Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA by DaFreak47 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA by DaFreak47

Behold, the beauty and power of the American Empire! MUAHAHAHA!!!!

 

I did this in response to a map made my SPARTAN-127. It took me quite some time to get started, but once I did I couldnt stop. It's not completely done, and it might never be given the amount of time Ive put into it, but I like how it's turned out so far.

 

Albeit, the American SW states resemble the SOaP Universe by TheAresProject, and I will admit that they are the source of the inspiration, I did not steal the idea. The proposal to purchase Baja California and parts of northern Sonora and Chihuahua was an actual part of history that we both put into our maps. It is an eloquent idea.

 

Here's a little bit of history.

 

1846 - Negotiations over the Oregon Country break down between the USA abd Great Britain. President James K. Polk pospones further negotiations until after the end of the Mexican-American War so that a more permanent solution can be found.

 

1848 - The USA defeats Mexico and forces it to sign the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. As the US Army is withdrawing from Mexican territory into now American California, negotiations over the Oregon Territory reopen, with the USA threatening (mostly just threatening) to invade and occupy the territory if Great Britain did not give up its' claim. Great Britain begrudgingly agreed and the Oregon Treaty was signed in favor of the USA. (This part is not extremely realistic, but neither was SPARTAN-127's map in concern to British Columbia)

 

1854 - Southern investors were constructing a trans-continental railroad stretching across North America from the Atlantic to the Pacific. All was going well until they reached the Arizona Territory, where the mountainous terrain would have forced them to build hundreds of miles of more train tracks north to reach California. The idea was brought up to purchase more land from Mexico and John Forsyth was sent to Mexico City to purchase all Mexican states bordering the USA. President Santa Anna promptly refused until John Forsyth threatened to send US troops to forcibly annex the territory if he did not agree. In the end, the Forsyth Purchase gave Baja California and parts of northern Sonora and Chihuahua to the USA and the southern trans-continental railroad was completed.

 

1861 - With the election of Abraham Lincoln to the presidency, the southern states seceded from the Union and formed the Confederate States of America. For the next 5 years the CSA defeated US attempts to tare the country in two and it spread it influence west to Sonora and the Colorado Territories. At its' height, the CSA stretched from Colorado to Maryland.

 

1865 - With men and supplies running low, the CSA could not hold off forever against the superior US forces and the rebellion collapsed. With the assassination of President Lincoln, a harsh reconstruction plan was adopted and states were split into military districts, some even into new states. The Dominican Republic was annexed peacefully to serve as a sanctuary for freed slaves facing persecution in the south. In time, the southern states would be readmitted to the USA.

 

1898 - The rebellion in Spanish Cuba threatened American interests in Santo Domingo and the rest of the Caribbean. Eventually, high tensions led to war with Spain in both the Caribbean and the Pacific. In less than a year the USA was occupying and annexing all Spanish holdings in the Western Hemisphere and Asia, stretching the American Empier from Puerto Rico to Visayas.

 

Im open for corrections or suggestions. Just put them in the comments.

 

 

Add a Comment:
 
:icongrisador:
grisador Featured By Owner Apr 10, 2015
WOW ! Wow! 


Wait ? No Alaska and Haiti ; How ?
Reply
:icondafreak47:
DaFreak47 Featured By Owner Apr 15, 2015  Student Digital Artist
Alaska was purchased by Great Britain after the USA took control of Vancouver, because it needed British North America to have access to the Pacific. There just wasn't any reason to annex Haiti, which was not the case in Cuba, the Dominican Republic, and Puerto Rico.
Reply
:icongrisador:
grisador Featured By Owner Apr 16, 2015
Damn Brits acting First ! Poor Soviet Russia Federation; they are really out of Money :D

Do you have a World map Version ?


Well maybe the most simplest reason is 'controlling the Entire Carribeans ? ' ---and; of course ; get all the money from its resources and tourism ?
Reply
:icondafreak47:
DaFreak47 Featured By Owner May 8, 2015  Student Digital Artist
I can't say whether or not the USSR was formed in this timeline. This map is something of a standalone. In any case, the Russians didn't sell Alaska because it was low on money. It was a preemptive strategy to cut their losses in the Western Hemisphere before the British took it from them by force. 

You often find that geopolitics are never "simple". Even at the time, Haiti was an underdeveloped and militant Caribbean nation, populated by the French-speaking descendants of African slaves. Unlike the Dominican Republic, which elected to be annexed by the United States (as well as the French and Spanish), Haiti fought vehemently to remain independent and was more densely populated. In addition, there was no call by southern interests to annex Haiti as there was to annex Cuba. Tourism alone is never a driving interest in geographic expansion, especially not by force. Who wants to vacation on an island inhabited by revolting natives with a history of violence toward foreign occupiers? The most the USA would ever do is occupy Haiti for a long enough period to protect its own interests and roots out threats.

One last note. "Controlling the entire Caribbean" might be the farthest thing from the "simplest reason" there is. At the time, the Caribbean was ruled separately by five different European powers. All of which the USA sought positive relations with. The amount of money many of these island colonies were making was more than the USA would have been willing to spend. In OTL, the USA only gained Puerto Rico through war with Spain and the Virgin Islands when Denmark's hectic national security forced it to consider selling.

Sorry for the long reply. Been a while and its good to be back. 
Reply
:icongrisador:
grisador Featured By Owner May 9, 2015
Britain is really seem the Boss of this timeline; Subduing Russia huh ? Britain is really strong (Or Strongk !)

I slightly mean a Joke in there but You are right indeed  Japan emote 
Never Understand why Haiti so want to be İndependent; the USA maybe 'advance' there... But given the circumstances of that time; their desire to be 'left alone' seems logical

Really ? that is really seem like : This nonsense really Not Worths it.... 

Don't mind ! :D
Making alternate histories is awesome and your's are quite İnteresting Nod  (And with Very Good Art material; A very rare match !)
Reply
:icondafreak47:
DaFreak47 Featured By Owner May 11, 2015  Student Digital Artist
The pressure Britain applied on Russia, during and after the Crimean War, isn't part of alternate history. Great Britain really did have the Russian government wanting to cut their losses in North America. That's how the USA ended up with Alaska in our timeline. Britain was just that strongk.

It makes sense with perspective. All Haitians were either former slaves or descendants of slaves, and were oppressed for hundreds of years by the French before winning their independence. And even then, the French didn't immediately back down. It took multiple attempts to finally push the French out for good. Any attempt by the 'white man' to instill influence on Haiti would have been seen as an attempt to subdue its independent people. Its no wonder they were so independent.

Thanks!
Reply
:icongrisador:
grisador Featured By Owner May 12, 2015
I can't believe Britain is (Once ?) this much Storng/k :O  

Their stroy is just really like : They have a World-wide Empire and They really screwed Up !


After I read that I gave them Right, they deserve to be Free at least Once, One can only hope that Timeline USA is MultiRacial and aren't oppose the Blacks

Very Welcome :D
Reply
:icondafreak47:
DaFreak47 Featured By Owner May 12, 2015  Student Digital Artist
I would say that controlling a "worldwide empire" would be an indication of their strength. 
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconarminius1871:
Arminius1871 Featured By Owner Feb 22, 2015  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Fantastic, what about doing an alternate history map, where all of North America is united?
Reply
:icondafreak47:
DaFreak47 Featured By Owner Feb 23, 2015  Student Digital Artist
Thanks. A lot of people have already done similar alt. history maps, and I often find them unrealistic. I tend to stay away from ASBs and wanks, and there aren't a whole lot of POD's in American history which would allow for such a nation. There were just too many differences of opinion. Maybe a future map, but I tend to steer clear of the future as of now. 
Reply
:iconroccodog1:
Roccodog1 Featured By Owner Aug 30, 2014
One of the more believable "'Merica expands everywhere" maps. I love the style, with the early 20th Century look. Keep up the good work
Reply
:icondafreak47:
DaFreak47 Featured By Owner Sep 7, 2014  Student Digital Artist
Thanks! This Merica is actually smaller in land area than the USA of OTL. 
Reply
:iconroccodog1:
Roccodog1 Featured By Owner Oct 18, 2014
Good point, no alaska.

You should show what would happen after a world war, if it took over any other countries, that would be interesting
Reply
:icondafreak47:
DaFreak47 Featured By Owner Oct 18, 2014  Student Digital Artist
Some people have insinuated that such an American would find itself on the opposite side of a global conflict from Great Britain, but in a scenario such as thing, I don't immeditely understand why this would have to be so. After all, the USA was just about as aggressive toward Great Britain in this timeline as it was OTL.
Reply
:iconroccodog1:
Roccodog1 Featured By Owner Edited Oct 19, 2014
Yeah, I mean its not like America is just conquering everything, it just seems to have a bit more of an expansionist mindset. We almost did take over Cuba, but decided against it after the Spanish-American War, but we did  almost all of Spain's territory. The only changes seem to be more land either bought or taken over from Mexico and maybe some more land included when we purchased the Oregon territory. Its nice seeing a realistic "what-if" scenario that could have happened with some one else in power at the time. Again, keep up the good work! 

Oh, and I like how you kept the states that existed before the time shift basically the same shape. You have no idea how many people make a map like this only to change something that makes no sense to change.
Reply
:icondafreak47:
DaFreak47 Featured By Owner Oct 19, 2014  Student Digital Artist
Its not even that people in this timeline believed in Manifest Destiny any more than people in the OTL. The leaders of this timeline simply acted on those drives in a way that resulted in a more diverse United States, but not at all a larger one. In regard to Cuba, it was actually decided, either right before the conflict or at the very beginning of it, that Cuba would not be annexed under any circumstance, and that the USA's only motives would be the freedom of the Cuban people and the protection of vested American interests on the island. And the reason for that? Sugar. The internal production of sugar in the USA centered in Colorado, which would have suffered if the import tariffs of Cuban sugar were lifted. The rest of he Spanish territories that we did or didn't annex, have more or less to do with whether or not we actually physically took them from the Spanish during the war, such as Puerto Rico, the Philippines, or Guam. The rest of the Spanish colonies simply weren't under our control, specifically because there was no need to take them in the first place. The land gained from Mexico is an actually proposed border that predates, and would eventually become, the Gadsden Purchase. The Oregon Country gain is the result of uncompromising behavior, that could have led to further hostilities with Britain if not had been for the purchase of Alaska from Russia by Great Britain, negating any need for a conflict. But the Oregon Country was never purchased. It was a political compromise. That last part referencing alternate leadership is very accurate. Thanks!

I make it a point to be historically accurate when it comes to US states. The practice of cartography is not for the whimsical or illogical. It is for the rational dreamer who has history on his side.  
Reply
:iconpytko3:
pytko3 Featured By Owner May 22, 2014
Have the U.S. ally with Germany and the Central Powers in World War 1.  Then have them win and take over most of North America.Popcorn 
Reply
:icondafreak47:
DaFreak47 Featured By Owner May 22, 2014  Student Digital Artist
I don't see why they would do that in this scenario, and I don't make changes without reason.
Reply
:iconminecrafroger:
minecrafroger Featured By Owner Oct 4, 2014  Hobbyist Writer
a new party wins the electshons and they wanted to united north amarica, when it did't work peacefully they used WW1 to gain more power, and wile Mexico's and Canada's allies are fighting in Europe, Amarica started 'operashon UNITE' and take over Canada and Mexico.
Reply
:icondafreak47:
DaFreak47 Featured By Owner Oct 4, 2014  Student Digital Artist
I guess that's acceptable.
Reply
:iconminecrafroger:
minecrafroger Featured By Owner Oct 4, 2014  Hobbyist Writer
and then finished there march at the Vermat canall, makeing North Amarica and the cribean under one flag.

WW1 ends with the Euro-amarica powers (central powers) winning, Britten was one of the hardest hit and a leader starts to arose from it, blameing the iris for there loss-
Reply
:iconsnakewrangler08:
snakewrangler08 Featured By Owner May 13, 2014
I have to say, this is a very well-researched and thought-out map. Whatever program you use, it's pretty cool. This is definitely in my top 10 map favorites. I salute you.I salute you! 
Reply
:icondafreak47:
DaFreak47 Featured By Owner May 14, 2014  Student Digital Artist
Thanks! I used Photoshop 8. Its pretty simple.
Reply
:iconsnakewrangler08:
snakewrangler08 Featured By Owner May 14, 2014
Ok, thanks. You're welcome.
Reply
:iconnomadicsky:
NomadicSky Featured By Owner May 13, 2014
I would think without a coast Mississippi and Alabama would be a single state, but this is still possible. I like how you divided Texas.
Reply
:icondafreak47:
DaFreak47 Featured By Owner May 14, 2014  Student Digital Artist
"With the assassination of President Lincoln, a harsh reconstruction plan was adopted and states were split into military districts, some even into new states."

Same thing as the other one pretty much.
Reply
:iconemmanueljmoreno:
emmanueljmoreno Featured By Owner May 4, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
What could have been.
Reply
:icondafreak47:
DaFreak47 Featured By Owner May 5, 2014  Student Digital Artist
Manifest Destiny for the win
Reply
:iconcheeseburgertom:
CheeseburgerTom Featured By Owner Apr 18, 2014
I think in this scenario Alabama might move its capital to Birmingham around 1900 (maybe the 1903 constitution relocates it).  It would be a lot more central.  With so much of the Black Belt removed though, I am not sure the 1903 constitutional convention would have happened or succeeded.  

I could see Jim Crow laws never reaching the extent they did in OTL in Alabama or Mississippi as it would have been a lot harder for the Bourbon democrats to drive a wedge between poor whites and blacks without a large black population to demonize.

Mobile meanwhile would be the capital of a majority black state that would be hard to gerrymander for white control.  The Exoduster movement may well have been refocused on it.  With a more viable settlement target for the Exodusters the whole history of black people in America might have been changed.
Reply
:icondafreak47:
DaFreak47 Featured By Owner Apr 25, 2014  Student Digital Artist
I can see that, though, as you said, the absence of a large black minority in Alabama might alter the state's political events substantially. Jackson is definitely the state with the largest black population. The military districts of Jackson, Ozark, Lincoln, and Franklin (along with the state of Kanawha) were set up as havens for freed slaves looking for new opportunities in the South and to avoid a mass northern migration. While some went to Franklin and Ozark, the vast majority of the black population relocated to Jackson. 
Reply
:iconcheeseburgertom:
CheeseburgerTom Featured By Owner Apr 26, 2014
I think you'd definitely see a big change in things in Alabama and Mississippi, and perhaps major changes in Southern history as a whole depending on how effective these places were at attracting Freedmen.

Often lost in the shuffle is that generally there was agreement in the South after the Civil War that things had changed and while black voters might be mitigated in some cases through ballot stuffing this could really only be pulled off in districts that were fairly evenly split amongst black and white voters.  Those seats with overwhelming black majority population generally had fair elections, and as a result between the end of Reconstruction and 1900 saw the same number of black members of Congress elected in the South as Reconstruction did.  The end result of this though was that in the election of 1892 (I think) you saw an alignment of poor white voters and black voters under the Progressive Party that came very close to tossing the Democrats out of power in Southern statehouses. As a result the Democratic  Party began passing Jim Crow laws and demonizing black people to draw poor white voters into the Democratic camp.

Such a strategy seems unlikely to have been effective or even conceived in a world where states with white majorities would have relatively small black populations instead of relatively large black populations as the South does in OTL.
Reply
:iconcheeseburgertom:
CheeseburgerTom Featured By Owner Apr 26, 2014
Oh and Mississippi would likely move its capital too, but the only other sizable cities in Mississippi are on the periphery of the state.  Maybe Tupelo but even it is pretty far north.  As the joke goes Mississippi has two capitals, Memphis in the north and New Orleans in the south.  
Reply
:iconsnakewrangler08:
snakewrangler08 Featured By Owner Apr 13, 2014
How many states in this map?
Reply
:icondafreak47:
DaFreak47 Featured By Owner Apr 16, 2014  Student Digital Artist
64 or 65.
Reply
:iconsnakewrangler08:
snakewrangler08 Featured By Owner Apr 17, 2014
Cool.
Reply
:iconroadtripdog:
RoadTripDog Featured By Owner Apr 8, 2014
Looks like there is a friend of Absaroka here - Vote Longmire for Sheriff!

I suggest separating Chicago from the rest of Illinois. When I was young, the city and the rest of the state were about equal in power, now the city sucks the life out of the rest of the state. Also there is a constant tremor among voters and agitators to split California into 2, 3, 4 or even 5 states. Some want to split off San Francisco by itself because no other part of the state wants them. Sort of like an American Monte Carlo city/state.
Reply
:icondafreak47:
DaFreak47 Featured By Owner Apr 9, 2014  Student Digital Artist
I used to agree with the creation of a state of Chicago, but really there's no point in putting it on a map. The United States government simply does not create new states out of old ones because of regional differences. Never has there been a case where a single city was split from a state and made into its own. It just doesn't happen. In California, there would have to be a really good reason for breaking it up into 5 states, and it probably wouldn't be a "beneficial" reason. The split between north and south is the only partition that makes sense in this particular timeline. 
Reply
:iconroadtripdog:
RoadTripDog Featured By Owner Apr 9, 2014
A simple north/south split of California would not change a thing, makes no economic or political sense and no one here supports it. This is the initiative now working to collect enough signatures to put on the November 2014 ballot in California: www.forbes.com/sites/travisbro… Of course getting it on the ballot is easy compared to getting it passed by the voters. Then there's Congress. Then there's party politics. California has been gerrymandered to benefit the Democrats who now have a lock on California. However, California is much more conservative than most people think, it's just that all the districts are arranged for one party's benefit. I doubt very much that the Democrats would look favorably on six states where at least two of them would likely be red states and one purple. They will fight that tooth and nail. In a previous proposal about 10 or 15 years ago the position emerged to split SF on its own because literally, no other proposed division of California wanted SF, it's simply sucks up too much tax and that isn't likely to change. But the real politics in California is water. There is not enough of it, and in drought years everyone screams for more than their share. Parts of the state (like the Sacramento delta) have water, some other counties are desert and some aren't. It's a simple battle - the ones who have water want to keep it, and you know the rest. The ones who don't have water are now commanding more votes than those who have it, and that's going to break something because water is money, water is survival. LA wants to water its lawns, the conservationists want water for whatever plant or fish or animal is dying, and California agriculture is the 500 lb. gorilla in the room. I've already seen some of the local water fights and when it turns nasty it becomes emotional and the need for water is so basic to survival that there will be bloody (figuratively or literally) fights. Unfortunately when the feds jump in, they make it worse. One would think by now that desalinization would have been made less expensive but until an unsolvable water shortage hits CA, it won't happen. Some of the oil kingdoms in the Middle East desalinate, but they have lots of petrodollars to pay for it.

There are many more groups advocating secession from either the Union or from their state. The chances for any of them to gain what they want is between zero and nothing at this time, but with the country becoming so angry and polarized we may see voter initiatives pass, again with little hope for its realization, while the anger and polarization gets sharper. I was born when Truman was president and I have never seen this country in such a downhill hot mess. Growing up and through middle age I always felt I could have a good future. Today, I don't believe it, the middle class is shrinking faster than I could ever have imagined. We are living off our wealth, not creating enough to sustain the need or the greed. And it's not one party - it is the both of them, they are guilty of mass corruption and their selfishness knows no limits. These are the things that will drive future nation/state/city boundaries, not the diversion stuff fed to us by the political parties that is in the newspapers today.

Finally, whether the feds have ever split a city from a state or whether they should or whether they ever will are separate discussions. Again, at this time I wouldn't bet on it happening anytime soon. But in the case of Chicago, it is weighing down the rest of the state horribly. Chicago has the votes to make Illinois dance so there will never be a split unless something happens to force it. Again, the feds and party politics won't let it happen. And so the pressures build.
Reply
:icondafreak47:
DaFreak47 Featured By Owner Apr 9, 2014  Student Digital Artist
At the moment I'm in a hurry, and I promise I'll read this whole message later, if not tonight, but from reading the first sentence I noticed you missed one small detail. ITTL Colorado (South California) was split prior to the American Civil War, and for very different reasons than the ones I assume you mention in your message. In OTL, southern California was actually proposed as a state in order to allow the slave states to spread across the New Mexico Territory and benefit from the irrigation programs of southern California. Populated cities like Los Angeles, Santa Barbara, and San Diego were only small coastal towns populated mostly by Mexican settlers who had arrived there before the Mexican-American War. The political movement in your message (which I will read) has no basis in this California, as the people and politics in the region developed in a very different way. Once again, I will make sure to read the message and respond accordingly.
Reply
:iconroadtripdog:
RoadTripDog Featured By Owner Apr 10, 2014
Taking a second look, I think that I may have misunderstood your map. I was looking at it from the perspective of modern day geopolitics and that's where my train of thought became derailed and I got caught up in my old curmudgeon persona. It is interesting to study what may or may not have been but for a few small twists and turns in history. I know the CSA desperately wanted to get to the Pacific (interesting how that would have complicated things for the North) and there is some interesting history of how they tried to do that.

But I do like the idea of the state of Absaroka.
Reply
:icondafreak47:
DaFreak47 Featured By Owner Apr 25, 2014  Student Digital Artist
As do I! No problem with the misunderstanding. This is a map of how I think the USA could have been, not how I think that it should be.
Reply
:iconspartan-127:
SPARTAN-127 Featured By Owner Mar 18, 2014
It seems I never commented on this, so I just want to say that I flipped to hell out when I saw this, but y'know in a good way.
Reply
:icondafreak47:
DaFreak47 Featured By Owner Mar 19, 2014  Student Digital Artist
Yes! I had meant to finish this off with rivers and more cities like you did on your Canada map, but I succumbed to my own laziness. It was probably due to the fact that the tool I used to use to make colorful outlines on the states has stopped working so I had to do each state outline by hand, twice if you count the fact that each state has a smaller darker outline inside of the thicker one.

Did you notice that I renamed British Columbia "Washington"? I did that just for you ;)
Reply
:iconspartan-127:
SPARTAN-127 Featured By Owner Mar 20, 2014
I cracked up when I saw that! I can't help but think that the Japanese are going to get curb stomped in the early 40's, assuming, ya'know, fascism and all that. I am glad to see we still got the Turks, Caicos, Jamaica and the Caymans ITTL.
Reply
:icondafreak47:
DaFreak47 Featured By Owner Mar 20, 2014  Student Digital Artist
...I'm a little embarrassed to admit that for the past year every time I heard someone say "curb stomp", I thought that they had said "Kurd stomp" and I always wondered how such a thing became slang.
Reply
:iconspartan-127:
SPARTAN-127 Featured By Owner Mar 21, 2014
Aside from Saddam Hussein, I don't think anyone else has ever said "Kurd Stomp".
Reply
:icondafreak47:
DaFreak47 Featured By Owner Mar 21, 2014  Student Digital Artist
My bad! :D
Reply
:icondrcowandrewbloodie:
DrCowAndrewBloodie Featured By Owner Feb 26, 2014  Student Artist
YOU
Reply
:icondafreak47:
DaFreak47 Featured By Owner Feb 26, 2014  Student Digital Artist
ME!!! :D
Reply
:icondrcowandrewbloodie:
DrCowAndrewBloodie Featured By Owner Feb 27, 2014  Student Artist
Y
O
U
!
!
!
!
!
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×
Download JPG 6056 × 6465




Details

Submitted on
November 26, 2013
Image Size
4.2 MB
Resolution
6056×6465
Submitted with
Sta.sh
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
9,027
Favourites
114 (who?)
Comments
88
Downloads
132
×