United States of the Americas and Oceania Version 2.0

[tubby.twins]

I know that TTL USA is very particular about meeting population/development requirements and such, but I have a couple of suggestions if you'll entertain them:

I remember reading about a Klondike state in USAO version 1 that covered all of the northwest territories, Yukon and Alaska. Do you have something like that planned out? It'd be a big state, geographically; gigantic, actually. But it'd have a population between 1 and 2 million people, so... it'd meet the requirements for statehood.

Speaking unofficially of course: I think that in the future it *could* happen, if enough people decide to settle in Greenland and Alaska-Yukon (now called Klondike ITTL?). But looking at OTL settlement patterns, is it realistic to expect 1-2 million people to move to the coldest regions of the North American continent? Are that many people in those regions today?

Eurofed has (so far) kept the sizes of states fairly small, at least those created from formerly-empty American territories and not by historical precedent (i.e. the original colony or annexed nation was large to begin with). ITTL, Bolivia and Quebec seem to stand out as the largest states, but only by historical precedent. New states seem to be created from newly-settled territories with an approach of "don't bite off more than you can chew". States need to be a manageable size, with boundaries that encompass their dominant settled areas. One thing that hasn't happened in this timeline (yet) is the arbitrary extension of the *Canadian* states' northern borders up to 60 degrees North, as in IOTL.

I think the IOTL creation of a large state of Alaska was a reactionary move by the U.S. Government to more firmly cement its control over the region, in light of the WWII attacks by Japan on Dutch Harbor and the post-war Cold War mentality of having a Soviet Russia just across the waters. Having a territory (unorganized or otherwise) near a possible foe could be seen as a measure of weakness, or not caring about the land. That's just my opinion. Also, having Alaska physically separated from the rest of the U.S. (and only accessible on land through Canada) made it more important to have the entire region as a state, since it was off by itself yet strategically important.

@tubby.twins: I know this is a little belated, but could you make a clickable world map of the world in 1781? It is, after all, the year that Britain recognizes the sovereignty of her 15 colonies.

I'd like to, but there doesn't seem to be a 1781 map for this timeline. Eurofed, I don't recall if you created one in the original revision. If not, can we retroactively make one?

Do you think we could just put all of the bigtime government offices into a bunch of big ol' skyscrapers? Three skyscrapers, representing the three major branches of the federal government. One for the POTUS, one for the SCOTUS, and one for Congress. That would be epic.

Of course it'll be epic: Eurofed is writing it! However, are skyscrapers going to be happening this early in the timeline? I would imagine that people may be opposed to this because they don't visually fit with existing architecture in Washington D.C. (or the surrounding Central American cities, which must play some role in the design of Liberty, D.C.) and there isn't a great shortage of space in Central America. Would the population be dense enough to support skyscrapers now (or in the foreseeable future) in the capitol city?

 

[Writersblock]

Speaking unofficially of course: I think that in the future it *could* happen, if enough people decide to settle in Greenland and Alaska-Yukon (now called Klondike ITTL?). But looking at OTL settlement patterns, is it realistic to expect 1-2 million people to move to the coldest regions of the North American continent? Are that many people in those regions today?

Eurofed has (so far) kept the sizes of states fairly small, at least those created from formerly-empty American territories and not by historical precedent (i.e. the original colony or annexed nation was large to begin with). ITTL, Bolivia and Quebec seem to stand out as the largest states, but only by historical precedent. New states seem to be created from newly-settled territories with an approach of "don't bite off more than you can chew". States need to be a manageable size, with boundaries that encompass their dominant settled areas. One thing that hasn't happened in this timeline (yet) is the arbitrary extension of the *Canadian* states' northern borders up to 60 degrees North, as in IOTL.

I think the IOTL creation of a large state of Alaska was a reactionary move by the U.S. Government to more firmly cement its control over the region, in light of the WWII attacks by Japan on Dutch Harbor and the post-war Cold War mentality of having a Soviet Russia just across the waters. Having a territory (unorganized or otherwise) near a possible foe could be seen as a measure of weakness, or not caring about the land. That's just my opinion. Also, having Alaska physically separated from the rest of the U.S. (and only accessible on land through Canada) made it more important to have the entire region as a state, since it was off by itself yet strategically important.

Hmm, yeah, I see what you're saying about OTL Alaska's statehood. If there's a Cold War equivalent between the USA and CP Europe in the future, this could prompt the creation of the state of Klondike. I did the numbers and counted up the populations of Alaska, Yukon, Northwest Territories, Nunavut and Greenland as of the most recent census material, and added 100,000 more people to the count because the Northwest Territories and Alaska-Yukon extend farther south ITTL, and ended up with a number just below 1 million. Barely good enough, and most of those people live in Alaska.

Such a large state may not be feasible for a while ITTL, but by the time diplomatic relations turn sour between USAO and CP Europe necessity may make it happen, and advances in transportation and communication technology should make it much more logistically sane.

I'd like to, but there doesn't seem to be a 1781 map for this timeline. Eurofed, I don't recall if you created one in the original revision. If not, can we retroactively make one?

Really? I thought he did. He should've. It's a kinda important moment in history!

Of course it'll be epic: Eurofed is writing it! However, are skyscrapers going to be happening this early in the timeline? I would imagine that people may be opposed to this because they don't visually fit with existing architecture in Washington D.C. (or the surrounding Central American cities, which must play some role in the design of Liberty, D.C.) and there isn't a great shortage of space in Central America. Would the population be dense enough to support skyscrapers now (or in the foreseeable future) in the capitol city?

The city is finished getting built in 1900. So, according to Eurofed's technological acceleration schedule, the architecture of 1920 should be buildable. Construction of the Empire State Building in OTL started in 1929. So maybe not something as tall as the Empire State Building, but they can build something tall enough which can WOW the world into speechlessness of how awesome we are!

EDIT: If Liberty City is a coastal city on the Caribbean or Pacific side, it's population should be plenty big enough to warrant a vertical push. But I don't know if it's a coastal city yet! Eurofed needs to say the word!

 

[Libertad]

I'm thinking that Liberty City is more like OTL's London..., it's near to the Pacific side but it's not on its coast... as London is near to the eastern English coastline but it's not on its coast....

In terms of Amazonia, yeah, it seems pretty settled... besides... it would be great to see that the US Greens are going to have a more mainstream bipartisan influence... and the Amazonian achievement is a good sign that environmental issues are being taken more seriously in TTL than OTL... And that's what Eurofed wants to happen in the first place...

Skyscraper architecture for the Liberty buildings would be great... but it would be even more amazing if it could retain a Greco-Roman-American Federal architectural look.... so it is modern... and yet...classical...

 

[Libertad]

The State of Klondike could happen, but it's still too far away from 1898 to be considered as settled to happen....

 

[Eurofed]

What is the ultimate fate of Madagascar? F-I colonized it, so they're on the wrong side of the upcoming war. Who snatches it? USA or CP Europe?

In all honesty, I have not yet really bothered to puzzle out the postwar settlement of the former F-I colonial empire in its entirety, given that with some exceptions (e.g. Guinea, Ivory Coast) it is not exactly made up of the most valuable parts of Africa. I might perhaps give Cameroon and Ubangi-Shari to Germany, Guinea and Ivory Coast to Italy, Chad to Egypt, Senegal and the Sahel to H-C-S, and for Madagascar toss a coin between the USA or H-C-S.

I remember reading about a Klondike state in USAO version 1 that covered all of the northwest territories, Yukon and Alaska. Do you have something like that planned out? It'd be a big state, geographically; gigantic, actually. But it'd have a population between 1 and 2 million people, so... it'd meet the requirements for statehood. Maybe you could include Greenland, if that population is too small for you.

This option still theoretically exists, but it is not the one most favored at the moment. If someone can give me a plausible reasons why several millions of US citizens shall relocate to the Northernmost North or the middle of the Amazonian rainforest, the latter despite the region getting strong natural reserve environmental protection, then we may have new states in those areas. If not, permanent US Territories. As others have said, ITTL I'm going for a US states' pattern that is roughly balanced within certain thresholds of population, development, and size. I share no urge whatsoever to break it just to give tiny local four- or five-digit communities statehood privileges. If they care about voting for their own Congressman that much, they can always relocate.

As for the whole Amazonia thing that's going on, do you think we could just split up the territory between the already existing states surrounding it? I like the idea of protecting the rainforest, but maybe you could just split it up into a bunch of national parks or something.

You seem set on Amazonia, though, so I won't get my hopes up.

Yeah, I find the idea of the US making the Amazonian rainforest one big natural preserve absolutely fascinating and way cool.

 

[Eurofed]

@tubby.twins: I know this is a little belated, but could you make a clickable world map of the world in 1781? It is, after all, the year that Britain recognizes the sovereignty of her 15 colonies.

Well, If you guys care for having a 1781 map, you have my blessing to make it. IMO it is not yet that interesting, since the divergence is still quite recent and the only consequence visible on a map is American Quebec and Nova Scotia.

 

[Eurofed]

Did I miss an uptime? This is a good TL but its been some time since there has been update.

Most definitely yes. The Gilded Age and prewar Progressive Era update has been finally released. Check posts #527-535 if you missed it.

It covers the world from the end of the Reconstruction (1875) to the eve of the Second Great War (1898) only missing the event chain that leads to the war.

 

[Eurofed]

A general note as it concerns Liberty City: when I was writing about it, I felt like my own creativity might be insufficient to the task of properly describing it in every detail of its coolness, so I just wrote about it what I felt reasonably sure of. About its location, I only defined that it is somewhere on the shores of the Nicaragua Canal, without pinpointing an exact location. About its architectural character and sightseeing features, I left it pretty vague. I was actually hoping to fill in these kind of details with your creative help, so please throw cool ideas about Liberty my direction, yeah ?

About location, I think that both being a port location and being like London, on the shores of the NC but slightly inland, may be excellent options. Only, if we make it a port location, I think the Caribbean coast may be preferable, on account of the city being even more defensible since the Caribbean is a US lake, and there are more US states this side of the Western Hemisphere.

 

[Eurofed]

Speaking unofficially of course: I think that in the future it *could* happen, if enough people decide to settle in Greenland and Alaska-Yukon (now called Klondike ITTL?). But looking at OTL settlement patterns, is it realistic to expect 1-2 million people to move to the coldest regions of the North American continent? Are that many people in those regions today?

Eurofed has (so far) kept the sizes of states fairly small, at least those created from formerly-empty American territories and not by historical precedent (i.e. the original colony or annexed nation was large to begin with). ITTL, Bolivia and Quebec seem to stand out as the largest states, but only by historical precedent. New states seem to be created from newly-settled territories with an approach of "don't bite off more than you can chew". States need to be a manageable size, with boundaries that encompass their dominant settled areas. One thing that hasn't happened in this timeline (yet) is the arbitrary extension of the *Canadian* states' northern borders up to 60 degrees North, as in IOTL.

In terms of Amazonia, yeah, it seems pretty settled... besides... it would be great to see that the US Greens are going to have a more mainstream bipartisan influence... and the Amazonian achievement is a good sign that environmental issues are being taken more seriously in TTL than OTL... And that's what Eurofed wants to happen in the first place...

Both of you seem to have grasped my thinking on the issue. BTW, from where I stand, TTL Canadian states have reached their proper final northern extension, no good reason to expand them to 60° parallel N.

 

[Eurofed]

Proposed government building architecture for Liberty City:

Do you think we could just put all of the bigtime government offices into a bunch of big ol' skyscrapers? Three skyscrapers, representing the three major branches of the federal government. One for the POTUS, one for the SCOTUS, and one for Congress. That would be epic.

And I was also thinking that the President's official residence has got to have an oceanside view, hands down. The new location of the capital is gorgeous; it needs to take advantage of the natural Caribbean attractiveness.

Liberty City is gonna have it all. It's a beautiful place, it's economically important(because of the canal and because it's a port city), it's politically important... I honestly wouldn't be surprised if it blew right past New York in terms of wealth.

I was thinking of something else also: How big is DC going to be? Will it just be the whole city? Or will it just be the part of the city containing the federal government buildings? Because this city is going to be big.

EDIT: Wait, is it a port city? You actually didn't specify that.

Of course it'll be epic: Eurofed is writing it! However, are skyscrapers going to be happening this early in the timeline? I would imagine that people may be opposed to this because they don't visually fit with existing architecture in Washington D.C. (or the surrounding Central American cities, which must play some role in the design of Liberty, D.C.) and there isn't a great shortage of space in Central America. Would the population be dense enough to support skyscrapers now (or in the foreseeable future) in the capitol city?

The city is finished getting built in 1900. So, according to Eurofed's technological acceleration schedule, the architecture of 1920 should be buildable. Construction of the Empire State Building in OTL started in 1929. So maybe not something as tall as the Empire State Building, but they can build something tall enough which can WOW the world into speechlessness of how awesome we are!

EDIT: If Liberty City is a coastal city on the Caribbean or Pacific side, it's population should be plenty big enough to warrant a vertical push. But I don't know if it's a coastal city yet! Eurofed needs to say the word!

Of course it'll be epic: Eurofed is writing it! However, are skyscrapers going to be happening this early in the timeline? I would imagine that people may be opposed to this because they don't visually fit with existing architecture in Washington D.C. (or the surrounding Central American cities, which must play some role in the design of Liberty, D.C.) and there isn't a great shortage of space in Central America. Would the population be dense enough to support skyscrapers now (or in the foreseeable future) in the capitol city?

Skyscraper architecture for the Liberty buildings would be great... but it would be even more amazing if it could retain a Greco-Roman-American Federal architectural look.... so it is modern... and yet...classical...

After reading about your ideas, I'm torn between making it a port city on the Caribbean side, or making it like London. The construction of the city starts in 1894 and ends in 1900, so we may expect 1914-1920 technology to be available, give or take a few years. As it concerns architectural style, I think we may expect federal buildings to be mainly based on Neoclassical Greco-Roman-American Federal architectural look, but with some elements of Art Noveau and Neo-Gothic revival (the latter b/c the author fancies it and throws it a butterfly bone). Only marked by a background taste for gigantism and opulence. I don't think they would go all the way to make the new *Capitol and *White House full-fledged skyscrapers, but surely much bigger and majestic than OTL versions.

It may well easily be that skyscrapers are eventually built for Liberty, but I expect them to be for private business and secondary branches of the federal bureaucracy, if any, not for the main federal branches, and hence not to be in the government downtown area. Perhaps they are part of the secondary postwar expansion. I agree that Liberty has some seriously potential to become an economic hub. However this USA is too big and developed in all its main sections not to be seriously policentric in the economic field, so Liberty may end up developing a hybrid Washington-New York character, but never as so dominant in the economic field as NY in OTL. Heck, just to make an example, New York has been locked into a competition with Montreal to be the top city of the Northeast since the beginning of the nation.

As it concerns the new DC, I assume is that it is set up according to 1890s expectations, so somewhat bigger than the original and easily able to include the downtown area containing the federal government buildings and the initial expansion, but sometime during the 20th century, city growth will expand beyond its borders and spill in Nicaragua state substantially.

 

[Jude815]

Any thoughts on the Darien gap? It seems like having a road connecting the two continents would be desirable

 

[Eurofed]

Any thoughts on the Darien gap? It seems like having a road connecting the two continents would be desirable

We are still in a railroad-centric age, and as I said, technological butterflies shall make it so that even in the 20th century and 21st century, this USA evolve to be and remain much less car-centric (and even much less oil-addicted) than OTL. Roughly speaking, urban travel shall be split between electric cars and public transport, regional travel shall be dominated by railroad, continental travel split between railroad and airplane, and intercontinental travel dominated by airplane. So rather than a Pan-American Highway, you'd better think of the Pan-American Maglev as the iconic late 20th century achievement in this field. And yes, the Darien Gap shall be broached. As it concerns normal railroad, it already was by late 19th century, and Americans can ride a train from Edmonton to Buenos Aires with ease.

 

[Eurofed]

Revised 1862 map

(created by Helios-Ra, revised by me, contributions by Darth Revan)

 

[Eurofed]

Revised 1875 map

(done by me on a template made by Helios-Ra, contributions by DrTron and Darth Revan)

 

[Turquoise Blue]

Revised 1875 map

(done by me on a template made by Helios-Ra, contributions by DrTron and Darth Revan)

How did I contribute?

 

[Eurofed]

Revised 1898 map

(done by me on a template made by Helios-Ra, contributions by DrTron, Tubby.twins, and Darth Revan)

 

[Eurofed]

How did I contribute?

Something about state borders in the West, IIRC. This time I am trying to get all contribution acknowledgments right.

 

[Turquoise Blue]

OK, what Darth Revan did with the lines is ghastly. What I did was try to compromise. Is this OK?

 

[Eurofed]

Sigh, I was hoping you two guys had come to a compromise about the African borders line. Honestly, guys, can't you come to a compromise?

I just don't care about those Sahel borders that much, they are in the fricking less valuable part of the less developed continent. If you force me to make a decision, I'm going to flip a coin, but I don't want any bad blood in the TL fanbase if I can avoid it, after the recent ugly flamewar.

 

[Turquoise Blue]

Sigh, I was hoping you two guys had come to a compromise about the African borders line. Honestly, guys, can't you come to a compromise?

I just don't care about those Sahel borders that much, they are in the fricking less valuable part of the less developed continent. If you force me to make a decision, I'm going to flip a coin, but I don't want any bad blood in the TL fanbase if I can avoid it, after the recent ugly flamewar.

This map dont change much about the lines that Revan made. Only a few edits. Most of what Revan did is still there.