A thought on alternative names for the USA

Thande

Donor
Now when the US Civil War happened, the idea of referring to the area of the USA as "America" had become ingrained into the public consciousness. So when the seceding states formed their own government, it was the Confederate States of America. If they had won their war, a problem of demonyms emerges (as Turtledove among others has noted). "American" no longer means "someone from the USA". We might end up with awkward workarounds like always having to say "USAmerican" and "CSAmerican"...

But fourscore and seven years before, the name was still young (and officially for a while it was actually the United States of North America) and there remained some discontent over it. Some of the founding fathers disliked it because of the problem of a demonym - "United Statesian" sounded silly and "American" was unpopular because in that era, "an American" usually meant a native Indian.

However, in the end the name prevailed because the others (Freedonia, Columbia, Appalachia, Alleghenia, etc.) were even less popular. Now let's say there was an earlier US Civil War, or more probably the union fell apart due to a failure to ratify the constitution - whatever. My point is, can we have two recognisably US-like nation states (i.e. not regionally focused like a seceding New England) where the people of one are called Americans and the other are known as Columbians or Freedes or Appalachians or whatever?
 
I recall Turtledove in that collection of stories about a Homonid-populated New World had the Federated Commonwealths of America, which always thought was a good name. As to the other demonyms, I am not sure. Perhaps a Jefferson and co. dominated Virginia and environs could be known as Columbia. He seems the most inclined to have such a poetic and classical name. To be honest, I can't take the name Freedonia seriously because of the Marx Brothers.
 

wormyguy

Banned
More seriously, I always thought "Virginia" would be a good name for an ATL America.

It's possible that eventually after a CSA victory civil war, Northerners would be known as Americans or Yankees, while southerners would be known as Virginians.
 
Federation of America

United Republic of America

Confederation of America

Federated States of America

Combined States of America

Union of America

American Union

North American Republic
 
Federal Republic of America?
United New World Colonies?
Federal Republic of America and Noteable Colonial Entities? (F.R.A.N.C.E.)
 
We do IOTL. One group is called Americans and the other is called Jr. Americans.

:)p)


Fixed it for you.:rolleyes:

More on topic, if the USA failed to exist due to failure to ratify the Constitution, then the nation names would come from the names of the States most likely, with perhaps a "bla bla bla of New England" or "bla bla bla of the Carolinas" thrown in there. If the CSA broke of, then the adjective Confedarates works pretty well, so I wouldn't be suprised if the people from the USA are 'Americans' and the people from the CSA are 'Confedarates'.
 
Now when the US Civil War happened, the idea of referring to the area of the USA as "America" had become ingrained into the public consciousness. So when the seceding states formed their own government, it was the Confederate States of America. If they had won their war, a problem of demonyms emerges (as Turtledove among others has noted). "American" no longer means "someone from the USA". We might end up with awkward workarounds like always having to say "USAmerican" and "CSAmerican"...

Well 'Unionite' and 'Confederate' could serve for that I suppose.

Federal Republic of America?
United New World Colonies?
Federal Republic of America and Noteable Colonial Entities? (F.R.A.N.C.E.)

How about the Unified Nation Intent on Territorial Expansion of its Democratic States Throughout the Americas Towards Eternal Supremacy?
 
Now when the US Civil War happened, the idea of referring to the area of the USA as "America" had become ingrained into the public consciousness. So when the seceding states formed their own government, it was the Confederate States of America. If they had won their war, a problem of demonyms emerges (as Turtledove among others has noted). "American" no longer means "someone from the USA". We might end up with awkward workarounds like always having to say "USAmerican" and "CSAmerican"...

But fourscore and seven years before, the name was still young (and officially for a while it was actually the United States of North America) and there remained some discontent over it. Some of the founding fathers disliked it because of the problem of a demonym - "United Statesian" sounded silly and "American" was unpopular because in that era, "an American" usually meant a native Indian.

However, in the end the name prevailed because the others (Freedonia, Columbia, Appalachia, Alleghenia, etc.) were even less popular. Now let's say there was an earlier US Civil War, or more probably the union fell apart due to a failure to ratify the constitution - whatever. My point is, can we have two recognisably US-like nation states (i.e. not regionally focused like a seceding New England) where the people of one are called Americans and the other are known as Columbians or Freedes or Appalachians or whatever?

Yankees and Confederates.
 
Fixed it for you.:rolleyes:

More on topic, if the USA failed to exist due to failure to ratify the Constitution, then the nation names would come from the names of the States most likely, with perhaps a "bla bla bla of New England" or "bla bla bla of the Carolinas" thrown in there. If the CSA broke of, then the adjective Confedarates works pretty well, so I wouldn't be suprised if the people from the USA are 'Americans' and the people from the CSA are 'Confedarates'.

I have always wondered what would one call someone from Massachusetts had the colonies never managed to stay as one. I know it would probably still be a New English (New Englander whichever the term) federation. But if it weren't Bay Stater doesn't quit cut it. New Hampshire also poses a dilemma; the rest are easier.

Like most Latin-Americans I have always believed that the US monopoly on the term American is somewhat unfair. By now we can't help it so we learn to live with it. Unlike Canadians who suffer from an identity crisis every time one calls Canada part of America. We know better; America is a whole continent (or two depending how you look at it) and it just so happened to be that the founding fathers of the USA were not very creative. Which is strange since they could have gotten first dibs in the name Colombia/Columbia (both names much more poetic). Then Simon Bolivar and his guys would have either had to stick with Nueva Granada or call their union America.
I know Argentina was originally The United Provinces of South America and that the United States of Central America also existed both equally unoriginal. Thankfully the Argentines got creative. The Central Americans didn't but the tragic failure of their union resulted in the abandonment of such a boring name.


When the CSA was formed some thought definitely did go into the name. The term American was already established to refer to people from the US (definitively from inside the US maybe not so internationally). But the term Confederate allowed for some legroom to build a separate identity and denonym in case it was needed. In this way it is a much better thought out name.

For the alternate US name I am a fan of Appalachia even more than Allegheny/Alleghania (though the name becomes redundant once the nation expands). Virginia is also quite nice but New England would not like that and I am not so sure how the rest of the colonies would take it although in reality most of them were very much maintained by the Virginia Company (at least initially).
 

MrP

Banned
Yankees and Confederates.

Hm, that makes me think that the Brits of TTL could start being jolly rude about either side (based on OTL slang, so it probably wouldn't happen). I just thought Johnny Reb - call Confederates Johnnies (condoms IOTL), and Billy Yank - call Union chaps Billies (friendless, unpopular types IOTL).
 
However, in the end the name prevailed because the others (Freedonia, Columbia, Appalachia, Alleghenia, etc.) were even less popular. Now let's say there was an earlier US Civil War, or more probably the union fell apart due to a failure to ratify the constitution - whatever. My point is, can we have two recognisably US-like nation states (i.e. not regionally focused like a seceding New England) where the people of one are called Americans and the other are known as Columbians or Freedes or Appalachians or whatever?
I don't see why not. It just depends on why, when and how it splits up. If it falls apart due to regionally bickering early on you will end up with New England, Virginia, Carolina and no America. If a small number of states pull out of ratification but the others form the USA or you have a 1800's-1840's secession you will get an America and either a number of regionalist states ( Virginia, United Carolinas) or another America-like Columbia. Basically to get this you need the American state to be stable enough that a sizable chunk can leave and not have it collapse into smaller states but not powerful enough to beat the snot out of those that leave.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
I could see Usonian becoming a demonym, though the word was not invented until 1865. I see Columbian being the most probable after American, though people from the southern states could be called Southrons.

As for the states breaking apart and getting their own demonyms, I could see:

New York: Knicks (short for Knickerbockers)

Massachussetts: Bayers or Yankees

Pennsylvania: Quakers or Pennies
 
Top