Talk:Two Americas

Ideas
Having two nations that are constantly at odds with each other, with a border over a thousand miles long, would be almost impossible. The speculation that the Confederate states would side with the Axis means that a very bloody war undoubtedly would be fought across North America as well. With the home front so large, the US forces would lack the manpower to join in the war in Europe or Asia. The only way that the two Americas could survive the World Wars would be if they were allies.

Also, the "unofficial" law, that allowed free association between citizenships (and thus presidents) after WW2, would be highly unlikely due to the animosity between the two nations in that war.

And one more thing, the borders of the states, in some cases are not based on natural boundaries. This would mean that highly armored forts, or a very high fence, would be necessary where rivers and mountains are absent. Friendly checkpoints are one thing, a demilitarized zone over a thousand miles long is another thing altogether.

If these Americas are so different as to be on opposite sides in WW2, the dynamics of the late nineteenth and whole twentieth century would be quite different indeed. The likelihood that the US could grow to be a world power in the Spanish-American war (fought of the shores of the CS, no less) would be lessened. It is more likely that the CS would have more of a stake in that conflict, and could very well have become the superpower instead.

I suggest that either the "Two Americas" be allies, or that the two not be involved in WW2 at all. If there was no North American involvement in the war, of course, the results would very likely be quite different. Perhaps, instead of being on "opposite sides" in that war, the war in the Pacific could have been waged by one, and the war in Europe by the other. I suggest, for example, that the US would have had to declare war on the Japanese, entering the war in the Pacific. When the Axis declares war on the US in return, though, the CS takes the challenge instead. Perhaps the CS could have prevailed so well in the Spanish-American war that it would have been "the" America with which Europe dealt anyway. This might have been especially true if the European powers had helped the CS in their war for independence.

This whole scenario, I guess, would qualify as another TL. Even as I discuss it, it seems the best way to deal with this. If I don't get any response to this, that is probably the best avenue for me to take on this. Being a southerner (though born in California by chance of a "Yankee" mother and Southern father), I think I might be able to make this work better with my own timeline. Anyway, if you have read this far, thank you for your attention.--SouthWriter 17:08, December 31, 2009 (UTC)

Alaska and Hawwaii?--Fero 04:20, February 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * Alaska and Hawaii are part of the USA. As for SouthWriter, I can see how you would get at it. I do see some flaws in it, but the way I see this timeline is very different. I guess I was more thinking about the POV and the present in this timeline that I did in between. I do like the idea you have for this timeline, but I need to think about it more. — " Comic Sans MS&quot;; color:#00FF00" _rte_style="font-family: &quot;Comic Sans MS&quot;; color:#00FF00" _rte_attribs=" style=&#039;font-family: Comic Sans MS; color:#00FF00&#039;"&gt;Nuclear " Comic Sans MS&quot;; color:#0000FF" _rte_style="font-family: &quot;Comic Sans MS&quot;; color:#0000FF" _rte_attribs=" style=&#039;font-family: Comic Sans MS; color:#0000FF&#039;"&gt;Vacuum 17:33, February 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * I have gotten so much into the 1983: Doomsday Timeline that I have totally lost any conviction concerning how a truce between North and South would go. However, I think that for the nations to continue side by side, they would most likely have to be allies. I can see your point about those being born in the south, but "siding with" the north, might be considered eligible to serve there, since the government in Washington, DC (techincally "in" the south!) never recognized the independency of the Confederacy during the war in OTL. However, it does not go the other way. The constitution of the Confederacy clearly states that it's president has to have been born in the states that had succeeded, or were "claimed" by the government of the CSA (states that had two competing governments). The Confederacy never claimed any of the northern states, and would thus consider the USA to be a foreign country.


 * Bottom line, the list of presidents (the major effort so far on this timeline) should not have northerners (like the Bushes) serving as president. Lower offices would allow foreign born candidates, but not the presidency and vice-presidency.SouthWriter 20:06, February 9, 2010 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this timeline. In fact, I couldn't sleep so I got up and was going to do some research. Unfortunately, that included reading the very depressing "No Gettysburg" timeline. In that timeline the US ends up being allied to Germany in the early 20th century, leading to a longer WW1 and, after a short period an even bloodier WW2. Anyway, I looked into Hawai'i -- the US had a big part in the overthrow of a legitimate monarchy there. Without the influence of James Blount (former US minister to Hawai'i against the overthrow) or former CS General John Morgan (Senator, Foreign Relations Commitee for the overthrow) -- both southerners -- it is doubtful that Hawai'ii would have become a territory in the 1890's. If Hawai'i was not part of the US, president Roosevelt would not have sent his warships and planes to the islands. I don't know about the Phillipines, though. Your plan for the colaboration in the Spanish-American War seems feasable, but I don't know if it would have been in a weaker US's interests.

Alaska may never have been purchased, due mostly to the need of those funds for stabilizing the US government in time of war. What Russia would have done with the land -- possibly selling it instead to the British Empire -- is up to great discussion.

Boy! I have got carried away! Don't let any of this discourage you. After reading "No Gettysburg," I have a lot more respect for your musings. If I do one of the "civil war" ATL's, I think it will be one where the war never even happens -- the Supreme Court rules that the Sucession is constitutional and Lincoln is impeached for demanding war. But not before the CSA is established.SouthWriter 09:48, February 11, 2010 (UTC)


 * You sure have some good ideas. To be honest, I really find having Alaska and Hawaii being states (because they are not on the mainland), but that is more because I am OCD. But I do find the idea interesting. Hawaii (there is no way I am calling it "Hawai'i") would be the . As for Alaska, I would rather Russia just keep it (but that is why I made the Russian America timeline). I have an interesting idea, based on your idea of Britain buying Alaska, it would become a Canadian Province by today. So the USA would be down to 32 states (that depends on whether any new states are made out of another).


 * I have been reading a little more about the "Two Chinas" to get more ideas on how this timeline could work. The main reason that the PRC and the RoC are not in war today over their controlled areas is primarily due to the United States getting involved to make peace. I was thinking that in this timeline, it would be Britain who gets involved in the American Civil War, in creating peace in the region. Britain would eventually recognize the CSA as the legitimate government of the States. I believe France would still be on the side of the USA. The American-Spanish war would be solely fought between Spain and the CSA. Cuba and Puerto Rico would become territories of the CSA, while the Pacific winnings in OTL would remain under Spain for the time being. I believe the CSA would hold onto Cuba and PR more than the USA would, and both would become states of the Confederacy (so no communist Cuba). During WWI, I think the US and CS would begin neutral and take advantage of both sides (just as in OTL). The CSA would only become part of the war (on Britain's side) after the Zimmerman Telegraph). I guess in WWII, the USA and CSA would also remain neutral. Though Hawaii is not a territory of the US, I still think it would be likely that Pearl Harbor would still be a US military base (similar almost to Guantanamo). So when Japan attacks the harbor, the US gets involved in the war in the Pacific solely. I still think the CSA would show more interest in Nazi Germany in ideas than the US has in either timeline. But whether the CS would ally themselves in any way with Germany or Italy during the WWII period is currently debatable. But overall, I still think they would eventually get involved on the Allies side in Europe. So the US fights Japan, and the CSA fights Germany. After the war, the two sides see eye to eye in their similarities and form a cooperation as two brother nations.


 * I do strongly believe that Slavery will end before the 21st century. I think during the 1960s and onward, Martin Luther King, Jr. would not lead the Civil Rights Movement, but an Abolitionist Movement in the CSA (possibly). I will have to catch up on my history before I get that far, but that's enough for now. — " Comic Sans MS&quot;; color:#00FF00" _rte_style="font-family: &quot;Comic Sans MS&quot;; color:#00FF00" _rte_attribs=" style=&#039;font-family: Comic Sans MS; color:#00FF00&#039;"&gt;Nuclear " Comic Sans MS&quot;; color:#0000FF" _rte_style="font-family: &quot;Comic Sans MS&quot;; color:#0000FF" _rte_attribs=" style=&#039;font-family: Comic Sans MS; color:#0000FF&#039;"&gt;Vacuum 05:52, February 14, 2010 (UTC)

World War I
In this war, the interception of the telgram was in Washington, DC, where Theordore Roosevelt would be president in the ALT. In OTL, Roosevelt was the one who dogged Wilson to enter the war anyway. But in the telegram, the plan was to offer help in retaking the southwestern US, which in the ALT is part of the CSA. So, would this give "war monger" Roosevelt reason to go to war, to warn Wilson, or to leave him to his devices after sending the telegram on to Mexico? How devious was the old Progressive anyway?

I suppose, since it was the CSA that would have to deal with Mexico, the telgram would instead have gone Richmond, and this would indeed get the CSA into WW1. But what about Roosevelt? In our timeline he was assistant Secretary of the Navy when he resigned to fight in Cuba, winning fame and the 1900 nomination for Vice President. In the ALT, would he have done the same thing in taking over Hawaii? And would it have been such a popular thing? Perhaps just his being in place as Assistant Secretary, running things as he did, would have been enough. While president as a Progressive, Roosevelt probably was pragmatic enough to stay out of the war. The telegram came to light in Richmond only two months before he was to leave office anyway, so he could just stand back and see what the new president would do now.

It would be interesting, I suppose, to see what a smaller American presence in WW 1 would have looked like, though. What kind of peace would be established if Germany had proven more successful (though losing)? Hitler may not even have arisen, or maybe he would have risen to greater fame in a longer war. I can see where if things had gone different in WW 1 and the peace with Germany had been better managed, there may not have even been a WW 2 (at least not involving Germany). But that is another timeline!SouthWriter 22:19, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

Confederados, Spanish language
Hello, vacuum and others, i was stars a timeline about UNion/confederacy in the Spanbish version of althistory, but to go on in the right way I wish copy paste what you have here, traslate that and later make that grow up in our own spanish way, is hard to my start that timeñline from 0, I am not northamerican, but I like "play" about that history. Do you let me do that? and sorry for my english, that is why i wan write this in spanish, thank you aniway--Fero 00:54, February 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * ... There's other languages of this wiki?? Wow, now I can write in mother Russian! ^_^ If you wish to add this to there, be my guest. — Nuclear Vacuum  03:35, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Links
Do you plan on making pages for the links, or do you want them linked to wikipedia? I can make the links to wikipedia for you (if the pages exist), but links to pages made for this wiki will have to be created for "internal links" to work.SouthWriter 05:20, February 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? What links? —NuclearVacuum 15:51, February 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * The article is full of them -- underlined hyperlinks. I had not gone further than a glance.  I checked the code, and it seems that you want them to be internal links to this wiki.  There are a lot of proposed links (both in the article and the accompanying side bar) that indicate an ambitious project on your part.  I don't know how many people are actually following (viewing) your wiki, but it might be that the abundance of unworkable links iis turning many off.  With your warning on the top of the page, these links are tantalizingly forbidden from expansion by anyone who clicks on them and is given the "opportunity" to create the article.  They may come back a time or two, and seeing no expansion into these numerous links, stop coming back.  My suggestion would be to turn them into wikipedia links until you have an opportunity to expand them into supporting internal articles.  That way, clicking on the link will give the reader a clue as to where you are coming from the development of the main article that cites them in the first place.SouthWriter 18:18, February 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh! I understand and agree. I will clean it up a little soon. —NuclearVacuum 03:32, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

Flags

 * As for the maps -- Almost like you took the red state - blue state maps from the 2000 election! Except in the ALT, the "Democrats" are red.  I was noticing, though, that the number of the stars don't match, especially not on the Confederate Flag.  I think, though, that the CSA would settle on its National Flag to be the |"stars and bars" in one of it's incarnations rather than the battle flag.  As long as they did not add stripes to represent the original states they could add the stars just like the US does.  By the way, as long as they are in a state of war, does the USA continue to "claim" the states of the CSA?  If not, they would probably end up changing the stars to reflect the true states.--SouthWriter 05:11, February 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * The US used to have a star for each of the Confederate States, but when the US recognizes the sovereignty of the CSA, they remove them and keep only the stars for the United States. As for the Confederate flag, I was thinking that for some time, they used the "Stars and Bars," but during the early 20th century (primarily around WWII), they began to use the jack more. Something almost like how it came to be popular in OTL. I just find it a little weird that the Confederacy would want to continue to use the "Stars and Bars" the more they get involved with the Union over its existence. I would be like Pakistan adopting a flag similar to India. Plus the fact that the CSA stopped using it as the national flag around 1863. I do have an idea, maybe both flags would be used together. The Stars and Bars would be the civil and state flag, while the Southern Cross would be the state and war flag. I love vexillology, and I know several states do this same thing (like Serbia, Spain, Germany, and many others). I am currently debating with myself on whether to keep the thirteen stats in the Confederate flag (symbolizing the Union states to secede), or to add the new stars representing the three new states of Arizona, New Mexico, and Oklahoma. What do you think? —NuclearVacuum 15:49, February 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that, as during the "active" war, the "battle flag" would probably be the flag flown by the military (especially as a banner at sea). I think it would be the proper banner to fly in war time - Spanish-Confederate and both World Wars.  I think that the stars on both the national flag (be it the "stars and bars" or the "blood stained banner" version with the heraldic saltire) should take on the extra stars.  By the first world war that would be a total of eighteen stars, I believe, adding not only the three continental states but Cuba and Puerto Rico as well.  It seems from the wikipedia article that the saltire evolved with the war, from eleven to twelve (Missouri) and then to thirteen (Kentucky).  It stands to reason, then, that as states were added, the flags would take on more stars.  As for my preference for national flag, I admit a bias due to my admiration for the "compromise" flag that the state of Georgia (OTL) came up with.  That was a stroke of genius, removing the inflammatory "battle flag" and replacing it with a new replica of the first national flag of the Confederacy.--SouthWriter 18:02, February 20, 2010 (UTC)



New States?
I've been thinking. I was originally going to make Cuba and Puerto Rico just territories of the CSA, not states. But when you mentioned that you actually want them to be states, now I am intrigued at the idea of expanding both nations.

In the case of the Confederate States, Cuba and Puerto Rico are in, now there are 18 states. But if I leave it at 18, the Dixie Cross would be weird. To make it even, there should be three more states, and southward is the way. I have strong feelings that the CSA would have their eyes on the Bahamas, Jamaica, and the West Indies. I believe that the CSA would have a strong relation with the United Kingdom, and with the decline of the British Empire after World War II, I think the CSA would try to expand their power in the former British colonies in the Caribbean. But I think it would be by means of the CSA buying the area, and the UK agreeing to a sale. So there regions would become three new states of the Confederacy, and making it 21 states. In OTL, these regions are still part of the UK (to an extent), so I believe they are right for the taking.

As for the United States, I keep coming back to Hawaii. I think that history tends to correct itself to a degree, I keep seeing justification of Hawaii becoming a Union state, even if it is much later here than in OTL. The US would have help Hawaii become a republic, and instead of making it a territory, it would become an independent nation, but the US would hold onto Pearl Harbor (for obvious reasons). I believe that because of the expansion and success of the CSA, I believe the USA would put more time and effort into having Hawaii become a state. Another state idea that I personally like is the once proposed State of Pacifica. Pacifica was a proposed unification of the Micronesian islands (i.e., Guam). In OTL, the US gained control of these regions after World War II (something like how Germany was controlled). So again, history corrects itself as the US gains control of Guam once again. So again, the US would put more time an effort into this state becoming a reality. Now the US has 34 states. —NuclearVacuum 04:06, February 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * With the CSA and Great Britain being allies in World War 2, I can see where transfer of sovereignty could move to the CSA in the Carribean. It actually makes more sense than Cuba and Puerto Rico. If we allow for the same latitude that the USA gave to the independence of Cuba, that large island may have actually become independent rather than a territory on the way to becoming a state. I'm thinking maybe the history of the Confederacy would be more than likely to be more in favor of granting independence to an island as large as Cuba when it speaks a language not common on the mainland. Puerto Rico, in fact, may be the same way. In return, though, these independent nations (perhaps the two could become one) might be extremely loyal to their liberators. It would not be terribly difficult to arrange the stars on the battle flag, though, different schemes keep being devised - 11, 12, and 13 worked. 16 works without a star in the middle, 17 with it there. With 18 you string 10 stars one diagonal and have the other diagonal crossing it with 8, with a space in the middle (I can picture it, but to cut and paste will take a little time. 19 is tricky, but possible. And so on.


 * With the USA, the annexation of Hawai'i is certainly probable, as is adding Guam, Soma and the rest as a single state. These islands, in OTL are indeed US possessions, not just occupied as was Germany for a time. If we add those, then the US would have 34 stars in its flag in the years before re-unification (assuming it happens). The CSA would have somewhere in the range of 20 (depending on which islands became states). I'll work on the flags sometimes when I have time, but the annexation of new states seems inevitable in this timeline.SouthWriter 05:48, February 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well actually, now that you mention it, it could be possible to replace Cuba and Puerto Rico with two additional states that I was actually planing on leaving alone. Modern day Belize and Guyana were prominant British colonies in the region. It could be possible that these regions could be sold to the CSA in the manner of the rest. While Cuba and Puerto Rico would become independent. I also like the idea on a count of the Cuban Missile Crisis. What do you think of that? —NuclearVacuum 03:30, February 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * Looking at the wikipedia article on Cuba, I think that the CSA might have indeed fought the Spanish for control of the island but in 1895, rather than in 1898. This would mean that Jose Marti had gone to Miami, instead of to New York.  His efforts in OTL were futile, but in this ATL the CSA was willing to help in the battle for independence.  The CSA navy would prove superior to the Spanish forces and Cuba would become a CSA protectorate until 1902.  In this war, Spain would give up Puerto Rico as well, and it would become a territory of the CSA.  The Phillipines and Guam, though, migh not enter into the picture at all.  Cuba, though, would then probably precede as they did our timeline.  I would like to think that as president of the CSA in the mid-fifites, Eisenhower might have authorized military intervention to stop the insurrection of Batista.  Such intervention would probably have stopped the rise of Castro and his brand of communism there.  But, as you say, history corrects itself.  It is easier to go with OTL where you can.  But it probably would not be Kennedy, but rather the CSA president (TBD), who dealt with the Russians - if he would even try?  Without the a rival, Communist Russia may have been able to do just about anything they wanted.  Would the CSA have interfered with Russia in the Mediterranean?SouthWriter 22:08, February 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * i was not read the complete TL, but Cuba is full of niggers/people with dark skin, what CSA gonna do about that?

Abolition in the CSA
Here is another thing I want to bring up for discussion. I agree that in this timeline, slavery will decline in the 20th century and would have been abolished by the year 2000. I believe that after gaining sovereignty from the US (to an extent), the CSA would not be too kine on abolishing slavery after fighting for its right to exist (among other rights). As I see it, I think that slavery should be abolished after the US recognizes the CS after 1947. I believe it should happen in the late 60s or early 70s. The CSA would than evolve from a slave nation into a segregated and caste nation. —NuclearVacuum 21:49, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

"Slavery was legally ended nationwide on May 13th by the Lei Áurea ("Golden Law") of 1888, by a legal act of Isabel, Princess Imperial of Brazil. In fact, it was an institution in decline by this time (since the 1880s the country began to attract European immigrant labor instead). Brazil was the last nation in the Western Hemisphere to abolish slavery." Slavery in Brazil a good place to ideas just say a wan see a "clear two Americas version" of Military history of the United States and now Fero say by--Fero 05:59, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

Nations/list of nations
nice map, need bigger letters--Fero 23:44, March 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much!! ^_^ —NuclearVacuum 16:29, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

Points of Divergence
Hi, Nuke. In reading the Wikipedia article on the Civil War, I saw that the cruel "scorched earth" policy would not have worked if Grant had not had Philip Sheridan to call in to do the dirty work. In OTL Sheridan had narrowly escaped death in Murphreeboro while only a colonel. For his brave defense of that post he would become a Maj. General within months. I chose to have him die along with his commanders in that attack.

That might change the eventual westward expansion of the US, for Sheridan uses his same cruel "scorched earth" policy in dealing with the American Indians -- being responsible for the wholesale slaughter of millions of bison (buffalo) causing near starvation of the plains Indians and near extinction of the "buffalo." His campaign, in a way, lead to "Little Big Horn" and the slaughter there. Later, Sheridan would be instrumental in securing Yellowstone National Park.

I think a gentler approach to the American Indians would be a good touch, but if you think that the Indian Wars need to be included, then perhaps we could just have Sheridan captured at Murphreesboro.

I also moved the action back a few days to completely avoid the siege of Vicksburg. I have the Battle of Jackson won by the Confederates when reinforcements arrive late on May 14th. Jackson would later be taken by the Union but the war would shift west until President Lincoln calls on Sherman to "slash and burn" the south (in April, 1865). When that begins -- across Mississippi instead of Tennessee and Georgia, the economic impact of loss of exports brings in the British and the French. SouthWriter 22:49, May 11, 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay than. You seem to be the expert on the matter, I will leave it up to you. --NuclearVacuum 16:08, May 13, 2010 (UTC)