Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
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:
 
:iconthe-artist-64:
The-Artist-64 Featured By Owner Apr 1, 2015  Hobbyist General Artist
All good, but I don't think they would have renamed Florida to East Florida.
Reply
:icondafreak47:
DaFreak47 Featured By Owner Apr 15, 2015  Student Digital Artist
Fair enough. In a newer map I renamed West Florida to "Jackson". 
Reply
:iconthe-artist-64:
The-Artist-64 Featured By Owner Apr 15, 2015  Hobbyist General Artist
Excellent. I see President Polk got a state. Funny, seeing how many counties are named after him you'd expect for there to be a state called Polk.
Reply
:iconsd80macfan:
SD80MACfan Featured By Owner Mar 31, 2015
I'm assuming that this would be the flag of the US in this timeline.

www.usflag.org/history/the46st…
Reply
:icondafreak47:
DaFreak47 Featured By Owner Apr 15, 2015  Student Digital Artist
If that's how many states there are here, then yes!
Reply
:iconthetexasranger:
TheTexasRanger Featured By Owner Jan 26, 2015
So what latitude line was set for this timelines Oregon Treaty.
Reply
:icondafreak47:
DaFreak47 Featured By Owner Jan 26, 2015  Student Digital Artist
51 70' ish? It's supposed to be exactly halfway between 54 40' and 49.
Reply
:iconrogueleader1000:
RogueLeader1000 Featured By Owner Nov 21, 2014
why did the United States not annex Texas?
Reply
:icondafreak47:
DaFreak47 Featured By Owner Nov 22, 2014  Student Digital Artist
This timeline starts in a surviving Central American Federation, which annexes the Republic of Yucatan and allies with the independent Republic of Texas. Santa Anna concentrated his attacks on Central America and Sam Houston was able to set the standard for peace with the Comanche of western Texas, saving Texas from constant attack from two sides and the draining of its funds. When the time came for renewed war with Mexico, Texas was able to hold its own with the help of its ally, Central America, without US military aide. 
Reply
: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
:iconramones1986:
ramones1986 Featured By Owner Edited Jul 3, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
Not bad if you have the sunshine all-year round. The problem is if the scene required, for example, deserts, Great Plains and prairies with snow-capped mountains at the background. ;)
Reply
:icondafreak47:
DaFreak47 Featured By Owner Jul 3, 2014  Student Digital Artist
Well this USA has the Great Plains, prairies, snow-capped mountains, and parts of western Oregon and southern Idaho have arid deserts, although they're not quite as dry as the Mojave. 
Reply
:iconnomadicsky:
NomadicSky Featured By Owner May 14, 2014
The only thing is with that west Florida there'd be no Mississippi and Alabama the main force behind dividing, was Natchez... and Natchez is in another state. Our territorial division was a mistake it should have been horizontal not vertical, we have far more in common with people in North Alabama then we do with people in South Mississippi, likewise the situation is mirrored in Alabama.
Reply
:icondafreak47:
DaFreak47 Featured By Owner Jul 1, 2014  Student Digital Artist
Do you get what I'm saying? Your argument is for a different time frame.
Reply
:icondafreak47:
DaFreak47 Featured By Owner Jul 1, 2014  Student Digital Artist
Do you get what I'm saying? Your argument is meant for a different time frame. 
Reply
:icondafreak47:
DaFreak47 Featured By Owner May 14, 2014  Student Digital Artist
"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."

It was in the description. 
Reply
:iconbruiser128:
bruiser128 Featured By Owner Aug 17, 2013  Student Traditional Artist
I doubt Russian Empire would have sold Alaska to the British since they were rivals during this period.
Reply
:icondafreak47:
DaFreak47 Featured By Owner Aug 17, 2013  Student Digital Artist

Well that's where you're wrong. As you know, Russia's defeat by the British Empire during the Crimean War led directly to its decision to sell Alaska. What you dont know is the thinking behind it. The basic thought was that if the Russian and British Empires went to war again, which seemed likely at the time (the rivalry you mentioned), then Russia feared that the British settlers in British Columbia would invade and annex Russian Alaska, which was far less populated and fortified. To cut its losses, Russia initially approached Great Britain with an offer to sell Alaska for a reasonably low price, so that if war did break out again Russia wouldnt lose Alaska without proper payment. Great Britain showed no interest in purchasing Alaska because they already had warm water ports in British Columbia and Vancouver. After that failure, the Russian Empire approached the USA with a slightly higher price than they offered the British. The Russians hoped that Great Britain would fear the possibility of British Columbia being surrounded by, or even annexed to, American territory, which is exactly why the USA wanted to purchase Alaska in the first place.  Russia hoped that by offering to sell Alaska to the USA, Great Britain would offer a higher price to avoid letting the USA purchase it, and maybe even start a bidding war between America and Great Britain. Instead, Great Britain displayed little concern and the USA purchased Alaska for its low price shortly after the end of the Civil War.

 

In this timeline, because Texas is never annexed, the USA acquires more land in mainland British Columbia/Oregon and Great Britain shows more concern for the west coast of British North America, especially as American influence in the Crown Colony of Vancouver Island increases drastically with the start of the Fraser Gold Rush. When Russia offers to sell Alaska, Great Britain quickly accepts to prevent the USA from purchasing it and to take control of more Pacific ports.

Reply
:iconbruiser128:
bruiser128 Featured By Owner Aug 18, 2013  Student Traditional Artist
Well I am Canadian and I am not the only one who thinks that
Alaska should and is meant to be part of Canada. Well in your 
timeline, I can easily see gold being discovered earlier in Alaska
because 

For the Part of Texas I believe that they would turn to Britain to 
pay off the debts that the Republic of Texas was in thanks to
Mirabeau B Lamar. Cause I have my own timeline where this 
happens.   
Reply
:icondafreak47:
DaFreak47 Featured By Owner Aug 18, 2013  Student Digital Artist

Well you should blame the British government of the 1860s for that then. When Alaska was purchased, most of the country thought it was a major waste of money. I dont think that gold was discovered any earlier than OTL.

 

Texas is recognized by the Netherlands, France, and Belgium before 1845. It acquired loans from Netherlands and France to start paying off its debts, but those debts were considerably lower than OTL because Sam Houston was able to convince Lamar and the Texan people that peace and cooperation with the Camanche was the best policy that Texas could have. After 1845, Great Britain and many other countries recognized Texas, and Im sure it took out some lones.

 

While Texas and Great Britain's relationship is peaceful, it is a bit strenuous because of its alliance with Central America, which refuses to relinquish control of British Honduras and the Moskito Coast and threatens to expand its influence into the British West Indies, which become part of Canada in the 1880s to avoid foriegn occupation.

Reply
:iconbruiser128:
bruiser128 Featured By Owner Aug 18, 2013  Student Traditional Artist
I would like to think that even if Texas stayed an independent 
nation. The Mexican American War would still have happened, 
but that California would be split between both nations for 
fighting together.

Also I was wondering if you would have an answer to why the 
British Empire did not join the Triple alliance.

Reply
:icondafreak47:
DaFreak47 Featured By Owner Aug 18, 2013  Student Digital Artist

Well the Mexican-American War happened as a direct result of the US annexation of Texas, which claimed the Rio Grande as its southern border. The annexation of the Mexican territories of Alta California and Nuevo Mejico happened only as a result of the annexation of Texas, which was fueled by "Manifest Destiny" and irridentism. Without Texas being annexed, the USA would have no excuse to send troops to Sonomo, Alta California to convince them to revolt like they did OTL.

 

It could be argued that the USA would still try to create unrest in Alta California so that it could annex the territory, but it doesnt make as much sense because the USA and Mexico are not enemies in this timeline, so it would have no justification for war. Texas, on the other hand, was at war with Mexico, openly proclaimed its intentions to spread its borders to the Pacific Ocean, and was sending missions westward to try and convince America settlers to revolt and join Texas OTL

 

Are you talking about the Triple Alliance: Germany, A-H, and Italy? Because that seems pretty obvious.

Reply
:iconbruiser128:
bruiser128 Featured By Owner Aug 18, 2013  Student Traditional Artist
All of what you said about Texas, the Mexican - American War, and California 
I believe. But I think that the Oregon dispute would end with James K Polk 
forcing Britain to secede up to the 54th 50 parallel by sending in troops.

Oh yeah and the second question was for wondering how the Great war
would have turned out if America joined the Entente while Britain joins
the central powers.
Reply
:icondafreak47:
DaFreak47 Featured By Owner Aug 18, 2013  Student Digital Artist

The general pattern when it comes to American-British boundary disputes is that Great Britain has the power to back up its claims, but the USA has the stubborness, and the outcome is that the USA almost always recieves about 2/3 of the disputed land. Take Maine, Alaska, & Minnesota as examples. Oregon is one of the rare cases where the USA settled for 50/50, only because the Texas annexation and Mexican-American War required more of its attention.

 

In this timeline, Polk can concentrate all of his efforts on the Oregon dispute, and as always, to avoid war with Great Britain he settles for less than all of the claimed territory, but instead of splitting it 50/50 like OTL, he manages to gain about 2/3 of the Oregon Country, leaving Vancouver Island and the northern 1/4 of the Columbia District to the British. So you see, the compromise was just following a previously set pattern.

 

Are you asking that because you think in this timeline Great Britain and the USA are enemies? Or are you asking that as a completely separate question unrelated to this timeline?

Reply
(1 Reply)
:icon1wyrmshadow1:
1Wyrmshadow1 Featured By Owner Mar 4, 2013
oklahUma?
Reply
:icondafreak47:
DaFreak47 Featured By Owner Mar 5, 2013  Student Digital Artist
The name "Oklahoma" comes from the Choctaw translation of "red people". Red being "okla" and people being "humma". So "Oklahumma" or "Oklahuma" is actually more correct than the OTL name.
Reply
:iconspartan-127:
SPARTAN-127 Featured By Owner Mar 3, 2013
Considering that you hadn't stared this a few days ago, it looks great!
Reply
:icondafreak47:
DaFreak47 Featured By Owner Mar 3, 2013  Student Digital Artist
Lol whaaa? I started this like 3 weeks ago? Just didnt work on it much
Reply
:iconspartan-127:
SPARTAN-127 Featured By Owner Mar 4, 2013
Oh, you said you hadn't started in another comment, that sounds more realistic, lol
Reply
:icondafreak47:
DaFreak47 Featured By Owner Mar 4, 2013  Student Digital Artist
Yeah, I thought the way I said that might have been confusing. I meant I hadnt started the one we were talking about a while back. Still gonna do that one, but this ones completely unrelated to that
Reply
:iconspartan-127:
SPARTAN-127 Featured By Owner Mar 4, 2013
Ah I see.
Reply
:iconmdc01957:
mdc01957 Featured By Owner Mar 2, 2013
It'd probably make more sense if you went with Canada.
Reply
:icondafreak47:
DaFreak47 Featured By Owner Mar 2, 2013  Student Digital Artist
Ive actually been doing a crap load of research on East Asia. Im leaning towards China and GB being able to avoid the 2nd Opium War because the Arrow incident was averted and how it would affect Japan and Russia
Reply
:iconmdc01957:
mdc01957 Featured By Owner Mar 2, 2013
In that case, perhaps East Asia and the Pacific may help.
Reply
:icondafreak47:
DaFreak47 Featured By Owner Mar 3, 2013  Student Digital Artist
Yeah, I think Ill do Japan, and then Canada next. Dont you know a lot about Japan?
Reply
:iconmdc01957:
mdc01957 Featured By Owner Mar 3, 2013
Can't say I'm an expert on Japan, though I could help. :)
Reply
:icondafreak47:
DaFreak47 Featured By Owner Mar 3, 2013  Student Digital Artist
It's not gonna be anything really all that unique. The end result is basically Japan getting to keep Korea, Formosa,Sakhalin, and the Kurils, and China getting to keep Mongolia and Outer Manchuria.
Reply
:iconamongthesatanic:
AmongTheSatanic Featured By Owner Apr 11, 2013  Hobbyist Artist
Both places ridiculously non-Chinese.
Reply
:icondafreak47:
DaFreak47 Featured By Owner Apr 12, 2013  Student Digital Artist
Neither are Inner Manchuria, Inner Mongolia, Tibet, or East Turkestan, but they managed to get consumed in OTL.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconmdc01957:
mdc01957 Featured By Owner Mar 4, 2013
Still, it'd be worth seeing.
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×
Download JPG 7757 × 5441




Details

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

Stats

Views
6,297 (1 today)
Favourites
79 (who?)
Comments
58
Downloads
44
×