alternatehistory.com

In OTL, between peacefully splitting Oregon with the British, Nicolas Trist's lack of interest in Baja California Territory in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and the Union winning the US Civil War, IMO, the US Map makers got things about as good as they could possibly be.

In OTL, a map of the United States (either Mercator or equal area) fits rather nicely into a rectangle and did so for more than a Century (1848 -> 1959). While parts of Canada and Mexico need to be shown, I don't believe in either case more than 1/4 of that country area needs to be shown. The US map also takes up more than 2/3 of the surface area of the map (oceans+shown Canada/Mexico being less than 1/3, I think)

In an ATL with a loss against the British in the 1840s, "Lost Oregon" would necessarily be on all maps, being farther south than the 49th parallel and east of the western point of California. OTOH, in a victorious war, a state of New Caledonia (can't call it British Columbia) (presuming to the 60th parallel would greatly increase the amount of Canada that would have to be shown. (everything except for the Unguava Peninsula and Eastern Maritimes). Alaska Statehood makes things even worse (do you use an inset for a connected area?)


In an ATL with a slightly greedier Trist, where the US also gets Baja California, the map doesn't expand south that much (Cabo San Lucas is only a degree or two south of Key West, but that makes it much more difficult to insert Alaska and Hawaii in the insets (put one or both in the Gulf of Mexico instead?)

And in a South wins the Civil War, barring an ASB loss of California, US Maps will have to include > 80% of the CSA.

(And the effects of Philippine States are even worse, would you put states with roughly 1/4 of the population in the inset?)

So, with a POD after 1803, are US Mapmakers living in the "Best of all Possible Worlds"?
Top