HOME | DD

MrpanuchosLokos [2022-05-25 02:21:24 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Historyman14 [2017-02-25 15:03:41 +0000 UTC]

So how long till the South collapses?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

IronPiedmont1996 [2016-04-06 01:46:38 +0000 UTC]

Are there any flags for these countries?

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

revinchristianhatol [2016-03-21 12:25:30 +0000 UTC]

The Cortez Territory should still be split in by the 28th parallel in 1888 (like in OTL), whereas the part south of the 28th was renamed "Saint Luke".

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

bruiser128 [2015-11-08 10:02:49 +0000 UTC]

British North America would have a more reckless foreign policies given
that they now have buffer state between them and the USA.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Whiteshore1 [2015-09-20 11:47:01 +0000 UTC]

Who were the Northern version of the "Fire-Eaters"? Garrisonian abolitionists(the "No union with slaveholders" type)

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

ACAurelius [2015-09-03 05:53:33 +0000 UTC]

Neat map, but the POD does not make much sense, historically speaking. There really was not much more "success" the United States could have had in the Mexican American War. In OTL, if the US government had desired it, it could have annexed all these territories and more (heck, probably could have annexed the entirety of Mexico is the US Gov't so wished). But the government decided not to. And like Haegun mentioned, there were several generals and politicians (mostly from the South, but from the North and Midwest as well, who did want to annex everything from Veracruz on up). The reasons the US did not were four fold (there were more reasons, but these were the major four):

One, at the time, the United States was still very much like the Founders envisioned it to be: a federation of sovereign states, not a centralized central government with slightly more autonomous provinces (like it became after the Civil War). For instance, nowadays, people say "The United States *is*", whereas back then, people would say "The United States *are*". Basically it was more like a beefed up European Union than a single central state. Anyhow, for such a nation, digesting all of Mexico, or even a significant part of it, would simply be too much to handle. True, the US had done such a thing before, with the Louisiana Purchase, but with the LP, the US was digesting a bunch of land that had very low population density (there were American Indian tribes, of course, including several powerful ones, like the Blackfoot, Kiowa, Sioux, etc.; but they were very few people in the lands of the LP, relatively speaking, and no "civilized" population centers to speak of (France had had only the very, very most rudimentary system of what were basically glorified trade outposts). With Mexico, however, there you had a land with *a lot* of people. Mexicans and Natives both; though rather fewer Natives by that time. It's not acknowledged much these days, but the Mexicans, as their Spanish forefathers had been, were far more cruel o American Indians than the United States, and were far more *efficient* at killing them off (It's not mentioned much, because with the modern narrative, it's only supposed to be the evil, cruel, greedy white people who did bad things to native Tribes, not Mexicans, who we are told, were totally peaceful, innocent POC's who lived in solidarity with the Tribes that lived in Mexico...*sigh*, but I digress), but this also left the Tribes who were still around the toughest around: The Apaches, and, more important, the Comanche. The Comanche were a *real* tough tribe, it was for a good reason that the Comanches were called "The Mongols of the Americas", because of both their masterful horsemanship, their great prowess as Missile Cavalry, and their savagery. Not just savage in the "savage = american indian" way, but in the genuine use of the term, they were horribly savage (though in some other respects, outside of warfare, their culture was quite admirable, they were legitimately "free" in the way so few others are, they were highly"egalitarian", but not in the naive and foolish communistic or left-anarchist sense, but the more practical, and more important, social and political equality, every warrior was his own man who could go where he pleased, but again, I digress), even really "tough" Tribes, like the Apache and Kiowa, were terrified of them. So basically, the US government knew that suddenly taking on such a populous land with a lot of warring factions (the local Mexicans vs the Native American Tribes.. often in the countryside, this meant hardcore, almost Southeastern European-style bloodfueds that would go on for eternity, and would involve much more violence) would be a nightmare to try to maintain.

Secondly, many US politicians feared exactly what you describe in your AltHistory summary: That these new states and territories would be strongly pro-slavery (The Mexicans had even fewer qualms about human chattel slavery than the most stereotypical Southern Planter, and they hated black folk fiercely). So most Northern politicians (As well as their southern counterparts) knew that if they brought in all of Mexico, or even just the northern provinces (the Bajas, Sonora, Chihuahua, etc. they would basically be handing Legislative control to the Slave States. Thirdly, most of the population in Mexico were both non-white (or well, there were plenty of "white" Hispanics who were almost entirely Castillian in breeding and temperament, however here were many more Mestizos), and even "worse" (the the average American's point of view), they were almost entirely Catholics. The US at the time was almost entirely protestant (in one sect or another), and back then they took their religion seriously. And they took their suspicion or outright loathing of the Pope and Catholics seriously as well (Besides the religious differences, most Americans thought that a good Catholic could not also be a good American, because it was thought that  a Catholic would always serve a "higher power" that the US government or the US Constitution: the Pope. Anti-Catholicism was already in the air at the time, because this was the beginning of the major European immigration period in America History. Most of the immigrants coming through were Irish Catholics, French Catholics (most of the French Huguenots had already immigrated to the US in  the 170ss)& German (Bavarian and other catholic parts of Germany Catholics. Also, in much more smaller numbers at the time; Italians, French, Polish, and Greeks. The first three were all Catholics, and the Greeks, despite being Eastern Greek Orthodox... well, let's just say most Americans could not differentiate eh two at the time. In fact, during the Mexican-American War, the Mexicans had a unit of Irish catholic volunteers (The San Patricio Brigade, IIRC) fighting for them... so most Americans were deeply troubled at the prospect of bringing in millions of Catholics into the US body politic overnight.

And Fourth, which is a much less important reason, but some of the higher ups in the US government were worried that seizing all of, or significant parts of, Mexico would draw the wrath from European nations (France Spain, and Austria specifically.) Officially, the Monroe Doctrine was still in effect, and European nations were unofficially not allowed to interfere with the affairs of the Western Hemisphere. But they, just as unofficially, had key interests in certain nations in the Americas, including Mexico. While the US military at the time was more than strong enough to steamroll the Mexican Army... military realists knew that the US would have a tough time fighting a war with an alliance of European nations + their colonial forces (who were already stationed in the Americas, and thus could harass or even outright attack US forces to keep them busy until troops from Europe arrived.

So yeah, I do not see why these conditions would have changed. Because as I've explained,t he US could have taken all this territory after the war anyhow, but elected not to for the reasons I listed above. Otherwise, though, it's a super cool map and a very interesting Alt history premise. Especially the premise that their still is a Secession War, but it is the *Southern*  States that remain the USA, and the Federal Union troops are the ones who have to become their won new nation. Keep up the good work!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Haegun [2015-06-10 20:11:50 +0000 UTC]

Some in the US south had the idea basically draw a line from Veracruz to the west coast of Mexico and annex everything north of that after the Mexican War.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

NomadicSky [2015-05-13 19:59:05 +0000 UTC]

Deseret should go its own way, or be part of greater California, but otherwise awesome.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Zifker [2015-04-26 19:18:30 +0000 UTC]

I don't know which I like more:

The thought of the North bitch slapping the south back into submission, or the thought of the South getting bitch slapped for trying to make the North submit.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

EdenianPrince [2015-04-26 17:15:51 +0000 UTC]

When the US becomes what everyone actually thinks it is  

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

CheeseburgerTom [2015-04-26 16:30:09 +0000 UTC]

I move to rename Chihuahua as that name is an embarrassment.  It only makes one think of those disgusting dogs.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2