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)
As has been said, using too many OTL internal borders is going to get you in trouble around here, and smacks of quick-n-dirty rather than thought out borders. For instance, the boreder between USA and Canada down the St. Lawrence river, which ignores the fact that much of its southern bank was settled by the French long before your POD and has no cultural, linguisitc, or political connection with Boston or New York. New Brunswick didn't even exist until after the ARW when Loyalists from the 13 Colonies relocated to Nova Scotia (which included NB at the time) made for a population large enough for its own polity.

I don't disagree with your general regionalization of NorAm, but your borders could use some altering. Try starting with a map at the time of your POD and then fill in the blanks from there.
 
Thanks for the replies guys. It was my first timeline, so it was bound to have a few holes in it. I dont mind you re-creating the time line admiral. It adds some realism.


Thats a valid point dutchie, however I think being able to control the south shore of the st lawrence river would have given the americans a significant military advantage. It all but cuts off the option of the brits sailing an expeditionary force up the st lawrence river and mounting an attack on NY and boston from an inland position.

As for the advice about the borders, I will take that approach when doing my next time line. Thanks.

If any one knows of a time line in which New Spain/Mexico holds most of central america, please let me know. I would love to see how the Nicaragua Canal coukd become a reality and how it would affect the power ballance of the Americas.
 
Admiral Hawke’s Timeline for A Possible North American Continent

Possible Timeline - Part 1
POD - 1774 - The first of the Letters to the Inhabitants of Canada are sent by the 1st Continental Congress and meet with marginally greater support than in OTL, though not enough for Quebec to send delegates to the Congress.

1775 – 1781 The Patriots do not receive much overt public support and launch the invasion of Canada. Congress supports this invasion more fully than in OTL, supporting Benedict Arnold and Ethan Allen’s plan for the invasion of Quebec more quickly. The invasion succeeds and the population is just as happy to support whoever is winning like in OTL. While this may be a bit ASB, the Patriot forces elsewhere are more successful than in OTL, enough to distract the British on multiple fronts and pull in more aid from France and Spain. In 1776, Jonathan Eddy’s rebellion in Nova Scotia is also more successful. Faced with more defeats than in OTL, British support for the war at home decreases until they are no longer willing to continue fighting to retake their Canadian Provinces. Nova Scotia (not partitioned and therefore retaining the New Brunswick and Maine territories) and Quebec south of the St. Lawrence River agree to join the United States after raising several Canadian Regiments.

1783 – The Treaty of Paris recognized the United States of America, grants the USA all land east of the Mississippi and south of the St. Lawrence River, not including Florida. Loyalists flee the United States for Britain.

1787 – 1789 Things proceed pretty much like OTL until it becomes obvious that the Articles of Confederation aren’t working very well. Because Quebec and Nova Scotia are fairly small states population-wise (I think), the fights at the constitutional convention over representation in the legislature are even worst than OTL. The Ratification fight between Federalists and Anti-Federalists would also be more intense, although the Constitution is still ratified.

1789 – 1797 George Washington becomes President and manages to keep to an isolationist and apolitical policy. Federalist and Democratic-Republican resentment simmers.

Part 2 - USA and the Napoleanic Wars, coming as soon as I can find the time and motivation to tackle the huge amount of research I'll have to do.


About the Nicaragua Canal, apparently Central America was originally part of the Mexican Empire (actually annexed, I think), then broke off to form the United Provinces of Central America. However, the various political factions couldn't resolve their differences and the ensuing low-key civil war and the poverty of the region prevented a real democracy or a major project like the Canal. So, really there's no reason that I can see that sufficient butterflies couldn't let Mexico keep and develop Central America. About what time do you want the Canal, Rhys? I'm still working on the Napoleanic wars right now, but the sooner I start thinking about the Mexican situation the better, especially since what happens to Spain will effect what happens in Mexico.
 
What makes you think Mexico would care anything about Central America. Just look at Chiapas
Chiapas is a key state; a link with the rest of Mexico and Central America.
. They might be in a good location next to Central America but they are the poorest State in Mexico. In Mexico power and money generally centers mainly around Mexico City and in the Northern Mexican States.

Thursday, July 05, 2007

Mexican officials say poverty levels vary greatly by geography

MEXICO CITY – Poverty affects nearly half of Mexico's population, but levels vary significantly throughout the country, reaching their highest in the southeast, officials said Wednesday.

The southern state of Chiapas, with a 75.7 percent poverty rate, is Mexico's poorest, while the northern border state of Baja California has the lowest poverty, at 9.2 percent, according to The National Council for the Evaluation of Social Development Policy.

The council released data in the form of maps that, for the first time, pinpointed poverty rates at the local and statewide level in the country's 31 states and the capital, Mexico City.

According to the maps, which the council based on national poverty figures in 2005, the poorest states after Chiapas are Guerrero, Oaxaca and Tabasco. All three are in the south and have poverty rates of at least 59 percent.

The least impoverished states, besides Baja California, are Baja California Sur and the northeastern state of Nuevo Leon, with respective poverty rates of 27.5 percent and 23.5 percent. Mexico city places third with 31.8 percent.
These Northern Mexican States have been instrumental in shaping Mexican politics since the revolutions usually started there. They would not approve the spending of money to build a canal far from there States.
 
What makes you think Mexico would care anything about Central America. Just look at Chiapas . They might be in a good location next to Central America but they are the poorest State in Mexico. In Mexico power and money generally centers mainly around Mexico City and in the Northern Mexican States.

These Northern Mexican States have been instrumental in shaping Mexican politics since the revolutions usually started there. They would not approve the spending of money to build a canal far from there States.

While that might be true OTL, this is alternate history. With enough butterflies, anything can happen, though I prefer to make mine as far from ASB as possible. Anyway, with different circumstances right after the independence of Mexico, i.e. the Central American provinces not breaking anyway as I've speculated, those provinces could be a far more vital part of Mexico, especially if Mexico joins in with Britain or another power to build the Nicaragua Canal. The Canal would then benefit the entire country. Perhaps Central American has several charismatic politicians who manage to gain power at a crucial point in order to give the region an economic boost. Furthermore, I think you underestimate the appeal of the Canal, actually any canal. Once California has its gold rush, no one is going to want to keep hauling supplies all the way around South America. That being said, I can't see the Mexican government sitting idly by and letting potential profits slip through their fingers when everyone starts seriously discussing where they should put a canal.



Aside from this, I have some questions for Rhys for the timeline I'm putting together for this. I just need the information to fill in the details, because the details shape what happens next.

1. Please let me know if you are happy with Part 1. (And my idea for the formation of the CSA, if you have time.)

2. Do you want California and Texas to fight for independence on their own with tacit British support or can an outside power intervene? Judging by the map, it looks like the CSA might have helped Texas, but I don't think I can realistically find a way to give Texas the northern Mexican states. As far as I remember, Texas could raise defensive militias, but couldn't have launched an invading army. The map may need to be adjusted for that.

3. Does Mexico include Costa Rica? I ask because it was part of the First Mexican Empire, but it isn't shown as such on your map. Either way, it doesn't bother me, but the answer determines how the Central American part will begin.

4. Are there any other goals you have or things you want to have happen? At the moment, my timeline is eclipsing that short what if I wrote about Las Vegas, for example. If you have anything more you want put in, like the Niacaragua Canal, I'd like to be able to set up the preconditions for it as soon as possible. Also, I'd like to know any long-term thoughts you have about what happens in the timeline, the Monroe Doctrine, for example. Knowing whether you would like a certain country to be belligerent or dominant would help immensely in planning the future reactions of the other countries.
Thanks for letting me play around with your timeline!

Map Nitpicks - Mostly a rehash, but I plan to construct the timeline with these changes, so I thought I should at least let you know.
1. I can probably make California getting the Baja peninsula happen, so that isn't a problem, but unless you or someone else can find a way, I don't think that Texas could get the northern Mexican states.
2. Kansas and Missouri are pretty weird, but I can maybe do it. On the other hand, at least Maryland and Virginia are going to be in the CSA. Probably Kentucky as well, but I'd have to check on the prevailing political attitudes of the new settlers before I make that final.
Hope these aren't a problem.
 
Last edited:
2. Do you want California and Texas to fight for independence on their own with tacit British support or can an outside power intervene? Judging by the map, it looks like the CSA might have helped Texas, but I don't think I can realistically find a way to give Texas the northern Mexican states. As far as I remember, Texas could raise defensive militias, but couldn't have launched an invading army. The map may need to be adjusted for that.

I personally think you'll need outside help. Having California break away and grab other chunks of Mexico might be a bit difficult on its own. Having Texas break away without the same sort of influence from the US is going to be pretty difficult, as well.

1. I can probably make California getting the Baja peninsula happen, so that isn't a problem, but unless you or someone else can find a way, I don't think that Texas could get the northern Mexican states.

That's actually not too bad. There were historical secession movements. Have it be a more successful and aided by the independent Texas and the CSA. Originally set up as an independent puppet/buffer state, it gets annexed by Texas several years later. That leaves just Chihuahua to find an excuse for Texas to have.
 
Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, and Kentucky would all fight on the side of the south, for starters. I think that in this scenario you wouldn't see a Northern and Southern United States arise, but probably just the South beating the tar out of the North and enforcing slave owner's "Property rights." An amendment saying that the right of a person to exercise ownership of a slave shall not be abridged, or that sort of thing, to make owning a slave legal on the federal level, so the states couldn't forbid it.

This would probably lead to a much more expansionist, larger United States.
 
Admiral, I originaly had planned for texas and california to cede together. There would have to be some major help from the british in the form of logistics and supplies. I can see a number of "british Irregulars" fighting along side the Texan and Californians in exchange for favourable trading agreements.

I agree it would be difficult for the northern Mexico states to be taken in the initial confrontation. However if a succesful Texas were to arise and all hispanics were granted full citizen rights as would be likely to happen with a more british leaning aministration. A growing number of mexicans would see benifit in joining the texas state.

If this were the case, I see a modern texas state consisting of a relively well mixed majority of Anglo-Hispanics. English and Spanish would both become official laguages.

In TTL Britain/Canada along with a very British leaning Texas and California would be the political, military and economic leaders. If this were to eventuate I could see the USA/CSA being the ones to offer financial help to the mexican government for the construction of the Nicuragua canal. That would help shift some of the economic strength away from the brits.
 
Top