That was actually my original plan for what to do with that piece of New Mexico Territory. Not sure how it will end up now though, because New Mexico will probably become a state before the US takes Chihuahua (if they do) and the area is probably too small to become its own territory.
Union and Liberty: An American TL
- Thread starter wilcoxchar
- Start date
Part Seventy-Seven: Crossing Rivers
Update time. I found precedent for my original plan, hooray! The two sections really don't have anything to do with each other, but I didn't want to have the New Mexico update by itself.
Part Seventy-Seven: Crossing Rivers
New Mexico and the Trans-Pecos:
Since the Colorado gold rush, the population of New Mexico territory increased by the tens of thousands every decade. While there was an initial movement to create a state out of the territory in the early 1860s, the National War put a hold on any plans New Mexico had for statehood. After Colorado was admitted as a state in 1876, the movement for statehood for New Mexico was rekindled. However, the process stalled as Congress continually failed to act on any legislation regarding statehood for New Mexico.
As the debate over the gold standard came to a head, New Mexico grew more prominent in politics. Some Republican politicians began pushing for the admission of the territory as a state to give more support to the Republican bimetallist platform, but the Democratic victory in the 1880 elections pushed the admission of New Mexico back even further. During that time, the territorial legislature started wondering whether it was worth it to keep the southern area of the territory south of El Paso. The Trans-Pecos as the region was called was for the most part uninhabited with only a few small towns marking the land route between San Antonio and El Paso[1]. The New Mexico territorial legislature and members of Congress were unsure of what to do with the Trans-Pecos region when the possibility of statehood came up in 1885. The decision was finally made to have the Trans-Pecos revert to unorganized territory[2] while the remainder of New Mexico was granted statehood in February of 1886, bringing the forty-third state into the Union.
High Above the River:
While there had been many developments in ground transportation up to the 1880s, bridging some of the wider rivers still proved a great difficulty to engineers. In many cities along the Mississippi and Ohio rivers, for instance, ferries remained the most used way to cross the river up into the early 20th century. However, beginning in the 1870s, new innovations in bridge construction enabled bridges to span newer and longer spaces. Particularly, the greater use of suspension bridges and advances in their construction allowed for much longer single spans between supports.
While suspension bridges had been built previously, they were mostly over minor distances and smaller rivers. The first modern suspension bridges to be built across major rivers were the Brooklyn Bridge and the Eads Bridge in Saint Louis. The Brooklyn Bridge was the first bridge to connect the island of Manhattan with Brooklyn. It was built with a used new developments to sink the supports for the towers far into the ground below the East River. The bridge's span came to 1,587 feet[3] and was the longest suspension bridge span in the world at the time of its completion.
However, the Brooklyn Bridge's record span was surpassed only three months later upon the completion of the Lewis and Clark Bridge, the first bridge in Saint Louis to cross either the Missouri or Mississippi Rivers[4]. The bridge, designed by architect and engineer James Eads, was the first suspension bridge with a span of over 1,600 feet. While its supports were on land and so did not present any design challenges, the Lewis and Clark Bridge was the first major bridge to use primarily metal construction, rather than wood or stone. With ribbed steel towers 280 feet tall, the Lewis and Clark Bridge dominated the Saint Louis skyline and became a symbol of the city.
[1] This is true even now in OTL. The region has a total population of 830,000 and the El Paso metro area has a population of 775,000.
[2] OTL precedent for this comes from the reversion of the eastern Dakotas to unorganized territory after the admission of Minnesota in 1858.
[3] Slightly shorter than the OTL Brooklyn Bridge.
[4] TTL's Lewis and Clark Bridge is at the location of OTL's Eads Bridge.
Part Seventy-Seven: Crossing Rivers
New Mexico and the Trans-Pecos:
Since the Colorado gold rush, the population of New Mexico territory increased by the tens of thousands every decade. While there was an initial movement to create a state out of the territory in the early 1860s, the National War put a hold on any plans New Mexico had for statehood. After Colorado was admitted as a state in 1876, the movement for statehood for New Mexico was rekindled. However, the process stalled as Congress continually failed to act on any legislation regarding statehood for New Mexico.
As the debate over the gold standard came to a head, New Mexico grew more prominent in politics. Some Republican politicians began pushing for the admission of the territory as a state to give more support to the Republican bimetallist platform, but the Democratic victory in the 1880 elections pushed the admission of New Mexico back even further. During that time, the territorial legislature started wondering whether it was worth it to keep the southern area of the territory south of El Paso. The Trans-Pecos as the region was called was for the most part uninhabited with only a few small towns marking the land route between San Antonio and El Paso[1]. The New Mexico territorial legislature and members of Congress were unsure of what to do with the Trans-Pecos region when the possibility of statehood came up in 1885. The decision was finally made to have the Trans-Pecos revert to unorganized territory[2] while the remainder of New Mexico was granted statehood in February of 1886, bringing the forty-third state into the Union.
High Above the River:
While there had been many developments in ground transportation up to the 1880s, bridging some of the wider rivers still proved a great difficulty to engineers. In many cities along the Mississippi and Ohio rivers, for instance, ferries remained the most used way to cross the river up into the early 20th century. However, beginning in the 1870s, new innovations in bridge construction enabled bridges to span newer and longer spaces. Particularly, the greater use of suspension bridges and advances in their construction allowed for much longer single spans between supports.
While suspension bridges had been built previously, they were mostly over minor distances and smaller rivers. The first modern suspension bridges to be built across major rivers were the Brooklyn Bridge and the Eads Bridge in Saint Louis. The Brooklyn Bridge was the first bridge to connect the island of Manhattan with Brooklyn. It was built with a used new developments to sink the supports for the towers far into the ground below the East River. The bridge's span came to 1,587 feet[3] and was the longest suspension bridge span in the world at the time of its completion.
However, the Brooklyn Bridge's record span was surpassed only three months later upon the completion of the Lewis and Clark Bridge, the first bridge in Saint Louis to cross either the Missouri or Mississippi Rivers[4]. The bridge, designed by architect and engineer James Eads, was the first suspension bridge with a span of over 1,600 feet. While its supports were on land and so did not present any design challenges, the Lewis and Clark Bridge was the first major bridge to use primarily metal construction, rather than wood or stone. With ribbed steel towers 280 feet tall, the Lewis and Clark Bridge dominated the Saint Louis skyline and became a symbol of the city.
[1] This is true even now in OTL. The region has a total population of 830,000 and the El Paso metro area has a population of 775,000.
[2] OTL precedent for this comes from the reversion of the eastern Dakotas to unorganized territory after the admission of Minnesota in 1858.
[3] Slightly shorter than the OTL Brooklyn Bridge.
[4] TTL's Lewis and Clark Bridge is at the location of OTL's Eads Bridge.
This is actually a population larger than many states. TTL's Pahsapa (which is basically Wyoming and a relatively unpopulated corner of South Dakota) will likely have a total population around that number, perhaps even smaller.
Granted, the population growth of El Paso in OTL is relatively recent so there is no way it can be given statehood until very late in the game. However, the population of this region iTTL might be a bit larger that OTL's at this point, the 1880s. First of all, El Paso is a border town not just between two countries as iOTL but three, the US, California and Rio Bravo (for a brief time it bordered Chihuahua instead). There has been much more movement in this area than iOTL, from both Mexican moving northwards and American and British investment in the area. In the California update mentioned a railroad connecting the Rio Bravo railroads to California's. El Paso should be an important stop in that line.
I don't think the Trans-Pecos should stay disorganized for too long. Most likely Texas will annex it or, if you want to make it interesting, it can stay as a territory for a long time and then given some special Federal status. Not sure what this would entail but this is AH so why the hell not.
Anyway, good update. As always it is a great example how detailed iTLL is and how much thought you have put into it including details like city design and landmarks. I am unfamiliar with the Eads bridge of OTL, looked it up and it looks somewhat unremarkable. From what I gather TTL's bridge looks more like the Golden Gate, no?
Regarding such details, I am curious of what you plan to do for the Statue of Libery, (if there will an equivalent iTTL), for famous sky scrapers in NYC and Chicago, and also Paris. Paris underwent major reconstruction during Nappy III's reign by Baron Haussman. This probably still happened, but the siege of Paris, the Paris commune, and the belle époque (in which Paris gained several monuments and public buildings including the Eiffel Tower) have all been butterflied away. There might be an equivalent to the belle époque but the war in Europe will likely make it play diffrently.
Looks good, thanks.
Although I was thinking there should be a little notch in New Mexico so it still has El Paso. I don't think the New Mexico legislature would want to let El Paso go.Looks good, thanks.
Oh well that solves the El Paso question I just asked. It makes no sense if the rest does not go to Tejas then.
Yeah, unless the Americans invade Chihuahua, which seems unlikely.....
I actually really like the current shape of the USA. Adding California will make it look like a generic 'on-its-way-to' Ameriwank.
I agree. I like the idea of a strong US surrounded by a several smaller nations, (Acadia, Canada, Deseret, California, Rio Bravo, etc) friendly and allied to it. Perhaps in the future they could have a common currency, and customs union, etc. but stay "independent" from the US in name.
I could see a straight line from Colorado's southwest corner to the Pacific (this should be around the 39th parallel). It would put the Mormon and Anglo provinces in the US and leave the rest in Cali. While still letting it keep the entire San Fran Bay. You could split it in two states.
Also about California and the west Coast. How is iTTL's immigration from Asia going. Are Champoeg and Oregon going to receive any significant immigration?
Long time since I've last commented, but I defintely like the direction you've been taking this timeline. I especially love what you've done with Canada, and the Meso-American Union. I can't wait for the next update.
Personally, I would like it if the United States annexed all of California (And Chihuahua) east of Las Vegas, thus leaving the Republic of California with OTL California, Nevada, and BC Penisula. Admittedly, this scenario isn't terribly likely, but I do think it would be prettier map-wise than the U.S. annexing Northern California as originally discussed.
Plus, it might be interesting to see how California culturally develops if it's geographically cut off from the rest of Latin America.
Personally, I would like it if the United States annexed all of California (And Chihuahua) east of Las Vegas, thus leaving the Republic of California with OTL California, Nevada, and BC Penisula. Admittedly, this scenario isn't terribly likely, but I do think it would be prettier map-wise than the U.S. annexing Northern California as originally discussed.
Plus, it might be interesting to see how California culturally develops if it's geographically cut off from the rest of Latin America.
Hmmm. Ideally I'd like to have the territory go to a state of Chihuahua, but with the timeframe I'm thinking I'm not sure how plausible it would be for the territory to sit unorganized for so long.
Right now I'm thinking that the US will annex the Californian states of Espejo, Gran Cuenca, Trujillo, and Sacramento. I like the idea of splitting the Bay Area between two countries, and I think the US would want actual land on the Bay.
I don't have much about it yet, but there will be some Asian immigration to the Pacific northwest. I'll probably do a section on Asian immigration soon.
Good to see you commenting again. A California isolated from the rest of Latin America would be interesting, but as you said I think the US would want to go for the northern areas of California instead of the eastern areas.
I think it'd be fine if the US annexed the first three states, but I don't think California would be willing to cede any part of the bay to the US. How much claim does the US have to Northern California? How many Americans live there/nearby there compared to the amount of Californians living there? Somehow I think it'd be better if California at least kept the Bay area. I don't know, it might just be me unwilling to let my hometown be part of the USA again.
Well, I guess if it floats your boat............I'll be honest with you though, and I don't know how else to put this; I never really liked the shapes of half the states{or the country in general!}. Or the position of Houston and Tejas{I honestly wish they'd been switched}.
On the other hand, though, this doesn't detract at all from what has been an interesting and engaging story from the very start, and the independent California was also quite fun to read about.
Well, I guess if it floats your boat............I'll be honest with you though, and I don't know how else to put this; I never really liked the shapes of half the states{or the country in general!}. Or the position of Houston and Tejas{I honestly wish they'd been switched}.
On the other hand, though, this doesn't detract at all from what has been an interesting and engaging story from the very start, and the independent California was also quite fun to read about.
The states' shapes are just as square and uninteresting as in OTL. The only odd shaped state in OTL is Texas, and it makes no sense. Some of iTTL's do seem a bit too small to carry much significance (Pembina, Itasca, Pahsapa, will all have quite a negligible population). The more interesting part is that with no California, and the Texas split in 2 1/2 states NY will dominate the political scene of iTTL quite heavily. Unless it gets split into two states at some point.
I think the Tejas, Houston thing was originally backwards and then Wilcox decided to switch it. I have no problem with either direction except that it makes sense for the hispanic state to have the spanish name Tejas and for Houston City to be in Houston.