The Former USA from a TL concept I have

question: why are you using a modern day states map for this?....all of the states west of the mississipi (and some of the borders east) largly didnt exsist at the time...so it makes all the seperate nations confusing and hard to pin down right with how theyd look

use a earlier map, probaly from the pod, and then you can carve out more realisitic divisions that would better represent them, using cultural, political and their geographic boundries to figure out where theyd go.
 
Is this better?

USA_zpsa3ed13c3.png
 
It is as always, even the 999th time, STILL SPACE BAT. Sorry, Canuckwanker, but remember it's about as space bat as our Ameriwanks that are always conquering Canada trivially in 1812...

Only the South wanted OUT, andyou've given no REASON to change that, and wishful thinking isn't enough. As Emperor Julian's pointed out already.

Why think Grant's death death would've made much difference? We're a BIG COUNTRY, and have always plenty of talent easily up to replacing Grant. Even in our small start, our Revolution. In the Civil War. there were also Sherman, Thomas, and others history has forgotten, all up to the challenge of winning as well, or close to it.

WTF would the ANTI-SLAVE Britain want in, even if CSA was were doing better?

We were only in the business of BUYING, not selling. Name ONE land sale we ever did.
 
It is as always, even the 999th time, STILL SPACE BAT. Sorry, Canuckwanker,...

Yes hello. I have a user name. It's Prime Minister. Call me that please. Also, I wasn't going to turn this into a Canada wank. Im simply toying with an idea.

...but remember it's about as space bat as our Ameriwanks that are always conquering Canada trivially in 1812...
America taking over all of Canada in the war of 1812 isn't really ASB. You could have done it. Britain was distracted, and at that point was already starting to not give a damn about Canada as it look to new lands to take. It's almost more ASB that you didn't win.

Only the South wanted OUT, and you've given no REASON to change that, and wishful thinking isn't enough. As Emperor Julian's pointed out already.
The South breaks away as in OTL, and the Northwest Confederacy (something I am just now learning about) breaks away do to other disagreements. As were being fostered OTL from what I can see in the little information on the "nation" I can find.

Why think Grant's death death would've made much difference? We're a BIG COUNTRY, and have always plenty of talent easily up to replacing Grant. Even in our small start, our Revolution. In the Civil War. there were also Sherman, Thomas, and others history has forgotten, all up to the challenge of winning as well, or close to it.
I have never said America lacked talent. The American people have proven to be some of the most talented in every field from science, to war, to art, to politics. AND the war was going... less then well until Grant helped to turn things around. I'm just saying that with further delays the tide could have permanently stayed with the Southern States.


WTF would the ANTI-SLAVE Britain want in, even if CSA was were doing better?
And the same thing that America would want in propping up less than democratic leaders in nations like Egypt... and all of Central America. Business and political interests. A friendly, and powerful, CSA would be another thing helping the UK keep the US in check (along with their holdings in Canada), as well as a way for the UK to expand its trade. And really "Anti-Slavery" is just a word. Most of the British leadership, just like in any nation, would me more than willing to look the other way to make profit.

We were only in the business of BUYING, not selling. Name ONE land sale we ever did.
And yes. I do know that OTL America was a powerful expansionist nation that just greedily gobbled up every bit of land it could get its hands on. I agree with you. And you're right, I disliked the idea of them selling that land after I first thought of it. That's why I'm kinda Alpha testing this TL with this thread. And the UK/Canada get the (very) Northwest States after the end of the US moving in simply in support of their old claims there. And really, who at this point in this TL would stop them? The CSA would have no interest, California would be too weak, as would the USA and the Cree.
 
Last edited:
Is this better?

quite a bit...though id draw back the canadian oregon-washington-idaho area a bit...
mabye bringing california up a bit to otl eugene or below (at least on the western side of the rockies?) and possibly shrink down the idaho sections (to mabye where it could move in a single line there)
 
quite a bit...though id draw back the canadian oregon-washington-idaho area a bit...
mabye bringing california up a bit to otl eugene or below (at least on the western side of the rockies?) and possibly shrink down the idaho sections (to mabye where it could move in a single line there)

I shall try to work that in. Maybe a few land exchanges as well. Part of me would really like to expand California and the Cree Federation (I like that name). In the end I may just give Canada Washington and OTL North Idaho.
 
Could I some how give the Cree access to the Pacific? Or is that stretching things far to far?

probaly too unrealisitc...itd be a nightmare for them to defend it given the stretch theyll need over terrain like that and any port there will be extremely minor
 
Is this better?
image snip

Kind of, although the souths borders are ridiculous, I have no idea what the middle crimson state is and I still don't know why they seceeded (or New England but I'll ignore that because I live in New England and its independence is always right and just). Also the method of drawing borders based on Us state borders is bad because it really doesn't work on a geographic level at all, it would be much logical to use geographic features and rivers as your basis for western borders rather than state borders.
 
Kind of, although the souths borders are ridiculous, I have no idea what the middle crimson state is and I still don't know why they seceeded (or New England but I'll ignore that because I live in New England and its independence is always right and just). Also the method of drawing borders based on Us state borders is bad because it really doesn't work on a geographic level at all, it would be much logical to use geographic features and rivers as your basis for western borders rather than state borders.

I agree. And I will smooth that out later on. except in some places, mostly East of the Mississippi. And the Middle Crimson nation is the Cree Federation. I figure with out the Indian Wars the Cree would be able to formulate their own nation.
 
I agree. And I will smooth that out later on. except in some places, mostly East of the Mississippi. And the Middle Crimson nation is the Cree Federation. I figure with out the Indian Wars the Cree would be able to formulate their own nation.

But what about New England and those middle states that look like a rump US but may be independent New York?
 
You have the confederacy too large. West Virginia broke away from them due to union loyalties, and most of the Appalachian states supported the union during the war. Even in Appalachian areas of the confederate states (like Alabama) there were union supporters and army regiments.

Up until the attack on Fort Sumter there were calls for a "Central Confederacy" or a "Confederacy of Border States" that would have included Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Ohio, Maryland, Delaware, Missouri and probably New York and Virginia and likely Kentucky. Thomas Hicks, the governor of Maryland championed the proposal.
 
Top