Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
Rio Grande Statehood 1858 by DaFreak47 Rio Grande Statehood 1858 by DaFreak47
So I made this map to test out textures which Ive never used before, so sorry if it looks kinda strange and low resolution.

So this is what happened....
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

1836- The Republic of Texas wins its independence from Mexico. Instead of being annexed to the USA, it remains independent. The USA recognizes its independence and supports it, causing tension with Mexico.

1840- The Republic of the Rio Grande declares its independence from Mexico. (POD) The USA recognizes its independence creating more tension with Mexico. Later that year, the Rep. of RG is defeated and annexed back into Mexico.

1845- The Rep. of T is annexed by the USA, claiming lands owned by Mexico, which the USA supports. Tensions continue to grow between the USA and Mexico.

1846- The Republic of California wins its independence from Mexico and is taken over and claimed by the US military. The USA and Mexico go to war in the Mexican-American War.

1848- The USA defeats Mexico and creates the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which 1). Ended the war and created peace between the two nations 2). Ceded Alta California & New Mexico to the USA for $18 million 3). Forced Mexico to give up claims to Texas 4). Forced Mexico to recognize the Rep. of the Rio Grande as an independent and sovereign state.

1849- The Rep. of the RG is annexed to the USA due to boundary disputes and debt problems with Texas.

1850- The Compromise of 1850 redrew Texas borders to give RG some of its land claims. In exchange, it was agreed that the rest of the origional Rep. of T borders would be used to create 2 new, smaller, more managible states. With the admittance of Texas, New Mexico, Cristo, and Florida as slave state, the Rio Grande, California, Superior, and Oregon were admitted as free states to balance the power in the Senate. The Oregon Country previously owned by Great Britain is ceded to the USA for unknown reasons.

1854- The Baja Purchase gave the Baja Peninsula owned by Mexico to the USA for $15 million. This was to improve relations and give the USA a longer, more valuable, pacific border. California is ceded the upper portion of the new Baja Territory and the state of Shasta is created from Northern California by the US Senate when they feel that California is to large.

1855- The long proposed Mormon state of Deseret is finally admitted to the Union as a free state. This gives the free states more power in the Senate.

1858- The free state of Minnesota is created from the Minnesota Terr., again without a slave state balance. Tensions rise between free states in the North and West and slave states in the South
Add a Comment:
 
:iconsd80macfan:
SD80MACfan Featured By Owner Dec 10, 2015  Hobbyist Photographer
I have a feeling that Cristo would be split in half due to the whole Mason-Dixon Line fiasco that caused Texas to loose most of its Northern Panhandle in the first place.
Reply
:icondafreak47:
DaFreak47 Featured By Owner Dec 10, 2015  Student Digital Artist
I'm just rambling all of this off from memory, so correct me if I'm wrong, but the Mason-Dixon Line forms the boundary between Maryland and Pennsylvania/Delaware and only delineates the banning of slavery in the Atlantic states. The Northwest Ordinance banned slavery in the mid-west states and the Missouri Compromise banned slavery north of the Arkansas-Missouri border, but only within the Louisiana Purchase. Texas and the Mexican Session were outside of those previous agreements and were open for debate. The only reason that Texas gave up its panhandle was because of its massive debt to the U.S. government. When it was admitted as a state, it included lands north of the Missouri Compromise. Still, you could be right. It wasn't a coincidence that the Compromise of 1850 resulted in a northern border that coincided with the Missouri Compromise.
Reply
:iconsd80macfan:
SD80MACfan Featured By Owner Dec 10, 2015  Hobbyist Photographer
You're right. I'm actually thinking of the Missouri Compromise. Always seem to get those mixed up.
Reply
:icondafreak47:
DaFreak47 Featured By Owner Dec 10, 2015  Student Digital Artist
If I remember the situation correctly, the U.S. government was split on whether or not to allow slavery in the Mexican Session and Gadsden Purchase and was not able to come to a compromise before the outbreak of the American Civil War.
Reply
:iconsd80macfan:
SD80MACfan Featured By Owner Dec 13, 2015  Hobbyist Photographer
Ah. That part of American history I do not realize. I know that Texas lost the Oklahoma Panhandle due to the Missouri Compromise and the fact that they were a slave state and were not allowed to be a slave state and have land north of the Missouri Compromise Line. That's why I asked about Cristo being split.
Reply
:icondafreak47:
DaFreak47 Featured By Owner Dec 14, 2015  Student Digital Artist
Actually, the Missouri Compromise only applied to the Louisiana Purchase. It did not apply to lands west of the Mississippi watershed, such as Texas, the Mexican Session, and the Oregon Country. When Texas was admitted as a state in 1845, it still had all of its territory north of the Missouri Compromise. The issue was that no one knew which territories would allow slavery and which ones would ban it. Four different regions applied for statehood: Texas, California, Deseret, and New Mexican, which all had overlapping territorial claims. Texas applied to be a slave state and California applied to be a free state, but no one knew whether Deseret and New Mexico would be slave or free states. In the end, only Texas and California were admitted as states and New Mexico and Utah (Deseret) became territories, with the question of slavery in those territories left unanswered. To deal with the dispute between Texas and New Mexico, the federal government redrew the boundary. Texas lost much of its land in exchange for massive debt relief. When they were drawing the new state borders, there were many proposals. Eventually, they went with a proposal that kept Texas south of the Missouri Compromise. I'm guessing that this proposal was most popular because of the fact that many wanted to extend the Missouri Compromise to the Pacific Ocean, but it never was. So yeah. The decision to keep Texas south of the Missouri Compromise had a lot to do with the Missouri Compromise, but it wasn't actually stated in the Missouri Compromise that annexed lands, like Texas, had to follow the same rules. 
Reply
:iconnomadicsky:
NomadicSky Featured By Owner May 15, 2014
fascinating.
Reply
:icondafreak47:
DaFreak47 Featured By Owner May 15, 2014  Student Digital Artist
Thanks, but if I were to redo this I wouldn't include the northern half of the Oregon Territory and I would include the "Forsyth Purchase". 
Reply
:icontallestskil:
TallestSkil Featured By Owner May 26, 2014
Why's that? To counter the greater amount of southern land, the free states would have pushed strongly for All Oregon. I think it's quite plausible.
I notice you didn't mention the US' ownership of Oregon in the description (perhaps there's another map of yours that does so); how DID we get it?
Oh, and what are you calling the Forsyth Purchase? More US land = always yay in my book.
Reply
:icondafreak47:
DaFreak47 Featured By Owner May 27, 2014  Student Digital Artist
Simple. As is mentioned in the description, the British ceded its half of the Oregon Country to the USA for no apparent reason, after the compromise had already been arbitrated. If the map had an earlier POD, then it would probably be possible, but then it would be almost identical to a newer map I made. That map also has the Forsyth Purchase.

dafreak47.deviantart.com/art/U…
Reply
:iconsnakewrangler08:
snakewrangler08 Featured By Owner Mar 2, 2014
Nice map.
Reply
:icondafreak47:
DaFreak47 Featured By Owner Mar 3, 2014  Student Digital Artist
Thanks, but if I redid this map it would look a lot better. This was my first pathetic attempt at texture.
Reply
:iconvinceitusa:
VinceITUSA Featured By Owner Oct 12, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
I always found it very curious why did the Americans took Northern California from Mexico and let the Californian Peninsula ... ?
Reply
:icondafreak47:
DaFreak47 Featured By Owner Oct 12, 2012  Student Digital Artist
Well, realisticly it was because Alta California and Baja California were 2 separate territories in Mexico and Alta California had a large population of American settlers and more enticements than the underpopulated desert filled Baja California
Reply
:iconvinceitusa:
VinceITUSA Featured By Owner Oct 13, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
Oh, so basically it was an ethnic based annexation.
Reply
:icondafreak47:
DaFreak47 Featured By Owner Oct 13, 2012  Student Digital Artist
That and imperical. The strong belief in Manifest Destiny woould have had a large part to do with it, even if the American settlers in the area hadnt revolted
Reply
:iconvinceitusa:
VinceITUSA Featured By Owner Oct 13, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
Indeed, the imperial attitude given by the Manifest Destiny probably has 90% to do with the occupation of those areas.
Reply
:iconzalezsky:
zalezsky Featured By Owner May 27, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
america aallllwayysss wants part of the great white north :p
Reply
:icondafreak47:
DaFreak47 Featured By Owner May 27, 2012  Student Digital Artist
We are certainly aggressive
Reply
:iconzalezsky:
zalezsky Featured By Owner May 28, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
we are indeed xD
Reply
:iconmdc01957:
mdc01957 Featured By Owner May 26, 2012
Mexico never seems to get lucky, doesn't it?
Reply
:iconamongthesatanic:
AmongTheSatanic Featured By Owner May 27, 2012  Hobbyist Artist
No suerte :P
Reply
:iconmdc01957:
mdc01957 Featured By Owner May 27, 2012
Indeed.
Reply
:iconottovonsuds:
OttoVonSuds Featured By Owner May 27, 2012
Mexico is still around. Isn't that enough?
Reply
:iconmdc01957:
mdc01957 Featured By Owner May 27, 2012
That's one consolation.
Reply
:icondafreak47:
DaFreak47 Featured By Owner May 27, 2012  Student Digital Artist
Actually, I have two maps like that, and I think youve seen them so i dont know why Im telling you this
Reply
:iconmdc01957:
mdc01957 Featured By Owner May 27, 2012
I'm not sure if I've stumbled on them. ^^;
Reply
:icondafreak47:
DaFreak47 Featured By Owner May 27, 2012  Student Digital Artist
Well actually youve favorited both of them and commented on one of them
Reply
:iconmdc01957:
mdc01957 Featured By Owner May 27, 2012
Oh, I see. ^^;
Reply
:icondafreak47:
DaFreak47 Featured By Owner May 27, 2012  Student Digital Artist
I do have a map(an old/bad one)where the Mexican-American War never happened and Mexico kept all of its northern territory. This one just had a POD that helped to start the MAW instead of stop it
Reply
:iconjamesvf:
JamesVF Featured By Owner May 27, 2012  Student Interface Designer
Mexico had virtually no control over it's northern provinces, If they didn't defect to us they would have just become independent.
Reply
:iconmdc01957:
mdc01957 Featured By Owner May 27, 2012
Really? Was early independent Mexico that unstable?
Reply
:iconjamesvf:
JamesVF Featured By Owner May 27, 2012  Student Interface Designer
While Santa Anna was in control 5 states seceded from Mexico, Rio Grande, Texas, Sonora and Baja California, Yucatan, and Alto California.
Reply
:iconmdc01957:
mdc01957 Featured By Owner May 27, 2012
Makes me wonder what would have happened had Santa Ana never rose to power.
Reply
:iconjamesvf:
JamesVF Featured By Owner May 27, 2012  Student Interface Designer
hmmm...
Reply
:icondafreak47:
DaFreak47 Featured By Owner May 27, 2012  Student Digital Artist
Dont forget Zacatecas
Reply
:iconjamesvf:
JamesVF Featured By Owner May 27, 2012  Student Interface Designer
Right! I forgot about that one.
Reply
:icondafreak47:
DaFreak47 Featured By Owner Aug 18, 2013  Student Digital Artist

I know its been a while, but I saw this and wanted to correct myself.

 

Texas - Everything north of the Rio Grande

 

Rio Bravo- (1840) Tamaulipas, Nuevo Leon, Coahuila, Nuevo Mexico, Chihuahua, Durango, & Zacatecas (which included Aguascalientes)

 

Zacatecas - Zacatecas & Aguascalientes

 

Calfornia - Alta California

 

Yucatan - Yucatan, Campeche, & Quintana Roo. Occured to annex Tobasco

 

Tobasco - Tobasco

 

Baja California- Baja California & Baja California Sur

 

Sonora - Sonora, Baja California, & Baja California Sur

 

 

So if you count all the modern states that rebelled against santa anna it adds up to 17.

Reply
:icondafreak47:
DaFreak47 Featured By Owner May 28, 2012  Student Digital Artist
Was William Walker's occupation and creation of the "Republic of Sonora" really considered a secession?
Reply
:iconjamesvf:
JamesVF Featured By Owner May 28, 2012  Student Interface Designer
The fact that 45 men could invade and occupy 2 entire provinces sheds light on the fact that the military was rather incompetent.
Reply
:icondafreak47:
DaFreak47 Featured By Owner May 27, 2012  Student Digital Artist
Do you think this makes sense? Rio Grande was admitted to the Union as a free state.
Free/Slave State Balance

Rio Grande-Texas
Wisconsin-New Mexico
Superior-Cristo
Florida-California

With Deseret, Shasta, and Oregon creating a free state majority in the senate and led to the American Civil War
Reply
:iconjamesvf:
JamesVF Featured By Owner May 27, 2012  Student Interface Designer
Despite the fact that Mexico had no slavery, the U.S. would probably have enforced the Missouri Compromise and permitted slavery in the Rio Grande. The creation of states that are free would have been left to both the northern and southern diplomats. So, the likelihood that the south would allow the creation of 3 more free states, and then use it as a reason to secede. More than likely, the south would have left due to a presidential dispute (as in OTL) or possibly even the status of slavery in the states.
Reply
:icondafreak47:
DaFreak47 Featured By Owner May 27, 2012  Student Digital Artist
Well the Missouri Compromise was specifically geared towards the territories gained by the Louisiana Purchase. Texas was admitted to the Union as a slave state based on choice. Even if RG had been opened to slave owners when it was annexed, I believe it would most likely side with the USA during the Civil War, or at least have been a border state like Kentucky and Missouri. If so many slave states were admitted at one time, wouldnt there be a mad rush to balance the power by creating new, underpopulated states in the Minnesota Terr.? When I talked about the creation of Shasta and Oregon, I meant it would have been arpund the same time as OTL Oregon and the Civil War would have taken place at pretty much the same time
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×
  • Art Print
  • Canvas
  • Photo
Download JPG 4596 × 2850




Details

Submitted on
May 26, 2012
Image Size
18.8 MB
Resolution
4596×2850
Submitted with
Sta.sh
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
6,085 (7 today)
Favourites
58 (who?)
Comments
43
Downloads
99
×