A possible North American Continent

Being Australian I didn't spend a tremendous amount of time studying American history. However from what I can figure the North American Continent could easily appear like this.

How likely would the following outcome be.

USA wins ARW. New Brunswick and Nova Scotia join the union. Also Maine, NH, Vermont and NY and New Brunwick manage to push their borders north to the south shore of the St. Lawrence River

Due to rising cost and shrinking profits Britian passes the The Slavery Abolition Act in 1806 helping the ACW to be bought forward to 1809.

After heavy fighting that lasts only two years The CSA and USA grind to a stalemate and call a ceace fire thus partitioning the the nation into two Soverign nations

Sensing weakness in the USA, It is Britain that starts the war of 1812. After heavy fighting the British cant retake any land in the St. Lawrence River area and instead sweep south, west of the great lakes area and take what would be the OTL US states of Nebrasca, North and south Dakota, Minnesota.
Fearing A loss of even more territory the US sues for peace and is forced to cede Iowa.

After the war of 1812 USA and CSA fearing a more agressive Britain sign a memorandum of understanding that puts aside past differences and the two nations enter a common defence agreement and establish a commonwealth. Over the next few years, slavery is abolished in the CSA and the two nations begin acting as one nation in all but name.

After a bitter struggle the Treaty of Córdoba is signed in 1821, ending the Mexican war of Independance.

In 1826, anglo leaders in texas begin inviting settlers from British North america (BNA), USA/CSA and Britain/Ireland. Mexican Officials are unhappy with this move and start imposing economic and military sanctions on the area.

1828 a small community near San Marcos Texas, Riots against Mexican authorities and is butaly put down by Mexican troops. Similar riots over the next few years are dealt with in the same fashion.

Gold is discovered in california in 1823, aprox 25 years earlier than OTL. This brings a massive influx of ppl from BNA and USA/CSA as it did in OTL. Within two years the population of Califronia swings fom 75% Hispanic/amerindian to 60% Anglo. Again Mexican officials impose sanctions and taxes on the local populations as they did in texas.

After 15 years of opressive mexican treatment the Texans are ready to cede. They have been secretly plannining with Caliofornian and British ambassiders on a plan of action. In september of 1835 Both Texans and Californians jointly announce their ceceation from mexico. Californian gold is used to pay off some mexican military leaders and due to internal struggles the mexican government is powerless to do anything but send token military forces.

After brief fighting, the californian republic walks away with all of california including OTL Nevada and the mexican state of sonora.

Texas has taken control of chihuaua, Coahulia, Neuvo Leon and the northern half of tamaulipus

Britain formally recognises The Californian and Texan nations and establishes close economic ties with them. Califonia Buys oregan and the southern portion of Idaho for a token amount in exchange for a garuntee to help settle the NW of OTL Canada in response to increased migration into Russian america (ie alaska)

usa possible.jpg
 
Hey, certainly a nice vision of a map ! Nitpickers will point out some of the state borders are arbitrary so arbitrarily re-using them seems unlikely, but you would simply be creating NEW arbitrary borders to replace them, so using what's there in OTL helps you get your point across well

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Pausibility

The first problem that I see is that Thomas Jefferson is President of the U.S.A. from 1801-1809, followed by James Madison. Both of these men were wealthy slaveowners. Since the U.S. won the ARW, I'm assuming the founding fathers don't change much. Jefferson didn't particularly support manufactorers, and a big part of the ACW was about conflict between the manufactoring North and the agricultural South. As a slaveholder, I don't see Jefferson making any waves that could cause a civil war over slavery, but I do see two other possibilities. One, Jefferson's reaction to the Barbary Pirates argues that he may not handle Britain getting rough with U.S. sailors and shipping very well. If the XYZ Affair turns out better for the U.S. and France, Britain could decide to pressure the U.S., possibly sparking the War of 1812 about a decade early and maybe even opening a U.S.-Napoleanic France alliance. Two, John Adams, Jefferson's predecessor as president, could be more successful at meeting Federalist goals, causing a backlash against the Northern Federalist states. It wouldn't be much of a war though. A civil war lasting two years really requires that both sides have money and arms, but the U.S. was still pretty heavily in debt. I don't think an ACW this early would be very exciting, except as a massive power vaccuum. If an ACW happened that early in the Napoleanic Wars, there's no way Britain and France wouldn't have tried to intervene.

The parts about Texas and California are pretty good. An independent Texas is a little hard to finesse, but its workable. If the USA does become a manufacturing state, maybe it can keep a tight rein on the CSA, but otherwise expansionary conflicts with Mexico are probably inevitable, unless Britain issues a "Monroe Doctrine" of its own. If the USA/CSA has no sweeping Manifest Destiny movement and doesn't support immigration to Texas at all, it might just be possible to get an independent Texas without a war between Mexico and the U.S. Of course, if the U.S. and Napolean ally, the U.S. might get some Spanish territory in North America (i.e. future Mexico). The only way I see California becoming independent after gold being discovered is for California somehow get to keep its gold, rather than sending it to Mexico. Or Britain could intervene to keep the Mexicans from being too oppressive like in Texas.

The most major problem I see is that something has to happen to butterfly away Manifest Destiny in order to get an independent California and Texas, and to keep the USA/CSA from contesting the Canadian land-grabs. That pretty much necessitates relieving the population pressure on the East coast (and the Northeast territory and the new southern states weren't enough OTL). My solution would be to have the U.S. ally with Napolean under Jefferson and be defeated. The plan would probaly be to have the U.S. attack Canada which would provoke a British counterattack, explaining the Canadian dominance of the northern Midwest. Furthermore, the British might be irritated enough that they issue a Monroe Doctrine style ultimatum telling the US to leave everyone else alone. Then, if you really want an ACW, this might be the time to put it.
 
Thanks for the feed back guys. As I said, my understanding of North american history is a little vague at best. Admiral, I take your point about Jefferson and Madison not banning slaveholding. If any of this scenario were played out, I could see The brits issueing a "monroe doctrin" of their own. They got very protective of Australia and New Zealand in the early 1800's when they heard wind of a small force of frenchies trying to set up a colony in present day Western Australia.

One thing i did wonder about, is with the seperate California and Texas that I have, will we still get the hoover dam. Because god knows, NOBODY would want to butterfly away las vegas lol
 
What I always find funny in such scenarios is Texas remains a white country despite having conquered half of Mexico...Texas alone independant would probally be heavily latino never mind this one.
(of course nothign said about that here but its the way things usually are)
 
What I always find funny in such scenarios is Texas remains a white country despite having conquered half of Mexico...Texas alone independant would probally be heavily latino never mind this one.
(of course nothign said about that here but its the way things usually are)

I hadn't really thought of that before, but I think you are right.

However, it does leave open the possibility for the latino population to later overthrow their anglo overlords and proclaim the People's Commune of Tejas or somesuch, nationalizing oil and other central industries. Naturally this leads into an open confrontation with the CSA (to whom the PCT is in an ideological sense dialectically opposed), and serves as a catalyst for the Nth North American War...

Rhys, the idea is free to use.;)
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
I hadn't really thought of that before, but I think you are right.

However, it does leave open the possibility for the latino population to later overthrow their anglo overlords and proclaim the People's Commune of Tejas or somesuch, nationalizing oil and other central industries. Naturally this leads into an open confrontation with the CSA (to whom the PCT is in an ideological sense dialectically opposed), and serves as a catalyst for the Nth North American War...

Rhys, the idea is free to use.;)

Very interresting, but if Mexico is not Socialist, there could be an Axis of Evil between CSA and Mexico, a conquest and Tejas divided between the Imperialist Bastards forever.
 
Very interresting, but if Mexico is not Socialist, there could be an Axis of Evil between CSA and Mexico, a conquest and Tejas divided between the Imperialist Bastards forever.

They may well try. The whole thing, you see, might be orchestrated by the US, who just waits until the Confederate troops pass into Tejas and then jumps the CSA.:p
 
Another problem
Up till about 1820~1830 Both Virginia and Maryland were very much Southern States. A pre 1820 Split would see them as part of the South.
 
What I always find funny in such scenarios is Texas remains a white country despite having conquered half of Mexico...Texas alone independant would probally be heavily latino never mind this one.
(of course nothign said about that here but its the way things usually are)

Texas wasn't originally a white country, yet alone a white state. The majority of white Americans settled there following annexation. There were a good deal of Mexicans that also rose in rebellion against Santa Ana and fought at the Alamo.

I think you find similar incidents in New Mexico where the early Mexican citizens eventually became considered 'white' as opposed to those Mexicans that came later.
 
What I always find funny in such scenarios is Texas remains a white country despite having conquered half of Mexico...Texas alone independant would probally be heavily latino never mind this one.
(of course nothign said about that here but its the way things usually are)

Something to do with there being practically no Latinos in the area around this time. Tejans made up a minority population during the Texan revolt. I don't know the term for Latino Californians, but they were a (larger) minority, as well (It's like, Californios or something).
 
One thing i did wonder about, is with the seperate California and Texas that I have, will we still get the hoover dam. Because god knows, NOBODY would want to butterfly away las vegas lol

Well, if the CSA is expansionist, which is rather likely, they could ally with Mexico to take on Texas. I'm thinking this would take place one or two decades after the last American defeat, whichever one you want to use. Long enough that memories of what the British really did have started to fade, you've got new and hotblooded officers who want a second shot and don't care about British ultimatums. Add in Mexico with a bit of feelings towards Texas and California like how the Argentinian military views the Falklands, and you might get some major patriotic sentiment whipped up, enough to justify a war. Especially if the loss of California and Texas weakened the previous government of Mexico enough that a new govenment can rise to power based being war hawks.

In this case, I would see CSA and Mexico attacking Texas. Texas appeals to California and Britain/Canada for supplies and aid. Possibly towards the end of their struggle for independence, California got some of the brutal repression going on in Texas? If so, that might prove a rallying cry good enough to raise some spontaneous militia forces and provide a political talking point in California. Since I don't know the population of Texas, I can't really predict any specifics of the war, but I can give some of the steps that could lead to the Hoover Dam and Las Vegas.
The Northern USA wasn't especially expansionist that I know of, so they might be happy to keep the Northwest Territories and abide by Britain's Monroe Doctrine. I assume that after one or two decades thay have fairly good relations with Canada. Therefore I see Britain and Canada warning the CSA to break off their agression with USA support. Whether they also warn Mexico is optional and probably dependent on how well the Texans do in that part of the war. When the CSA refuses to back down, Canada/Britain attacks and retains at least Kansas and Missouri. I know they were slave states, but in terms on the geography of the region, it makes more sense to me to lump them in with the Canadaian states. And they are good farming areas, and later on Kansas will have oil. Again, I would need more specifics to actually evaluate the possibilities for a war, but you could see a joint British and USA blockade of the southern ports and possibly Mexico, if you want a USA/British/Canadian alliance.
Back to Las Vegas. If you get a close Texan/Californian alliance after a war against Mexico and the CSA, you could see the two countries become very very close politically. In that case, the two countries could decide to cooperate on a major project like the Hoover Dam, eventually. I don't know if a gambling capital would necessarily appear in the same place as Las Vegas, but it could happen. Without the US Federal government to order it done, I do think that California and Texas would have to have a very close political relationship in order to cooperate on such a large project. My hypothetical war is only one way to do that, but I think it works well within the logical reactions of the nations within the time span that I've postulated.
Extra notes-I do agree with DuQuense that Maryland and Virginia would have ended up in the CSA, unless you butterfly in a politician who is extremely persuasive and absolutely oppose to secession. Otherwise, at that time period, both states were pretty southern in their viewpoint and culture. A general rule of thumb is that most of the border states that didn't really take sides in the ACW probably would have joined the South if Lincoln hadn't been smart enoughto avoid the slavery issue and focus the war on keeping the Union united.
Second, if there is a war between Mexico and Texas, there could be interesting possibilities with Texas' lower provinces. Is one or two decades enough for those areas to be happy with Texan control or could you see a revolt against the Texans following a Mexican attack. Just ideas for a more detailed and perhaps more story-like timeline.
 
The problem that I see is the assumption that Britain was as interested in war to recover the colonies as the USA was in warring to expand them. The British met the end of the ARW with a kind of reluctant inevitability. There was widespread support for the Americans during the ARW and the UK had no heart for revenge. Indeed, when the countries signed peace, most merchants and businessmen etc were happy to open trade with the new country pretending that there had never been any issue of domination and subservience between the two. Frankly, it's virtually impossible to find a way to realistically make the UK declare war on the USA and then invade. It's possible that they could be forced into doing it as gunboat diplomacy - for instance if British merchants started being harassed they might try a limited blockade of the USA - but the British really didn't want to reannex even a little bit of the USA. Sure, they might contest the claims the USA made on land for expansion, but they would never try to spill the disputes over onto reverting American independence. The march south and burning of Philadelphia in 1814(?) was retribution for the American invasion of Canada and a means of telling the Americans to not pick on someone stronger than them, nothing more than that. If you want a war of 1812 clone, the USA essentially has to be the aggressor...

Other than that, I like it though. I'm always interested by maps showing "different North America"s.
 
Initially, I was wanted California and Texas to be as close as Australia and New Zealand ( yes, we put put a lot of shite on each other, but we share a lot and generally are quite close).

I was also hoping the loss of the northern states would cause mexico to focus more inward. This would help prevent some of it's lower states cedeing. Thats why I had Mexicos southern border extending all the way to Nicuagua.

I was trying to find a way for the Nicaragua Canal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_Canal) to come into play. That would have caused mexico to become an economic power house.

That would leave Canada and Mexico as the dominate forces in North America.
 
Interesting idea

I like your creativity here. One small nitpick is that the CSA would be unlikely to end up with Missouri. The majority there favored the USA.
 
Concerning that comment on New Mexico -
According to Johnson, Mexicans have, historically, been considered White for legal purposes in some U.S. jurisdictions. However, rarely have they ever been treated as full human beings, with full human rights. For purposes of naturalization, the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo considered Mexicans "White," yet they have always been treated as non-Whites socially, he says.
New Mexico is the forgotten State. Its the only US State that has USA on it's license plates so to remind everyone that they are a US State.

Following a large map showing New Mexico and Upper California when part of Mexico.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cc/M%C3%A9xico_Divisi%C3%B3n_Pol%C3%ADtica-Rep%C3%BAblica_Central.png

Seems part of todays Texas was part of New Mexico. New Mexico was enlarged to the West after the US tookover to include a large part of Upper California which we call today Arizona.
See map: http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/foun/images/map1.jpg

There was once a US General in the 19 century that said they should give it back to Mexico. At that time it was mainly Native and Hispanic of Mexican and Spanish stock. People back East including papers use to give N.Mexicans a hard time saying they spoke Spanish. And when it came to religion they were considered to practice the wrong religion.

This figures for 2000
Mexican (16.3%), American Indian (10.3%), German (9.8%), Hispanic (9.4%), and Spanish (9.3%).
Today Hispanics make up 43% and Natives 10%. Non-Hispanic Whites 42%.

The Mexican governor at the time of the US invasion gave up NM without a fight. But after a few months there was a revolt. Thing about this revolt is Mexicans and Natives were working together.
Read this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taos_Revolt

And many of the Spanish or Mexican property deeds that the New Mexicans had were not recognized has legal in order to steal there land.
Historians have erroneously concluded that much of the land was lost because of misinterpretations between Spanish common law -- which was in effect during the awarding of land grants in "New Spain" and Mexico prior to the war -- and English common law. However Luna notes that regardless of the interpretation, in the end the courts almost always ruled in favor of Anglos and to the detriment of Mexicans and their descendants.
Found out population of Mexican Citizens in conquered areas not including Texas was 100000.

Texas population at Independence was
In 1836 there were probably 5,000 blacks, 30,000 Anglo-Americans, 3,470 Hispanics, and 14,200 Indians in Texas.
lthough the events of 1836 led to independence for the people of Texas, the Hispanic population of the state was very quickly disenfranchised to the extent that their political representation in the Texas State Legislature disappeared entirely for several decades
And on that map Central America should be eithier independent nations if not all united. After the Mexican Empire fell to the Republic they pulled Mexican troops from Guatemala and let Central America decide if they wanted to join Mexico or not. You must remember Central Americans are not Mexicans.
 
The problem that I see is the assumption that Britain was as interested in war to recover the colonies as the USA was in warring to expand them. The British met the end of the ARW with a kind of reluctant inevitability. There was widespread support for the Americans during the ARW and the UK had no heart for revenge. Indeed, when the countries signed peace, most merchants and businessmen etc were happy to open trade with the new country pretending that there had never been any issue of domination and subservience between the two. Frankly, it's virtually impossible to find a way to realistically make the UK declare war on the USA and then invade. It's possible that they could be forced into doing it as gunboat diplomacy - for instance if British merchants started being harassed they might try a limited blockade of the USA - but the British really didn't want to reannex even a little bit of the USA. Sure, they might contest the claims the USA made on land for expansion, but they would never try to spill the disputes over onto reverting American independence. The march south and burning of Philadelphia in 1814(?) was retribution for the American invasion of Canada and a means of telling the Americans to not pick on someone stronger than them, nothing more than that. If you want a war of 1812 clone, the USA essentially has to be the aggressor...

Entirely right. I'm thinking about writing up an alternate timeline for this for Rhys, but I don't exactly want to hijack the timeline. I would like some constructive criticism of this idea for the dominance of Canada in the Midwest though. It's very much a work in progress.

1. The XYZ affair goes much better than in OTL, so no wave of anti-french sentiment sweeps the colonies. Therefore, the USA has a better relationship with France at the start of the Napoleanic wars. Britain decides to intimidate the US by harrasing shipping and impressing sailors much earlier than in OTL. Jefferson responds badly and allies with Napolean, building up the navy and beginning to harass British shipping. I havent yet fully developed what a US-French alliance would change in the Napoleanic wars, but basically I'm looking for the USA to be annoying enough for Britain to decide to swat them. (Possibly attacking the British West Indies?-again, I haven't done all the research)

2. The setup of the map indicates that a US-Napoleanic alliance would still have been defeated in this timeline. I would suggest that the Louisiana Purchase happened as in OTL. If the USA is enough of an irritant to Britain that they would attack, I would guess at a general blockade of the coast and possibly a similar plan to the war of 1812, but I don't know enough yet to speculate fully.

3. In my timeline, I have fairly extreme tension between the north and the southern states going all the way back to the ratification of the Constitution. If the USA is beaten fairly badly by the British in the North, I'm postulating that the South, driven by resentment of the North and facing economic hardship from the British blockade, might sue for a separate peace, eventually seceding from the Union. That gives us the CSA found on the map, probably as a British client state, at least for the moment. Britain would then protect the pro-British CSA from the pro-French USA from any attempt at reunification.

4. Since, at least as far as I know, there wasn't a great deal of infrastructure in Canada outside of the St. Lawrence River area, I think that Britain would not make the effort required to attack the USA through the Midwest, especially during the Napoleanic wars. Instead, a more successful war in the northern states might cause the USA, newly separated from the CSA, to ask for peace. In return, Britain takes the northern half of the Louisiana Purchase and issues a Monroe style ultimatum that the United States had better not mess around in its affairs anymore. Since the CSA has the lower half of the Louisiana Purchase, I'm not sure whether Britain would have given it to them, sold it to them, or given it back to Spain who might have sold it to the CSA (or if there is an Andy Jackson-type figure running around, it could have just been grabbed by the CSA)

That's my idea for how this map could have such a dominant Canada and the CSA. (I wonder if they actually would have called themselves the Confederate states? That might depend on how the ratfication fight plays out.) Again, constructive criticism is more than welcome.
 
Washington state and southwest British Columbia would be too attractive for development to remain grouped with the northern territories. You might need another country that takes up Washington, Oregon and most of BC.

What's the word for it: Ecotopia?
 
Washington state and southwest British Columbia would be too attractive for development to remain grouped with the northern territories. You might need another country that takes up Washington, Oregon and most of BC.

What's the word for it: Ecotopia?

Cascadia! :mad:

Though, Colombia joining the Californian Republic seems inevitable at this point ITL. Canada* has no industrial capacity to build the Canadian railroad, which gives the west coast no incentive to trade with them. Massive emigration means they must either join or lose everything. They probably should've joined at original secession.

*Western Canada would be pretty messy, with Indians and Metis running about
 
Top