AH Map challenge: Explain this continental, French-speaking power

Skokie

Banned
For example, why does the border of Haute-Missouri follow the Bitteroot divide as surveyed in 1864 instead of the far more logical Continental divide?

You caught me! I intended it to be the continental divide. I got a little sloppy there. :)

And why does Haute-Missouri extend so far north of the Missouri River's actual drainage?

Missouri-River-Basin.jpg

In that example, I figured the area to the north that drains into the Arctic Ocean would be even more underpopulated than OTL and would best be included in Haut-Missouri.
 
Ok, so I think the CA depicted in the map in 1899 is not a single nation, but as the name suggests a loose confederation of largly francophone states most of which have their own governments, heads of state, legislatures and courts. However the CA does have uniform weights and measures, internal free trade, travel, and migration, and a supranational legislature and executive empowered to deal with defence, security, foreign affairs, and disputes between member states - 'La Authoritie Grande' is the name for the entirety of the confederal level of government, voting rights on the legislature and representation rights on the executive are limited to the catholic and francophone continental states, Alaska, the Caribean, and the Anglophone and Spanish speaking areas get to send delegates but they have no real power at the confederal level. In 1856 a bloody slave rebellion across the south east was brutally crushed, the extreme violence however led to mass support for the abolition of slavery in all CA member states, and this came about finally through an ammendment in the 'Concordat' in 1862. Haiti the so called black republic has since become a powerful and influential full partner in the CA, it's the only Caribean island to have full membership, and is due to hold the rotating presidency in 1902.

The French were so busy in North America, that they have sacrificed the rest of the world to the British, Dutch, Germans, Spanish, and Russians...
 

Skokie

Banned
Ok, so I think the CA depicted in the map in 1899 is not a single nation, but as the name suggests a loose confederation of largly francophone states most of which have their own governments, heads of state, legislatures and courts. However the CA does have uniform weights and measures, internal free trade, travel, and migration, and a supranational legislature and executive empowered to deal with defence, security, foreign affairs, and disputes between member states - 'La Authoritie Grande' is the name for the entirety of the confederal level of government, voting rights on the legislature and representation rights on the executive are limited to the catholic and francophone continental states, Alaska, the Caribean, and the Anglophone and Spanish speaking areas get to send delegates but they have no real power at the confederal level. In 1856 a bloody slave rebellion across the south east was brutally crushed, the extreme violence however led to mass support for the abolition of slavery in all CA member states, and this came about finally through an ammendment in the 'Concordat' in 1862. Haiti the so called black republic has since become a powerful and influential full partner in the CA, it's the only Caribean island to have full membership, and is due to hold the rotating presidency in 1902.

Good stuff!

When I write my TL, it'll be a more centralized confederation (Canada on steroids) than what you describe.

The French were so busy in North America, that they have sacrificed the rest of the world to the British, Dutch, Germans, Spanish, and Russians...

lol :D
 
You caught me! I intended it to be the continental divide. I got a little sloppy there. :)

No worries, That Damn Montana Border is the North American equivalent of That Damn Kazakh Border.

In that example, I figured the area to the north that drains into the Arctic Ocean would be even more underpopulated than OTL and would best be included in Haut-Missouri.

What is the reasoning for the border between Haut-Missouri and the Northwest Territory, then? Don't get me wrong, I like this map and I have some ideas for it, but some of your borders are downright odd.
 

Skokie

Banned
No worries, That Damn Montana Border is the North American equivalent of That Damn Kazakh Border.

haha.

What is the reasoning for the border between Haut-Missouri and the Northwest Territory, then? Don't get me wrong, I like this map and I have some ideas for it, but some of your borders are downright odd.

The border is near where the arable land ends.
 
The border is near where the arable land ends.

Sorry....you're missing out on alot of current day Alberta's arable land...the Grande Prairie along the Peace River is a huge area of what was native grasslands. It's cut off though by forests from the Great Plains which really limited it's development but in OTL today some of Canada's best farmland is in that basin extending nearly as far north as the North West Territory border. Issue is whether a crop exists to facilitate farming any of the northern plains due to the different day/moisture regimes and the Selkirk Red wheat has not been developed yet.

On the other hand you have settlement of some communities along the fur trading routes starting in the late 1700's in Saskatchewan and Alberta
 

Skokie

Banned
Sorry....you're missing out on alot of current day Alberta's arable land...the Grande Prairie along the Peace River is a huge area of what was native grasslands. It's cut off though by forests from the Great Plains which really limited it's development but in OTL today some of Canada's best farmland is in that basin extending nearly as far north as the North West Territory border. Issue is whether a crop exists to facilitate farming any of the northern plains due to the different day/moisture regimes and the Selkirk Red wheat has not been developed yet.

That's near where the contiguous, arable, prairie land ends before you hit boreal forest. Better? :p

On the other hand you have settlement of some communities along the fur trading routes starting in the late 1700's in Saskatchewan and Alberta

Some, but not much.
 
Oh, that's not a bad idea at all!

Except that it's also a good place for a large settlement, apparently, given Edmonton. The border could stand for the upper bounds of the drainage basin, which is only a little north (so the map wouldn't really need to be edited for that to be plausible).
 

Skokie

Banned
Except that it's also a good place for a large settlement, apparently, given Edmonton. The border could stand for the upper bounds of the drainage basin, which is only a little north (so the map wouldn't really need to be edited for that to be plausible).

True. But let's not get ahead of ourselves here! In OTL in 1899, exactly 2,212 people lived in Edmonton.
 
Except that it's also a good place for a large settlement, apparently, given Edmonton. The border could stand for the upper bounds of the drainage basin, which is only a little north (so the map wouldn't really need to be edited for that to be plausible).

The Saskatchawan was a major trade route in the old fur days and the best one north of the Missouri. If the Northwest Territory is assumed to be similar to the OTL Canadian Northwest Territory with a French analog of the HBC, the Saskatchawan is a pretty logical place to split it with a Haute-Missouri, if one assumes that territory is established in the fur days.
 
Top