the southwest corner of Oklahoma, the area between the Red River, the North Fork of the Red River, and the 100th Meridian was claimed by Texas and designated as Greer County in 1860, named for John A. Greer, a Texas lieutenant governor. Greer County, Texas, organized by ranchers in 1886, included all of the current Greer, Jackson, and Harmon Counties and that part of Beckham County south of the North Fork River. To see a map of the disputed territory, click here. The Supreme Court declared in United States vs. Texas, 162 U.S. 1 (1896) Greer County to be a part of Oklahoma Territory. The land office at the county seat of Mangum opened for business by July 2, 1897. Prior settlers of Greer County were permitted to file on the quarter sections they lived on and an adjoining quarter sections where they already had improvements. Within a week 100 homestead entries had been filed, 33 applicants filing for their additional quarter.

At the Constitutional Convention 1907, the area was divided among Beckham County, Jackson County, and Greer County. After statehood 1909, Harmon County was created out of the southwestern portion of Greer County.

 

[Grey Wolf]

I think the treaty line that the map should follow includes all of Louisiana.. For Acadia, I would think that it would basically be the bottom part of the modern state, perhaps extending a bit north of that.. Of course, its not my TL.

I'm not sure what you mean. When Texas became independent in 1835 it quite clearly did NOT include any areas East of its modern boundary with Louisiana

I can agree regarding Acadia, though perhaps there is a call to expand it to include ALL of Louisiana and the Southern part of Arkansas. It depends how much of a Francophone population remained in these areas AT THIS TIME

Grey Wolf

 

[Nicole]

I'm not sure what you mean. When Texas became independent in 1835 it quite clearly did NOT include any areas East of its modern boundary with Louisiana

I mean that the US border should include all Louisiana... I believe Othniels map gave part of it to Texas.

I can agree regarding Acadia, though perhaps there is a call to expand it to include ALL of Louisiana and the Southern part of Arkansas. It depends how much of a Francophone population remained in these areas AT THIS TIME

Well, I based my assumption of the modern day area, as I assumed the French-speaking Population hasn't grown.. Though I suppose that the part of southern Louisiana that was once West Florida would go with that state.

 

[Grey Wolf]

eschaton, regarding Oklahoma I don't envisage it having come up as an issue at this stage. The Indians that the Radicals of Charles F Adams' administrations were concerned with suppressing were those in the MidWest whose existence blocked what in this ATL was the only land route to the West coast - this would also have been the only railroad route.

A interesting aside and relevant to the 1880s in the ATL is that in the OTL California gold rush there was a great rush to cross Central America. Many went via Panama, others via Nicaragua.

In the ATL this rush is delayed until the start of the 1860s and the NATURAL route is via the UPCA, i.e. Nicaragua etc as it is an American vassal. This would certainly affect things later on when it comes to building the trans-oceanic canal.

The UPCA has all the advantages in this ATL, apart from owning Greytown but Miskitia is not exactly going to be a hostile neighbour

Grey Wolf

 

[Grey Wolf]

I mean that the US border should include all Louisiana... I believe Othniels map gave part of it to Texas.

Sorry - I agree entirely, I just find double negatives a bit confusing late at beer

Well, I based my assumption of the modern day area, as I assumed the French-speaking Population hasn't grown.. Though I suppose that the part of southern Louisiana that was once West Florida would go with that state.

Looking at the map which shows West Florida, Louisiana appears to be to the West of it and untouched. I can't guarantee this as I haven't compared it in detail, but it was my feeling that it wouldn't be affected by the historical areas on that map

Grey Wolf