Our Nation is divided by the rivers that run through it - Poll

Which of the states that I created do you like


  • Total voters
    24
Okay I making this thread as a redo for another I just posted so please forgive a poor N00B like me for creating a thread with the same name as this without knowing the meaning of AHC and not putting in a poll when he meant to before creating it.

So hear I go again (sigh:()
I'm working on a timeline involving and longer Civil War that ends in a CSA victory due to the help of some ASBs. In the after war peroid I plan on dealing with the concept that the disputes over the boarder states between the USA and CSA are settled by adapting a complex plan to divide the states based on which areas are known to have the most sentiment toward which country and where the rivers and trade routes that run near those areas are so that trade can still be made easily. The benefits of this plan will be that each country can easily get rid of the populations in those states that still have loyalties to the opposing country, and the new messy boarders that will be formed by these entangleing states will make any future wars that could be planed harder to fight and thus less likely to happen.

I've come up with several concept maps in which I've drawn the new boarders in red, and I've also provided some additional maps that show rivers and battle sites that I used to help me decide where to place those boarders. I'd like to know what thoughts all of you have on the boarders as well as the new state names I made and vote on your favorites. Thank you:D.

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=227297
Here is a link to the other thread I made before which includes all the maps I made.
 
Last edited:
Transylvania seems to be alright. The border could use a small adjustment, though: Try the Rolling Fork and see where that gets you. :D
 
Transylvania seems to be alright. The border could use a small adjustment, though: Try the Rolling Fork and see where that gets you. :D
I made another map based on your suggestion of using the Rolling Fork river to create a new boarder. I have to say that while it does split Kentucky more evenly between the US and CS it also gives more of the counties with higher slave populations to the US which is something that influenced my decision making on the first map because I don't believe the officials of the CS governemnt in real life would have agread with allowing that.

CWE Kentucky 2 JPG.JPG
 
Don't several of your states have the problem of leaving one side with a rump state with barely the population or economy to survive? I'm no American history specialist but I thought the US Constitution was pretty strongly against states being part of the Union of they aren't big enough to justify their existence?
 
Don't several of your states have the problem of leaving one side with a rump state with barely the population or economy to survive? I'm no American history specialist but I thought the US Constitution was pretty strongly against states being part of the Union of they aren't big enough to justify their existence?

I'm sorry I thought about addressing something like that earlier but I was in a rush. Yes several of the states that I created would have low populations at the time of their division from their parent states. So to add more detail to the POD in my ATL I'd say that at first these new areas would be considered territories at first and then would be open to the title of statehood later. Especially in the case of Houston and Pemiscot since I believe they would have the lowest populations out of the ones I've created and would require more immigration before being granted statehood.

Plus having a confederate territory made out of a Union Missouri that would also share a boarder with either Union Illinois or Kansas would create some interesting opertunities for outlaws in my ATL
 
Last edited:
Plus, let's not forget how indefensible some of these states - especially Chariton and Houston - are. (Let alone Nickajack's swing down into the Confederate heartland!) They might work if the CSA and US are at peace, but I don't think they would be in the vast majority of scenarios.
 
Well, sure that Aquitaine would have a northern border with the Loire. And Rhone river could quite efficiently cut France from Provence too.
 
Plus, let's not forget how indefensible some of these states - especially Chariton and Houston - are. (Let alone Nickajack's swing down into the Confederate heartland!) They might work if the CSA and US are at peace, but I don't think they would be in the vast majority of scenarios.
Yep! I actually did this on purpose. I figure that in the post war period the US and CS would expand their armies to protect themselves incase of another war and many of those men would be stationed in these new states due to their geographic vulnerability. This might lead to cold war esque tensions by having armies now very close to the opposing countries cities due to these new states with boarders that reach into the other countries heartlands. As I explained earlier in my first post I believe that creating such situation would make any future wars that could be planed by the USA and CSA more difficult to fight and thus would make it less likely for either country to start a new war.

Plus I created the boarders of Jefferson and Chariton in order to make a confederate counterpart to Nickajack just for this prupose.
Well, sure that Aquitaine would have a northern border with the Loire. And Rhone river could quite efficiently cut France from Provence too.
I'm talking about America in this thread not Europe.
 
Last edited:
None of them work really well. Your division of TX is a horrible mess.

Which is not to say that the actual peace on the terms you describe would have been much worse. If there had been a peace half way through the war the North would have been obliged to re arrange quite a few borders. Rather than independent states, I think rump KY would have been absorbed into OH, and rump TN would have been absorbed into WV. MO would have been divided between IA and AR.

So I fundementally agree that the peace would have been kind of messy, border adjustments would have been required. I don't agree that there would have been new states created.

One thing I do think would have to happen would be that the Ohio, Mossourri and Mississippi rivers would have to be open to free navigation for both sides. Otherwise a new war would start up weeks after the old was finished.
 
It was a joke regarding "OUR" nation. As a remark on this "all-americanized" threads that seems to pop in group now.
CAUSE AMURACUH IS DA BEST COUNTRY EVAAAAAAA!!!:D
Yeah you have a good point about the use of "OUR" sorry if I was rude.
None of them work really well. Your division of TX is a horrible mess.

Which is not to say that the actual peace on the terms you describe would have been much worse. If there had been a peace half way through the war the North would have been obliged to re arrange quite a few borders. Rather than independent states, I think rump KY would have been absorbed into OH, and rump TN would have been absorbed into WV. MO would have been divided between IA and AR.

So I fundementally agree that the peace would have been kind of messy, border adjustments would have been required. I don't agree that there would have been new states created.

One thing I do think would have to happen would be that the Ohio, Mossourri and Mississippi rivers would have to be open to free navigation for both sides. Otherwise a new war would start up weeks after the old was finished.

Really? I didn't think about some of them being absorbed into other states before which is a good Idea but I was kind of hoping to keep the shape of my new Kentucky as is so that later on in my ATL it can become known as "The Crescent Moon State"

Plus I could use the excuse that their have been messier boarders made before but I will agree that most of my divisions of Missouri are rather odd, but only because I wanted to counter the appearance of Nickajack which I'm surprised was a plan in real life :eek:!

Also I didn't think my divisions of Texas where that bad since I based them off the real life plans for the states of Jacinto and Matagorda which I found on the "LOST STATES: BLOGSPOT". I decided to use Jacinto as an idea for my timeline as well as the boarder of Matagorda as the new Texas boarder. This way I could leave the north western portion of Texas, and the areas above the 31st north parallel (which was also used to create the boarders for Florida and Louisiana) between JA and TX to the Union because they had low slave populations and as I understand a large amount of Union sympathy. Plus by using the Brazos and Colorado rivers as boarders it would help keep trade easy and by leaving the areas below the 31st to the CSA they could keep control of the ports and be able to build a transcontinental railroad for themselves.
http://loststates.blogspot.com/2011/08/rick-perry-and-texas-secession.html

As well you are right about having to leave the rivers open for free trade which is something I took in mind when creating the new boarders. Do you having any suggestions on how I should adjust some of them to make that easier?
 
Last edited:

Free Lancer

Banned
Well Transylvania works no questions asked, the Tennessee one can work if the border is move a little to the west to match Transylvania’s.

Georges and the Arizona territory don’t look very good on the map, because I don’t believe that the US will accept a chuck of Georgia deep in the CSA territories.

And the question of Houston is how did the CSA get the half of the Arizona territory when the US managed to capture all of Northern Texas? If that chuck of land to northeast of Houston was not was not part of Houston then it would be believable to think that the CSA took half of Arizona.

But all in good job very interested in this TL.
 
Well Transylvania works no questions asked, the Tennessee one can work if the border is move a little to the west to match Transylvania’s.

Georges and the Arizona territory don’t look very good on the map, because I don’t believe that the US will accept a chuck of Georgia deep in the CSA territories.

And the question of Houston is how did the CSA get the half of the Arizona territory when the US managed to capture all of Northern Texas? If that chuck of land to northeast of Houston was not was not part of Houston then it would be believable to think that the CSA took half of Arizona.

But all in good job very interested in this TL.
In the ATL I'm making these boarders are the results of political agreements made after the war. So the US territory of Huston was created as an exchange between the CS and US for the Arizona territory and so a US capture of north TX will have little to do with this. In the ATL I'm going to make the war longer by about one and a half years and also involve another attempt by the CSA to capture the Arizona territory which is successful this time due to better dealings made with the Apache and other tribes of the area, and the success then allows them to make a better claim at keeping it after the war.

Plus I don't fully understand your problem with Georgia. I suppose it looks like some of it is in Nickajack if you look at the map above but the map that I made which you can see through the link in the first post shows that all the counties of Nickajack come from Alabama and Tennessee. I know that some maps if Nickajack make it seem like it included DadeCounty from Georgia but that was never the plan in OTL and so won't be in my ATL.
 
Top