Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
×




Details

Submitted on
February 22, 2014
Image Size
430 KB
Resolution
1536×1913
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
3,118
Favourites
56 (who?)
Comments
47
Downloads
37
×
The Two Americas 1900 (iPad Idea #9) by DaFreak47 The Two Americas 1900 (iPad Idea #9) by DaFreak47
I didn't do any research for this so don't be too drastic with the critique. If you have any advice, let it be how to make the idea more plausible, not how unlikely the whole idea is in the first place.

POD: Battle of Antietam September 17, 1862

USA:
-After the British joined the war on the side of the CSA, the USA ignited a revolt in the Red River Colony of Rupertsland.
-After the CSA won its independence, with the help of the British Royal Navy and French supplies smuggled across the Mexico border, the USA purchased Alaska as a way to boost national spirit and use as a launching point for a possible invasion of British Columbia.
-When negotiations with the British over war reprisals broke down and the Confederation of Canada was formed in the east, the USA invaded British Columbia and Rupertsland. With the help of its small but powerful ironclad navy, the USA was able to fend of the British while it conquered vast amounts of land and sieged cities like Ottawa and Montreal. By 1869, Canada had been conquered by the USA
-In 1898, with the CSA spreading across the Pacific and Caribbean, the USA officially annexed the Hawaiin and outlying islands.

CSA:
-After winning independence from the USA, the CSA looked to expand to the Pacific Ocean and create a "Tropical Empire". The assassination of the Mexican Emperor and the revolt against the occupying French force gave the CSA the opportunity it needed. With the help of the French, the CSA invaded and annexed all of Mexico.
-Santo Domingo was willfully annexed as a location to send unruly slaves. 
-Haiti was annexed as a matter of national security.
-Under the mask of a "Roosevelt Corollary", the CSA invaded, plundered, and annexed all Central American Countries down to Costa Rica.
-Fearing Confederate annexation, Colombia did not enforce its former border dispute with Costa Rica.
-In exchange for equal administrative rights to the canal in Nicaragua, Great Britain seceded its claims to British Honduras and the Mosquito Coast to the CSA.
-Seeing Cuba as ripe for the picking, the CSA tried to purchase the island from the Spanish. When Spain refused, despite the long and costly Cuban revolt, the CSA declared war. The CSA conquered Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Philippines, the Spanish East Indies, the Canary Islands, Spanish Sahara, and Spanish Guinea. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA


- AB Absaroka

CA - California

CO - Colorado

CT - Connecticut

CU - Columbia

DA - Dakota

DE - Delaware

EI – Edward Island

GP - Gaspesia

HD - Hudson

HU - Huron

IA - Iowa

ID - Idaho

IL - Illinois

IN - Indiana

KA - Kanawha

KS - Kansas

MA - Massachusetts

MB - Manitoba

MD - Maryland

ME - Maine

MI - Michigan

MN - Minnesota

MO - Missouri

MO - Montreal (Oops I’m too lazy to change it to ML)

MT - Montana

NB - New Brunswick

NE - Nebraska

NH - New Hampshire

NJ - New Jersey

NS - New Scotland

NV - Nevada

NY - New York

OH - Ohio

ON - Ontario

OR - Oregon

PA - Pennsylvania

QC - Quebec

RI - Rhode Island

SK - Saskatchewan

SU - Superior

UT - Utah

VC - Vancouver

VT - Vermont

WA - Washington

WI - Wisconsin


CONFEDERATE STATES OF AMERICA


AL - Alabama

AR - Arkansas

CH - Chihuahua

CR - Costa Rica

DG - Durango

ES - El Salvador

FL - Florida        

GA - Georgia

GU - Guatemala

HS - Honduras

KY - Kentucky

LA - Louisiana

MS - Mississippi

NA - Nicaragua

NC - North Carolina

OZ - Ozark

RG - Rio Grande

SC - South Carolina

SO - Sonora

TN - Tennessee

TX - Texas

VA - Virginia

YU - Yucatan

Add a Comment:
 
:iconschmud:
schmud Featured By Owner Dec 10, 2014
Where do you think the capitals would be located? In your opinion, Would they still be in the District of Colombia and Richmond or would they be moved over time?
Reply
:icondafreak47:
DaFreak47 Featured By Owner Dec 10, 2014  Student Digital Artist
Moved, definitely. The USA would never keep its capital in the District of Columbia, across the river from the CSA and in the middle of Maryland, a state only prevented from seceding because of immediate Union military prevention. Many men of western Maryland traveled south to join the Confederate army. The CSA only moved its capital to Richmond to convince other southern states, like North Carolina and Tennessee, to secede from the Union. Richmond is much to close to the Union border.

Philadelphia is the most likely new capital for the Union, away from the Confederate border to full of American history.

I would say that Atlanta would be the most likely new capital of the CSA. It was proposed before it was moved to Richmond, it was at the relative center of the country, and it wasn't a state capital.  
Reply
:iconschmud:
schmud Featured By Owner Dec 10, 2014
Philadelphia would have been my guess for the USA capital. I had always wondered way Lincoln would keep the capital so close to the border. National pride is an expected theory by some.

Atlanta, in terms of today's standards, would be a good choice for a capital after the war. It is an economic power in the South today.

Thanks for the insight!
Reply
:icondafreak47:
DaFreak47 Featured By Owner Dec 11, 2014  Student Digital Artist
I would say Lincoln kept the capital in Washington D.C. because (1) he did not recognize the CSA as a legitimate country or its claimed borders and (2) he probably didn't have the authority to move the capital without consent from the House and Senate, half of which were in the South supporting succession, and the other half of which did not recognize the CSA as a legitimate country either. 
Reply
:iconroccodog1:
Roccodog1 Featured By Owner Oct 19, 2014
Did the CSA keep slavery? I only ask because history wise, there was evidence that the entire system would have eventually collapsed so it would make sense, even with the added territory that Slavery would eventually die.
Reply
:icondafreak47:
DaFreak47 Featured By Owner Oct 19, 2014  Student Digital Artist
I managed not to mention that in the description. With the added territories in northern Mexico, slavery survived for a time, maybe as far as the 1890s, but eventually the industrialization of states like Virginia, North Carolina, and Texas spread across much of the nation and slavery became obsolete and unsustainable. The obvious problem of the situation is that millions of former slaves were then freed from slavery but still without rights or true "freedom". The solution was to deport many of the former slaves to colonies like Hispaniola, and later Guinea, in order to avoid having to deal with them. And those who still reside in the South have essentially no rights and exist as virtual slaves to their white "masters". Basically a form of apartheid in which the blacks are an unfortunate minority. 
Reply
:iconroccodog1:
Roccodog1 Featured By Owner Oct 19, 2014
With that in mind, do you see a possibility that in this timeline the two nations will form back together, because there would not be that big of a reason for them to remain separate.
Reply
:icondafreak47:
DaFreak47 Featured By Owner Oct 21, 2014  Student Digital Artist
Actually, I believe that a split at such a critical moment in history would result in a permanent separation of cultures and political agendas. While the USA would most likely be open, if not eager, to the idea of uniting with/annexing the CSA, it would be precisely for that reason that the CSA would find such a merger unacceptable. For some time after Confederate independence, the USA would view the nation as illegitimate and continue trying to sabotage the CSA's infrastructure to someday bring it back under US control. THIS, would be the ultimate fear of the Confederate populace, and political relations would evolve from there. Any attempt by the USA to even bring up the idea of a merger would be ridiculed as a diabolical scheme to rob southerners of the rights they fought and died to protect. The only possible scenarios in which I could see the CSA rejoining the Union would be 1) if the CSA slowly broke up and the weak, downtrodden states were annexed individually or 2) the CSA as a whole failed to adapt economically after the end of slavery and was forced to rejoin the USA just to feed its people. Even in these two scenarios, there would still be a more noticeable culture split than OTL. 
Reply
:iconarbarano:
Arbarano Featured By Owner Aug 28, 2014
What about Newfoundland? And why is the borderline between Ungava and Labrador the one fixed by the Privy Council in 1927?
Reply
:icondafreak47:
DaFreak47 Featured By Owner Sep 7, 2014  Student Digital Artist
The Dominion of Newfoundland is still in union with Great Britain. The border I just didn't want to put too much thought into. I can never find any good alternate Labrador borders, so keeping the border at least similar to what it was OTL helps people to recognize its absence. 
Reply
:iconholycross9:
HolyCross9 Featured By Owner Feb 28, 2014
This looks like an alternate result of what happened after the Civil War.
Reply
:icondafreak47:
DaFreak47 Featured By Owner Mar 1, 2014  Student Digital Artist
Wow, I wonder where you got that idea.
Reply
:iconspartan-127:
SPARTAN-127 Featured By Owner Feb 28, 2014
Whys you 'mericuns dun gotta be takin over mah canerdas?
Reply
:icondafreak47:
DaFreak47 Featured By Owner Mar 1, 2014  Student Digital Artist
Cause we Muricans like ta ski.
Reply
:iconyoung-stoaty-chap:
Young-stoaty-chap Featured By Owner Feb 25, 2014  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Have you seen the film CSA: Confederate States of America?
Reply
:icondafreak47:
DaFreak47 Featured By Owner Feb 25, 2014  Student Digital Artist
Why yes I have. Not the most realistic scenario, but indeed entertaining.
Reply
:iconyoung-stoaty-chap:
Young-stoaty-chap Featured By Owner Feb 25, 2014  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
And biting satire too. Totally unrealistic that slavery would have persisted until today, though. 
Reply
:icondafreak47:
DaFreak47 Featured By Owner Feb 25, 2014  Student Digital Artist
After the C.S.A. annexed the U.S.A. I stopped taking anything it said seriously.
Reply
:iconyoung-stoaty-chap:
Young-stoaty-chap Featured By Owner Feb 25, 2014  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Yeah. I don't think it was meant to be taken seriously. It was still good though. 
Reply
:iconrutterkin1:
rutterkin1 Featured By Owner Feb 24, 2014
This is cool and I respect the work you put in on it. I do have one major criticism though: I dont think the Confederacy would have been in any kind of condition to expand. Since you mentioned British intervention you're no doubt aware that Britain and France were major markets for Southern cotton. However, it still would have been a massive hit on the Southern economy to lose its much bigger market in the North United States, even if only temporarily. Also, the Southern economy was in a shambles because of the loss of slaves. When Lincoln finally signed the Emancipation Proclamation it was to take advantage of an already existing situation: that thousands and possibly millions of slaves had already left southern plantations and the ones who made it to Union lines could be used as laborers and soldiers. This had begun at the beginning of the war and only increased as time went on. Its hard to imagine the carnage that the South would have had to carry out to 're-enslave' its slaves and especially with heavy military losses by 1862/1863 who knows if they could have done it? Similarly, Ive often seen alternative histories assume that Mexico would have remained a distant third behind a divided USA/CSA, Im not at all sure thats true. Mexico was still fairly strong as the French found out and with the possible support of a bitter USA I think there is good reason to believe that Mexico could have turned the tables on a weakened CSA. Lastly no way Haiti would allow itself to be enslaved again, its the only slave nation in the history of the world to free itself and stay free, also Haiti was paying reparations to France by this time (one of the reasons Haiti was driven into poverty) and France would not have liked another power to cut off those payments by taking Haiti over. 
Reply
:icondafreak47:
DaFreak47 Featured By Owner Feb 24, 2014  Student Digital Artist
Battle of Antietam. The Confederates forced the Union Army out of Maryland, convincing France and Great Britain to join the war and never giving Lincoln the victory he needed to pass the Emancipation Proclamation. After 1862 the front never lower passed Maryland and Northern Virginia. It ended earlier than OTL. By the time the Civil War ends, the CSA and France are allies. Both the CSA and France fought to end the Mexican uprising and fully handing over control to the Confederates did nto occur until some time later. The USA did not try to stop the CSA from invading Mexico because at the same time it started its occupation of western Canada. Already struggling to defend the St. Lawrence against Great Britain, it did not agitate the preoccupied France and Confederacy. Haiti didn't exactly have a choice. The CSA had already annexed Santo Domingo and Haitian raids, pirating, and instability were threatening order. This was some time after the Civil War, in the 1890s, and it didn't take much effort. The CSA was known for exacting European debts from the countries it annexed. 
Reply
:iconparasky:
Parasky Featured By Owner Feb 22, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Wow, this is eerily similar to my own project: parasky.deviantart.com/art/The…

Same name and everything (not that I'm implying you copied me or anything)! I think I like yours better though.
Reply
:icondafreak47:
DaFreak47 Featured By Owner Feb 23, 2014  Student Digital Artist
Oh and this is just me letting my thoughts flow \/\/\/ I don't mean to be offensive or anything.
Reply
:icondafreak47:
DaFreak47 Featured By Owner Feb 23, 2014  Student Digital Artist
When I first saw your map series a few years back, it got me thinking. You put so much thought into the story line, so many details, and yet there were many incongruities in the maps themselves. I got the name and the general idea from you, but all of the research is mine. These are the things that I found incongruous in your original map that I changed in mine.

-West Virginia: The people of the western counties truly did want to secede from Virginia and remain a part of the Union. Not all of the counties of course, but mainly the counties of the original state of Kanawha. It would make more sense for the CSA to cede Kanawha to the Union in exchange for something else it did not control, such as Kentucky or Missouri.

-Greer County & No Man's Land: At the time of the Civil War, Texas claimed Greer county and No Man's Land was not a part of the Indian Territory. It would make sense that if the CSA won and the Missouri Compromise was out of use, that Texas be given Greer County and No Man's Land.

-Arizona Territory: In your map, the CSA only received half of the OTL Confederate Arizona Territory and it gave the land to Chihuahua and Sonora. Idk why you only gave them half and I don't believe that the White population in Mesilla would appreciate being subjugated to the Mexican government in Chihuahua.

-Mexican states: One of the strangest things about your maps are the huge Mexican states that are far larger than any of the states in the original CSA, minus Texas. Your states of Durango, New Texas, and Chiapas are absolutely massive.

-South America: I can see the CSA annexing Mexico, with the aid of France, Central America, and the Caribbean, but never do I see it conquering all of South America, at least not before the 20th century. Regardless of whether or not it has the weaponry or technology, it will simply never have the manpower needed.

-Bahamas, Jamaica, & the Virgin Islands: Yeah I just find it hard to believe that the USA would conquer all of these Caribbean islands, far away from its mainland, open to Confederate attack, and belonging to multiple powerful European countries.

-Canadian states: All of the borders you used were not in existence at the time Canada was annexed and not all of the states would have the population to be states.

Other random things that I changed because why not.

-CSA gets the Philippines, cuz why would the USA risk it. 

-They split Missouri in two.

-The USA still gets Hawaii, cuz if they can take Canada then they can most certainly take Hawaii. 
Reply
:iconparasky:
Parasky Featured By Owner Feb 23, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
I see! I've since moved that project into scraps, it does have a lot of problems. I did a lot of research on it, but not enough. That was way back when I was first getting into alternate history, and I was more focused on telling a story than making it plausible (I was also learning how to make maps at that time, so in the later maps I put more time into the actual art of the piece rather than the historical content). Quite a few of my maps are that way, actually. Well I'm glad my series could have an effect on somebody, even if it wasn't the greatest!
Reply
:iconparasky:
Parasky Featured By Owner Feb 23, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Oh! and I live in SE Kansas, and based on this map my town would be about half an hour from the Confederate border... Should Two Americas me be worried about that?
Reply
:iconbruiser128:
bruiser128 Featured By Owner Feb 22, 2014
Just wondering but what app do you need to create cartography like this.
Reply
:icondafreak47:
DaFreak47 Featured By Owner Feb 22, 2014  Student Digital Artist
The free app is Sketch Book Express.

I use Sketch Book Pro. It cost money, but has more layers, more options, and larger canvases.
Reply
:iconbruiser128:
bruiser128 Featured By Owner Feb 22, 2014
Is it restricted to just Apple products?
Reply
:icondafreak47:
DaFreak47 Featured By Owner Feb 22, 2014  Student Digital Artist
I wouldn't know, I only use Apple Products at the moment. The main thing to look for in an art app is layers. 
Reply
:iconbruiser128:
bruiser128 Featured By Owner Feb 23, 2014
So what are layers exactly?
Reply
:icondafreak47:
DaFreak47 Featured By Owner Feb 23, 2014  Student Digital Artist
Multiple canvases on top of each other that you can hide, delete, or change the opacity of.
Reply
:iconbruiser128:
bruiser128 Featured By Owner Feb 23, 2014
Oooh. Thanks^^

Can I ask your opinion on an alternate history idea?
Reply
:icondafreak47:
DaFreak47 Featured By Owner Feb 23, 2014  Student Digital Artist
Sure, as long as you realize I'll probably start making suggestions
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconjamesvf:
JamesVF Featured By Owner Feb 22, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
Did the U.S. go a little state happy when they organized Canada? I mean, I guess it's possible, but on the whole I don't think that Canadians were very accustomed to being part of a state, so maybe organizing them into territories indefinitely would make them more comfortable. Also, I feel like Costa Rico would be a terrible place to tunnel across for a canal. I mean, it was a massive endeavor for us just to go through Panama.

Also, this is more for my own morbid curiosity than a criticism, but how do you think the Confederacy could mesh all of this federal action and administrating territories when they revolted (at least under the guise of) states rights? Do you figure they'd just give up like when we drafted the Articles of Confederation and switch to a Constitution but no 14th Amendment?
Reply
:icondafreak47:
DaFreak47 Featured By Owner Feb 22, 2014  Student Digital Artist
When the U.S.A. first took control of British North America in the late 1860s, it organized the whole region into two or three large territories under military governors. The territories stayed sparsely populated until the 1880s and 1890s when American miners and farmers flooded the area in search of profit. By 1900 the area had been populated by enough Americans to be split into square territories and admitted as states, such as was the case in the OTL Midwest. All in all, the second generation of Canadian-Americans identified themselves as Republican, or maybe even Populist.

Up the San Juan River and cut across southern Rivas. Not too difficult. Probably cost lives of thousands of slaves "immune to tropical diseases", but who cares.

Yeah I figure that in order for any southern victory scenario to be possible, the CSA will have to adopt some sort of central government capable of holding the states together. If anything, they would have seen that during the Civil War, being that Davis couldn't even control his own state governors.
Reply
:iconkuusinen:
Kuusinen Featured By Owner Feb 22, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Nice and original idea, I like it :)
Reply
:icondafreak47:
DaFreak47 Featured By Owner Feb 22, 2014  Student Digital Artist
Thanks. Original, not so much. Well thought out, yep.
Reply
:iconottovonsuds:
OttoVonSuds Featured By Owner Feb 22, 2014
Nice. I prefer the more old-style relatively minimalist map aesthetics.
Reply
:icondafreak47:
DaFreak47 Featured By Owner Feb 22, 2014  Student Digital Artist
Thanks. Sometimes it's nice to get back to the basics.
Reply
Add a Comment: