Deviant Login Shop  Join deviantART for FREE Take the Tour
×



Details

Submitted on
March 2, 2013
Image Size
7.2 MB
Resolution
7757×5441
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
3,328 (5 today)
Favourites
62 (who?)
Comments
49
Downloads
33
×
Territorial Evolution of America by DaFreak47 Territorial Evolution of America by DaFreak47
A map of the United States of America from my UPCA Universe. Took me weeks just to finish this map because I was to lazy to work on it for more than an hour at a time. Procrastination. Bleh!
Anyway, my next map in this universe will either be of Canada, something in South America, or Japan. Which do you guys thing I should do first?

A lil bit of history to go with this
-After Texas allies with Central America against Mexico, US President James K. Polk is forced by public opinion to push for the annexation of the entire Oregon Country. To avoid war with Great Britain for the 2nd time in 50 years, Pres. Polk agrees on a much more pro American compromise, where as the USA annexes mainland Oregon Country up to the 52 degree north and Britain gets to keep the island of Vancouver, which becomes the Colony of Vancouver.

-The Fraser Gold Rush attracts thounsands to the west, including Vancouver, and the American population increases considerably, bringing wealth and development to both Fort Vancouver on the mainland and Fort Victoria on Vancouver Island. Vancouver's popullation becomes predominantly American and little measures are taken by the British to limit interactions between Vancouver and the USA. Vancouver's economy becomes dependent on American trade.

-After the American Civil War breaks out when it becomes obvious that Free states will vastly outnumber the Slave states, many from the north fear that Texas will side with the south and pull Central America and its new found European allies with it. Texas stays neutral, only giving support for the south in the form of words, not weapons. The south is defeated after a few years of bloody warfare, and many push for a harsh punishment for the southern states. In the end, three new states, Allegheny, Franklin, and West Florida are created as centers for southern reconstruction and the introduction of emancipated slaves to free lives.

-After the Crimean War, Russia sells Alaska to Great Britain to avoid losing it for less in some future conflict. In 1867, British North America starts to unite as the Confederation of Canada, pushing for unification from the Atlantic to the Pacific. In 1871, when the British are pushing for Vancouver to join the confederation, they are shocked to find their colony in an economic depression brought on by the end of the Fraser Gold Rush. The remaining industries are controlled or dependent on the USA for survival. After the British push too hard for Vancouver, which has a large American majority, to join Canada, the island declares its independence as the Republic of Vancouver Island. With few assets to support itself, and deeply in debt to the USA, the island is annexed in 1873 after only 2 years of independence. The USA starts the process of rejuvinating Vancouver's economy.

-In Britain, while some are outraged by Vancouver's "Treachery", many think it best to rid the empire of the island which was "no longer British" and in economic downfall. Attention was turned towards the development of the Territory of Yukon, previously Alaska, and in making precautions to avoid losing the region to the Americans sometime in the future.
Add a Comment:
 
:iconlsdinkvizitor:
LSDInkvizitor Featured By Owner Edited Jul 5, 2014
Never understood why there wasn't annexation of both Canada and Mexico in the first place.

I mean, US government never had problem with aggressive even genocidal approach to take as much land and resources as is possible, so it's surprising. 
By 1812-13, sure, British were still powerful enough to stop USA still being weak, but in 1850, there is no chance, that British Empire would prevent or stop full scale invasion to Canada.

By 1860, all logical thoughts ends with USA's borders from Alaska to Panama.
Reply
:icondafreak47:
DaFreak47 Featured By Owner Jul 5, 2014  Student Digital Artist
There are actually plenty of reasons why that didn't happen, although none of them necessarily eliminate the possibility that it could have happened. In regard to Canada, the US government actually really REALLY wanted to annex Canada, and assumed that inevitably it would happen. During the War of 1812, we had no chance trying to take the advantage and invade British territory. We were just too weak. By 1850, we had the manpower and the industrial power to take Canada (especially western Canada), but we still did not have the naval power or the technological prowess necessary to seriously consider open hostilities with the most powerful navy in the world. Every city and settlement within 50 miles of the east coast would be subject to British attack, which at the time was where most of the American population resided. And from the 1830s to the 1860s, the USA had larger problems to worry about, especially internal dissent. The USA was not nearly as united as it is today. All too often, the agenda of the Central government conflicted with the agendas of the states, which had the power to influence more than they do today. So an invasion of Canada might be possible, but the risk it would involve would almost certainly outweigh the benefits. Having said that, if the USA was forced into a war with Canada, such as during the American Civil War or the Oregon Dispute, then it could probably take at least parts of Canada. More likely than using violence, the USA preferred using diplomatic means to try and acquire Canada. Probably the most well known attempt were the Alabama Claims.

In regard to Mexico and the rest of Central America, it would simply go against democratic principles to annex them. US presidents were very squeamish during the 1840s and 1850s about annexing lands already inhabited by non-whites. To annex land inhabited by white settlers (Texas) or by hardly anyone at all (Alta California and Nuevo Mexico) did not hold the same weight as annexing lands further south. For one thing, Americans and most other white peoples were extremely racist, and even those from the north did not want to govern territories inhabited by "inferior" races. It was thought that Mexicans and other Hispanics were too violent and uneducated to be valuable American citizens. Add onto that the fact that forcing other peoples to become Americans against their will was not a popular notion at the time and never had been. Hvaing said that, there were also those who believed that it was the USA's duty to "liberate" all of the peoples of the Americas, but they were in the minority by the time the USA was actually capable of such an act. The only Americans who wanted to expand South well into the 1860s were the southerners, who wanted to do so in order to subjugate the Hispanic population and spread the institution of slavery, but they were in the minority and could not pass such an idea through a congress checked by the northern states. 

While the USA did expand aggressively, really only in concern to northern Mexico, it did not take as much as it could have at all. In retrospect, they took a pretty understandable amount of land. Sure, a lot of that land they should not have taken (specifically California) but they could have taken much MUCH more. And the USA was only genocidal in one instance, which admittedly is a pretty large instance and  is the most shameful aspect of American history, the Native Americans. The goal was never to kill off the Native Americans, but the tactics used to remove them from their lands had almost the same effect. If we call the Armenian Genocide a genocide, then it would be understandable to call the "Trail of Tears" something of an unintentional genocide as well. But other than the Native Americans, the USA has never practiced genocide in regard to territorial expansion. The Mexicans, Filipinos, Cubans, and Puerto Ricans were never racially targeted for extinction. 
Reply
:iconlsdinkvizitor:
LSDInkvizitor Featured By Owner Jul 5, 2014
Eh, there is hardly thing like 'unintentional genocide'. Perhaps in case of deaths caused by not native diseases, but soon colonists took advantage of it and used that (like infamous 'free blanket thing') against indigenous population, so then it was totally intentional.

I dare to say, that perhaps not de iure, but de facto, every american government in 18/19th century actually approved/ignored genocide of native americans and majority of them in capital city would be actually glad if they completely 'dissapeared'.
And today, there would be just tv documents and statues and mourning speeches every year how great tragedy it was and that they all totally feel shame and their ancestors actually tried to stop it (sarcasm).

It was not necessary to directly encourage people or give them direct orders on paper to exterminate anyone, but let just nasty people with power to do dirty work and hope there will be no problem soon at all.
Reply
:icondafreak47:
DaFreak47 Featured By Owner Jul 5, 2014  Student Digital Artist
If you're saying that de facto genocide existed, I could submit to that. There was never de jure genocide, as the higher ups in the government never intended to kill off entire tribes, but the fact that white settlers intentionally killed off the native peoples, men, women, and children alike, cannot be denied. Its just one of those terrible atrocities of racism that cannot be taken back and no one wants to talk about. My main point, in regard to the Native Americans, was that white settlers did not target them simply because they were Native Americans, they targeted them because they were Native Americans on arable land. The natives were never targeted when they lived on undesirable land, only when they lived on land coveted by white settlers or when they came into conflict with them. My point is, we killed them because we wanted their land and we thought it was okay because they were natives. We did not kill them because they were natives and take their land as an afterthought. Having said that, it is just as atrocious, but the distinction is an important one to make. 
Reply
:iconlsdinkvizitor:
LSDInkvizitor Featured By Owner Jul 5, 2014
It's not more cruel than Genghis Khan's first idea to simply exterminate whole China and make room for horses and their riders. It was totally common and approved thing for whole humanity's history to commit even multiple genocides and colonize conquered lands. Perticularly Mongolians were very serious in this thing. When they conquered city with 1.5 million people who tried to resist, 1.5 million people died indeed. All of them.

Like Machiavelli said (according to this conservative logic), conquered enemy must be only exterminated or assimilated. Because subjugated people will try to avenge their defeat. No one fights from graveyard.

But in Genghis Khan's case, his advisors reminded him, that enslaved subjects working and paying taxes are still better idea. 

It was still normal in the start of 20th century, so it's actually surprising that some people were so surprised and terrified by Hitler's solution - solution used by whole humanity so long, even by King Leopold (Belgium) who is responsible for 10 million exterminated people in labour camps in Congo in 19/20th century, and no one gave a fu*k about that. Interesting, isn't it? Of course it happened in Africa and who cares about some black people?
Reply
:icondafreak47:
DaFreak47 Featured By Owner Jul 5, 2014  Student Digital Artist
It seems like at this point your just listing historical facts of related topic without any real purpose to be made, so I'm not exactly sure how you want me to respond. Sooo.... I agree.
Reply
:iconlsdinkvizitor:
LSDInkvizitor Featured By Owner Jul 6, 2014
I am just saying that it's interesting how people make differences between horrific historical outcomes just because it happened elsewhere, in another times or just because they love or hate some historical figures. British doesn't understand why Russians love Stalin, but they love Victoria. Same reasons. Who is glorious ancestor for some one is murderer for other one.
By the way, which american president in first half of 19th century showed greatest ignorance or unspoken acceptance of native american genocide or harsh actions towards mexicans?
Reply
:icondafreak47:
DaFreak47 Featured By Owner Jul 6, 2014  Student Digital Artist
The name that automatically jumps into the mind of any American would be Andrew Jackson, but that is mostly because he was the instigator of the reservation system, but many other presidents of that time were responsible for acts of violence against Native Americans but their terms weren't defined by it like Jackson's was. 
Reply
:iconramones1986:
ramones1986 Featured By Owner Jul 1, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
And the movie capital of America in this scenario will be...
Reply
:icondafreak47:
DaFreak47 Featured By Owner Jul 2, 2014  Student Digital Artist
Miami? :D
Reply
Add a Comment: