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)


 * Also, you may remember that Hitler was a member of 16th Bavarian Reserve Regimiment, that lost 86% of its troops in the battle; or 5 out 6 where killed. I believe it is Battle of Ypres. So, it would be easy that he was killed before the war ended.Peacedarer 22:02, March 9, 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Peacedarer, but mine was just a suggestion, and that over a year ago. Nuke and I have since began a rewrite, but we don't want to change WW2 so much - just divide the fronts between the Americans. With WW1 in OTL the Americans were late and the War may have been won even without the US. The CS of TTL is able to enter with a little bit greater force, but the outcome is the same. As I said above, the "No Hitler" scenario is another time line. SouthWriter 16:53, March 10, 2011 (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)
 * Thanks, I am far from an expert, but I will try to keep mainly to the time line outline as you now have it. I will create an "American Civil War" article in which anyone can present articles that basically show no big losses on "home soil."  By June of 1865 everything will fall apart as the Union begins to lose ground at every point.  With a "southern" president in Washington, things pretty much end up winding down anyway as Johnson's heart is still with his home state of Tennessee. SouthWriter 17:25, May 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay ^_^ --NuclearVacuum 18:01, May 13, 2010 (UTC)

Recent format undo
I thought making each page a "Heading 3" under the "Heading 2" labeled Contents would making navigating on the page easier. Eventually, each of those subheadings could have a synopsis of each of those pages to which they link. This would make going to the section on the page from a link in talk, or any other media, as easy as adding "#section name" to the page name.

However, the subheadings of a "Heading 3" are larger than simple "Bold." so I see why you undid it on cosmetic grounds. SouthWriter 04:28, May 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but that section is only for a short list, it is not a category. --NuclearVacuum 23:12, May 18, 2010 (UTC)

Japan
What about Japan? what role will Japan play in this TL? if it is going to be in this TL, I;d love to edit the Japan entry ~vexacus


 * I am currently reconsidering this timeline altogether, but on the means of the map. As for Japan, I believe the Confederacy would be primarily involved with Germany and assisting its allies Britain and France, while the United States would wish to remain neutral in the war. Personally, I am game for anything. What did you have in mind for Japan for this timeline? --NuclearVacuum 18:52, October 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry I have not been of much help since early in the summer, Nuke. I have been busy over at 1983DD. However, the course of WW2 has been written in the article on the CS. We discussed this on the talk pages, and decided that the US could not "remain neutral" if Japan attacked Pearl Harbor (which we decided WOULD end up under US control) or even the Philippines (US territory purchased after Spanish-Americas War), it could be no other way.


 * I'm assuming if this is changed, and the US never interferes in the Pacific (except for the Philippines), then perhaps war with Japan would not happen. If the presense of the US in the Philippines was not a threat, for example, Japan might only be a minor player as far as the Americas are concerned in WW2. D-Day could come sooner as there is a concentrated effort in the European theater. Japan would be "free" to expand its empire as the Americas are distracted in Europe.


 * As an absent contributor, though, I am game for changes. A weaker, divided America (Lincoln was right) might not get involved overseas at all. The Spanish American War might have only been fought int he Caribbean against the CS, for that matter. WW1 would have been a CS event (because of the Zimmerman telegram) as it has been written. WW2, then, perhaps only a European event which Japan takes advantage of. What, indeed, does Vexacus have in mind? SouthWriter 19:31, October 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * I know you haven't been active. I wasn't yelling at you XP. I was simply asking what he had in mind.

Changes to the timeline


I have been cleaning up several of my timelines, and now it is time to Two Americas. I am currently reconsidering the events and outcomes of this timeline a little bit. Nothing extreme, but primarily involved as to what the borders of the world will look like. For instance, I think I am going to be removing the Caribbean islands from Confederate control, as I an now considering that the British may not sell them the claims because of the high about of blacks and minorities on the islands, plus I think the people wouldn't wish to be merged with them. Instead, I am thinking that the CSA will expand southward into Mexican territories. I believe the border states between Mexico and the US (OTL) will become Confederate States, but with some changes. One idea I like is to combine all of Baja California and form it into the "State of Davis".

The United States would also get a makeover. As well as several new internal states (Superior and Lincoln), I am also thinking about re-adding Alaska and adding British Columbia to the US. While reading about the region for my Russian America timeline, I found out that the United States was keen on pestering the British for assisting the Confederacy by allowing the CSA to build ships in Britain. The US was hoping that the British would feel regretful and sell BC to the US. Though in OTL, the British would not do this, but would settle with the US, and pay back in other ways. Maybe with the British assisting the CSA after gaining independence, maybe British would just let them have British Columbia to get them to shut up. Who know, just a work in progress.

Other than that, I imagine the timeline not changing too much. --NuclearVacuum 19:55, October 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * Here is a map showing what I have in mind. The CSA would include portions of Mexico, as I believe the CS would jump at this if Mexico was changing governments at the time. Cuba and Puerto Rico would be states, and the entire Indian Territory (which allied itself with the CSA) would be admitted as the State of Sequoyah (since the US would not have the power to move the natives). The US would look pretty much the same, except that British Columbia is now the states of Vancouver and Cascadia. Another state called "Pacifica" (PC) combines the Micronesian islands (such as Guam, the FSM, and so on). It is still a work in progress, I also have to redesign the flags, atlases, and so on. I am not making anything official until I get it all worked out. --NuclearVacuum 20:04, October 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * I can see what you mean about BC and the British Caribbean. I am going to assume that the CS gets to annex the Northern Mexican states due to animosities in the 1910's over the border. The US handled that without too much trouble, but I can see the CS getting more involved in the Mexican civil war to an extent which ends up with a brief war (say right after WW1). As far as Pacifica, can we assume that they are annexed to Hawaii after WW2? And if so, what about the Phillipines? I'll have another look at the list of Presidents and see if I can work them around some of these changes as well. Meanwhile, back in 1983DD . . . :-) SouthWriter 21:45, October 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't really think that the British would have "just given them BC to shut them up". I don't think the Canadians would have been very supportive of that either. It's little known, but Canada was actually quite USA-phobic during the period around the civil war. They saw the USA as expansionist and largely hadn't forgiven them for the war of 1812. There was actually instances of CSA spies being given sanctuary in Canada, including an instance where Confederates robbed a bank and escaped over the border. There'd have to be some significant shifts in the British opinion of the USA, which at the time was not high because they bought Cotton from the CSA, before they gave them BC. If the Confederates won, what would make them give the US British Columbia? The british would have the CSA on their side, so America would be in no position to insist Michael Douglas 21:55, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

Well, it still is a work in progress. Pacifica would be made out of the islands the US took control of after WWII (look at this for more information). As for BC, I guess using the wording "to shut them up" is not what I was going for. What I was going for was that the US would continue to push for the annexation, and endorsing support from those in BC, leading to it being annexed. Anti-British sentiment and Canadian separatism was high in the 1870s, and the one who envisioned the annexation was the same man that negotiated the selling of Alaska. I think this might be enough to allow the selling of BC to the United States. I know the British would be more allied with the CS, but I think the British might attempt to reform relations with the US. --NuclearVacuum 01:23, October 29, 2010 (UTC)

Second round
When I originally thought of this timeline, the main idea what that the CS-US relations would lead to a similar global relations as did the PRC-ROC relations, with the CS and US fighting for dominance, recognition, and the removal of the other state. But in recent months, the timeline has shifted from what I had in mind to a completely new timeline. Nothing wrong with that at all, in fact, I like how it actually came out. The CS-US relations has moved more towards the relations that came out between the Netherlands and Belgium did after Belgium became independent, or how Prussia and Austria came out in modern history. I was thinking about changing the tensions to reflect on these two example, in which the US recognizes the CS, but the two fight for dominance, but nothing to the point of a second war. Sorry for my speech, but I had to get that out to express my mood.

Anyway, I was doing some reading, and here are two changes I have in mind.


 * I came across this article which states that the CS was in the plans to annex the neighboring Mexican states. If successful, it would allow the CS to have a port city, and assist in the war effort, leading to a different outcome. Maybe this could be a POD (if not the POD), which would lead to the war being prolonged, and causing Britain and France to step in for their own benefit, leading to the peaceful end to the war. Nothing too different from what I proposed a few weeks ago, but with new insight with the article I found.


 * One of the issue that has been bugging me was the fate of Alaska. I am pro-Russian and support Alaska (the only Russian colony). When looking back in history, Alaska was too much cost for Russia to protect and control. They feared that Alaska may be captured (particularly by Britain) in a "future conflict," and leaving Russia without compensation for the land. At the time, Britain had no intention of buying Alaska, and Russia pushed the US into buying it, leading to the US angry at the large purchase of an "icebox." I am not too sure how this would really change, but here is a timeline I really like the sound of. With the US loosing the southern states, it doesn't need to worry about reconstruction, but want to put most of their efforts in "outdoing" the Confederacy. The US would show no interest in buying Alaska, or annexing British Columbia (which should make Mike happy =D). Russia would be stuck with Alaska now, but the thought of simply abandoning the land was out of the question. In OTL, the US had no major conflict with the UK/Canada when they acquired Alaska, so I predict that the Russians would have the same outcome. Because of which, Alaska would reluctantly remain Russian, until the discovery of gold and oil in the late 19th century. With that discovery, Russian America is reborn, growing in population, and bringing more money to the Russian economy. Russia would be able to hold onto Alaska with pride, until they gain independence (more likely around the October Revolution). I already started on, and I am pretty excited on the idea. Alaska would be the most powerful or populated nation of the Americas, but it would remain Russian.

What do you think of the ideas? --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 22:46, November 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * Having read the article on the CSA and Mexico, I can see possibilities. It will have to be seriously analyzed as to where it might have turned out differently. Since our present POD occurs on Dec. 31, 1862, after US General Wright had been contacted, the new point of departure would be earlier by at least six months, perhaps in an unfortunate accident kills W.G. Moody, (or he is just captured). Would this be enough, or would Pickett have to be replaced (or never be sent) before his bumbling?


 * As for an independent Russian Alaska, I like the idea. I don't know about a significant population, though. It is quite rugged (much worse than Siberia in ways). But the idea of a free Alaska is very appealing. SouthWriter 00:20, November 23, 2010 (UTC)


 * First off, when I refered to Alaska gaining a larger population, I was referring to the fact that the Russians populated it very little prior to the purchase. As for Moody and Pickett, I do not know who those gentlemen are. I trust your decision.
 * With Alaska, you stated that it might be the "most powerful or populated" nation. I suspect that it might be more powerful than Canada, but not the CS or even a weakened US.
 * I simply read the article to which you referred, Nuke. Pickett was the first CS representative with diplomatic dealings with Mexico. After his bumbling there was still a chance until Moody (a journalist) leaked stolen correspondence to the US military. All that was in 1861-62. Our present POD is December 31, 1962. SouthWriter 02:06, November 23, 2010 (UTC)


 * Here are a few minor changes to the timeline that I think would be appropriate:


 * 1) Abraham Lincoln would not be assassinated, since the war would still have been going, and might have not wished to take time off, and there was very little point in killing him as the CSA was strong enough to keep the war in a stalemate.
 * 2) The CSA would side with Britain and France during the war early on. Hitler would possibly try to gain support by the US, but would be crushed when the Japanese bomb Pearl Harbor. Hitler never goes to the Americas.
 * 3) Since the CS would go to Germany, Wernher von Braun would have surrendered to the CS. With the CS being better suited for rockets than the north, it would be Confederates who would land on the Moon.

--NuclearVacuum (Talk) 01:09, November 23, 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) I will have to rewrite the articles on Lincoln and Andrew Johnson, but you make a good point about Lincoln. A night out may indeed have been a bad idea at the time.


 * 1) Even a bitter US would not consider an alliance with Hitler at any point in his rise to power. Since the alliances between Britain, France and the CS would have been strong, it is a given that the CS would grow in strength through the two World Wars.


 * 1) I have already written of Von Braun's being acquired by the CS - see People (Two Americas). That page also includes two astronauts from the south. I state that the space program would be a joint CS-US-Canada venture known as the North American Space Association (NASA), If we make it solely a CS enterprise, we will have to create histories for a lot of the other astronauts (mostly US miltary men) to move south with an interest in the space program there. Or invent others fully from the south.


 * Anyway, that's my thoughts. Yes, on Lincoln; Hitler never has a chance with US, and the space program works as "glue" to hold English-speaking North America together in the 1960s and 70s. SouthWriter 02:06, November 23, 2010 (UTC)


 * A North American Space Agency? I like the idea, but I believe that this NASA should form after a Moon landing, or should form with the intent that the CS lands on the Moon. I don't know, but I consider this NASA to be similar to ESA, and ESA formed by combining the European space agencies, and those respective agencies still work as their own agencies. Maybe the CS and US would work together on a mission to the Moon (prompted by US President JFK), but the formation of a joint space agency wouldn't happen until the Moon landing. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 12:42, November 23, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I brought in the Canadians as balance since "North America" includes them (and they worked together with both Americas in WW2). You are right about most of the space facilities being in the south, and the CS acquiring Von Braun, so I'm thinking that the US will be a willing partner with the CS taking the lead. I'm wondering, though, about the development of aviation in the CS. Would the Wrights have come to the Outer Banks of North Carolina, or perhaps New Jersey or even the open plains nearer home? Would the CS have instead inherited French and British technologies of the 1920's? And about the moon mission, I already have Strom Thurmond promoting the idea in 1959, with Kennedy refining it with his dream to land by 1970. A jpint effort would require a "joint name" for the project, and that is why I propose the name "North American Space Association" (not 'Agency,' though I admit I came up with "Association" only because the word escaped me at the moment).  If we leave it at "Association," we can have Canada "join" later on if you like.  Then it could become an "international agency" like the ones in our time line. SouthWriter 18:11, November 23, 2010 (UTC)

Third and final round
I am so sorry to be so vacant from this timeline, but my expertise are of Russia, the Cold War, and space. Despite the fact that I am an American and I happen to be living in the South, I know very little about the Civil War. In fact, I never even knew what the civil war was until I was in High School. But that's besides the point. I have been doing some thinking and reading, and I have more reading to do, but I want to see this timeline flourish. Here are my recent thought for the timeline.


 * The POD would be in the early 1860s. Maybe instead of looking at the conquest of the northern states, the CSA would move its efforts towards Mexico. Pro-Confederate governments would be able to form in the northern states and territories of Mexico, leading to a turn in the war. Though it does not give too much advantage for the Confederacy to come out the victor, it does give them enough power to keep the north from re-annexing the South. The war would end in the late 1860s, with the North reluctantly recognizing the Southern claims in New Mexico and Mexico.
 * With no worries on reconstruction, the United States would actually do much better in this timeline. By 1900, the US is a much more powerful nation in North America. Because the CS would have to go through a period of industrialization, it would take them much longer to rise up in power.
 * The US would remain an Isolationist nation, not having any part in World War I, and would remain out of World War II until Japan attacks Pearl Harbor. The CS would be more pro-European and assist in both wars early on. The CSA would really move their efforts in World War I after rumors of a German-Mexican alliance reached Richmond. During World War II, the US would be primarily Pacific, while the CS would be primarily in Europe and Africa.
 * After WWII, the US-CS relations would become much friendlier, but both nations would still have a rivalry during the Cold War (but on the same extent as how the US vs. Europe was during this time). The CS-US would run their own government programs during this period, so no unified space organization. It wouldn't be until the collapse of the USSR that the US-CS relations would move towards more unity. Despite the proposals for a "Reunited States of America," the ideas of a reunification seem to be unpopular by politicians.

I still need to do more reading, but this is what is on my head right now. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 01:48, March 8, 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, we are back to the 1861 political maneuvers in Mexico - right after the war was declared. The point of divergence can be the likely death of the reporter who leaked the information to the Union. From a power base in the West (additional troops and land in the new states) the war shifts there early on, resulting in a weaker Union presence in the border states. Kentuckians loyal to the Confederacy react earlier to the Union's disregard for their neutrality, and Missouri follow suit. The battles go about as we had them go in the published time line (slash and burn of Virginia needs to fail). Lincoln lives (and Johnson resigns), leaving the hardest years of the war -- the lingering border wars that get nowhere and build resentment across the states of the Union. The belated 'slash and burn starts at the Mississippi and works it's way across the farmland and cotton fields of the deep south, leading to increased resistance of free and slave alike. Finally Britain and France step in and broker an uneasy peace.


 * While the War was going on between the formerly united states, Mexico found itself being invaded by France by the forces of Napoleon III. With no intervention by the US as in our time line, the war went better for Napoleon, who actually was helped by formerly Mexican forces now loyal to the CS. After the brokered peace in the 1866, it is the battle hardened western front of the CS finally came down to broker a peace in return. As a result, the regime of Maximilian lasted until 1869, when CS troops left to help Napoleon III against Prussia. In what proved the end of the French Empire, the Confederate forces still established themselves as a staunch ally, which would not be forgotten a generation later.


 * War in Europe, following the wars in the Americas, brought on the Depression of 1873. The United States, however, had not taken part in any of the battles. Nor had it given funds to help any of the combatants. It was becoming instead focused on the rebuilding of its society after five long years of war. Without the need to occupy the southern states, and seeing no need to buy winter wasteland from Russia, US funds were practically untouched by the international money crisis. The Confederacy, by now intricately tied to Europe's affairs, saw its economy dissolve. In the course of things, though, they built a military which assured that the US would not invade them again.
 * In the last quarter of the 19th century, the US adds states made out of its territories all the way to the Pacific - and beyond. To the south, the CS develops its southern Hispanic territories into states, along with the territory of Arizona and the "Indian territory" known as Oklahoma (named by a native American in 1866) into the truly Native state of Saquoyah ahead of the eventual state in OTL. The population of the state, while not forced as in OTL, would grow due to greater pressure from the US government on the natives in the plains states. By 1900, practically the whole native population in US controlled states had fled to either the CS or Canada. Eighty Percent of those that fled ended up in what was to become Saquoyah in 1905. Tribes in Florida and North Carolina would thrive in their own lands, sharing those states as equals -- a right that comes before the freedom of slaves, in fact.


 * The US expands into the Pacific in the 1890's, as in our time line. Alliances are made with Hawaii and China, the former falling into anarchy as behind the scenes politics brings an overthrow of that Kingdom. Japan is angered as China is aided, building a trade imbalance that eventually leads to the Pacific War in the 1940's. About the same time, Spain declares war on the Americas (having not recognized the CS) after failed negotiations to keep the peace in Cuba. American naval forces in the Pacific dealing with the crisis in China end up doing battle in the Philippines and Guam. As a result, of the wars on the Pacific Rim, the US expands by its territories there. In the Caribbean, Cuba elects to join the CS after the Spanish sue for peace. As with the Philippines, Puerto Rica is "sold" as part of the Peace deal, expanding the CS southward once again.


 * As tensions grow in Europe in the second decade of the 20th century, the CS receives urgent messages from France to come to its aid once again. The CS Navy had proven itself against the Spanish, and it was hoped that it could help against the rise of a new German threat. At home, though, the Confederacy was preoccupied with an uprising south of its border in what had become a hotbed of unrest as elections went bad in Mexico. Germany had tried to play on this by proposing to the Mexican government that they invade the southwestern CS to "take back" what they had lost to them in 1861. This encoded telegram was intercepted, decoded, and relayed to the government in Richmond. As a result, the CS once again sends troops to France, reversing the damage done in 1871. Less than twenty years later, in 1939, the CS would begin sending troops in to assist France, and then England, in the building hostilities of World War II.


 * The United States, though, would stay out of WW1, and only get involved in WW 2 when Japan attacks their outposts in Pacific in 1941. With scientists lead by CS nationalized Albert Einstein develop an atomic weapon, two prototypes are created. However, they had not been needed to finish off the war in Europe, so both are used to avoid what would have proven a very costly invasion of Japan. The US becomes a reluctant power broker in the Pacific, while the CS is the spokesman for the Americas in the Atlantic. However, in what is now a world political stage, the two nations both join the United Nations. In addition, though, the North American bloc of Alaska, Canada, the US, and the CS, form a closer bond to keep the peace in the western hemisphere.


 * I had not meant to write so much, but I was "on a roll"! Anyway, I think the framework will work to make a top notch time line. I hope we can work it out to satisfaction of both ourselves and the wiki community as a whole. --SouthWriter 05:39, March 8, 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem. I get the same way. However, some differences from what I have in mind. It would be the US that detonates the bomb first, and would be the first men in space. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 13:25, March 8, 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll go along with you on the atomic bomb. After all, though there were some important facilities in the south, Einstein did actually end up in New Jersey. The so-called "Manhattan" project was stationed in Chicago, though scientists from Britain and Canada (OTL) worked on the project as well. Since it is the US that used the bombs anyway, I will admit, the bombs can be developed by the US as well. But the space race goes to the south! The CS gets the scientists out of Germany, under the command of General Eisenhower himself. Most of the resources of the space industry are in the south - Huntsville, Houston, Cape Canaveral. You yourself advocated this when I tried to make it a joint effort. Though most of the original astronauts were northerners, the space program was largely due to the efforts German scientists working in the south.
 * I don't want to be pushy, but the south leads in the space race. Russia is a pain in the Pacific but the European theater would not have gone the way it did without Germany's preoccupation with fighting the Communists. The UN, in divvying up the spoils, gave control of West Berlin in part to the CS. The German scientists were "split" between them and the CS as well. Russia, in fact has reason to actually support the US in any competition with the CS. As it is, Communist Russia becomes the sole superpower without some agreement between the Americas (with Canada and Alaska). Your original 1947 meeting of presidents is the most reasonable place for the Americas to begin working together. I don't see any reason why re-unification need even be a goal. If the spread of Communism is to be kept to Europe and Asia, then the Americas will have to work together. The space race, in a way, is the best vehicle to use for working together.


 * Think about it, would the USSR break up if there was not a joint effort among American nations to bring about the change? Co-operation has to come before that break-up or it may never happen. Communism, as it is, seems to succeed in Asia - China, Korea, and Vietnam - based on a weaker US. Without a strong presence of the CS in Western Europe, it is likely that it too would be largely Communist as well. Do we want that? Harry Truman (CS president!) called for aid to Western Europe and for an ongoing fight against rising tyrants in Eastern Europe. Could this time line's version of the Marshall Plan have been financed by the CS alone? There needs to be a building co-operation from the end of WW2 on; we must not wait until the end of the "Cold War." --SouthWriter 17:26, March 8, 2011 (UTC)

Ooops... forgot about Von Braun. Well, simple mistake. But I should also clarify myself, when I refereed to there being a rivalry between the CS and US during the cold war, I was only referring to an economic sense. Similar to how in OTL, the US and UK rivaled between each other, leading the the US winning the space race and the UK (and France) winning the supersonic race (Concorde). I am supportive of their being cooperation between the US and CS during the space race, I do believe that there should still be some divisions between the two. For instance, Southerners would land on the Moon, not cooperating Northerners. The US would also have their own space program, but it would be nothing compared to the CS.



What I am currently working on are the finalization of the border changes. I have some interesting ideas.


 * Unlike OTL, Vidaurri's request for the annexation of the Mexican state of Nuevo Leon and Coahuila would be taken more seriously (there was something mentioned about someone dying that could help this out). Eventually, the CS would follow a similar suit as the US did for Texas. Within a year (maybe 1862), NLyC and neighboring Tamaulipas would declare their secession from Mexico as the Republic of Sierra Madre. The republic would be annexed several years later, but the CS would treat the republic as a major ally. Espionage done by the Governor of Arizona on the Mexican states of Chihuahua and Sonora would have similar results, leading to pro-Confederate factions gaining control in these states. After the war ends and Mexico becomes the second empire, the CSA would purchase Baja California as part of the French assisted treaty between the new Mexican government and the CSA.
 * The Confederate Arizona Territory would be completely handed over to the CSA (as it has been for months now). The US would continue to divide their half as the New Mexico Territory and the Arizona Territory, until the two are later combined to form the unified state of New Mexico (or it may be given a different name because there is now no border between Mexico and this state [maybe Montezuma]).
 * The Union would be reluctant to relinquish and  back to Virginia. With the threat that the CS would have total control of Chesapeake Bay, the CS would reluctantly hand over control of the two counties to the US (which would later become counties of Maryland or something of that nature).
 * Despite the fact that the CS would be highly thankful and cooperative with the Indian Territory being transformed into the pro-Native State of Sequoyah, that does not mean that the CS would not take some advantages. With Texas having more support in the Confederate Congress, all of would be recognized into Texas, and maybe No Man's Land would also be annexed into Texas (both because the Missouri compromise line was no longer relevant, and slavery would end soon). So Sequoyah would be smaller than Oklahoma, but would have a larger native population than in OTL.
 * With the POD being in the early years of the war, the people of western Virginia hoping to rejoin the Union would seek a different name. Rather than wanting to be called "West Virginia" (as was the case in OTL), the people would show more interest in the name "Kanawha." This would be due to the greater role Virginia had in the more powerful CS.
 * Though I have no real solution to this problem as of yet, but I don't believe it would be wise for either the CS or US to keep their governments located so close to the border. While Richmond can be salvaged, DC would probably need to be looked at.

What do you think? --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 20:02, March 8, 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay. I see where you're coming from. The space program is run by the CS (CASA? or maybe FASA - Federal A&S Agency?), with co-operating astronauts as in the later NASA program of OTL. I already made Alan Bean, a Confederate, as the first (rather than third or fourth) man to step on the moon.


 * As the US advanced its nuclear energy program, the southern oil industry -- Texas, the former Mexican states, and the Gulf -- would drive the CS economy. I can see the oil being bigger in TTL, leading to less reliance on Middle Eastern oil. By the late twentieth century Mexico could become a major ally as well.


 * I had the same thought about the new US state of "New Mexico," though I am not so sure about naming it "Montezuma" (still no connection to the land of Montezuma). Perhaps research will yield a distinctly Native American borrowed from the culture.


 * I am going to assume that both counties were controlled by the US during the war (Wikipedia mentions that Accomack County was, but doesn't say the same for Northampton). You probably meant to say that "Even though the CS would loose total control of..." since you are mentioning CS and Virginian concessions. It makes since that the counties would go to Maryland. I think there might have been some deals to be made, though, in giving up even more of Virginia. I'm not so sure West Virginians would want to relinquish the name, though. But if so, the name of the main river through the area is a good choice. Looking at the Wikipedia article, it seems that all the major towns and cities are on the river.


 * Your annexation of the counties of Oklahoma to Texas makes sense, I guess. Texas can be just about as big as it wants!


 * As far as the capitals are concerned, I was thinking that the CS capital might be moved, but had never thought that DC should be. With over 60 years of history, and no real reason to fear the CS, DC would probably do just fine where it is. It would probably cause quite a stir within the population if it was thought that the capital "had" to be moved. It would foster zenophobia in the United States, hurting the government's case for regaining the southern states. SouthWriter 01:47, March 9, 2011 (UTC)


 * I can understand why the people wanted to name their new state "West Virginia," but I still find it odd is all (I am OCD). But either way, I do think that you are right, and the fact that the remainder of Virginia is gone to a new nation, the people of WV would be more determined than ever to keep their heritage. FASA or CASA, lolz. I will have to take a look at that. Alan Bean? Cool! Montezuma was a proposed name for a state that would have included OTL New Mexico and Arizona (excluding the ). But you are right, it seems just as useful as naming the state New Mexico. Maybe to get back at the Confederates, it would be called the "State of Lincoln." It makes some sense, after all, the Union thought of making a new state called Lincoln out of . But that is just an idea that just popped in my head. The idea for Greer County joining Texas seemed likely and reasonable by historical similarities. Michigan and Ohio went into war over, but Ohio would gain more sympathy from Congress because the were a state (while Michigan was only a territory). Though I could not find any reference that the Oklahoma Panhandle seemed interested in joining Texas in OTL, it seemed likely. I am also sure that the natives of the Indian Territory would be more than willing to give up Greer County (they didn't have any claim to the panhandle then) in exchange for a "native state." It also seemed logical that the two counties of Virginia that are not connected to any other Confederate state would be annexed by the Union. Both because the CS never held onto (at least one) of those counties. But also because if the CS held onto them, than it may freeze Union trading from Chesapeake Bay, as the Confederacy would have full control of the exit and entrance. Having a Union side and a Confederate side would help ease tensions between the two, but it may also come into existence as an agreement for the CS to keep their claim in Arizona. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 15:21, March 9, 2011 (UTC)


 * Updated: I have recently been looking up maps of the CSA to get some ideas. I have come across at least one map that shows the CS including the Indian Territory, but not the Oklahoma Panhandle. This, along with some reading I found that the first settlers there were more tied with neighboring Kansas, maybe this region would be given back to the Union during negotiations after the war. I still need to do some more reading, so I haven't made any decision yet. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 19:37, March 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * Concerning the panhandle of OTL Oklahoma, it was part of the "Texas Annexation" of 1845.
 * Concerning the panhandle of OTL Oklahoma, it was part of the "Texas Annexation" of 1845.

As you can see at the link, the panhandle folk may very well have been "connected" with Kansas, but I don't believe that the CS would cede the strip of land to the US. , even the US territory of "New Mexico" was claimed by the CS (an extention of the line between VA and NC). Consequently, I reject the notion that such a concession would be made. The "Indian Territory" might just have a better home with Saquoya. It would give a larger "buffer zone" between Texas and the US to the north. It was hard enough their having to abide with a border to the west with whatever the new US state would become. I suggest in part as an apology to the Native American tribe by the same name which the US had abused from the 1860's through the 1890's. The Diné (the People), a they call themselves, live mostly in what was the US territory of New Mexico.

Greer County (Texas) was a mapping error that identified the border of Texas in 1860 as the Red River up to the 100th meridian West. The river forks 50 miles east of this line. Texas claimed the land south of the north fork, and the US sued in the 1890's for the land north of the south fork. The US won, but that was over thirty years of "reconstructing" state's rights anyway! I'm pretty sure that the CS would have left well enough alone. SouthWriter 20:46, March 9, 2011 (UTC)


 * Now that I think about it, you are correct about the panhandle. Sequoyah will get a panhandle, as the region was primarily under native population. Greer County will be federally recognized as part of the State of Texas. Texas was one of the founding members of the CSA, and I believe would have more say in Congress. As for the state name, I am still fond of naming the state Lincoln. It makes some sense, as (again) the US was planning on naming a part of Texas Lincoln shortly after the war, and it would be a potential payback to the Confederacy, especially since they would name their claim in Baja California the "Davis Territory." I like the idea of a "State of Navajo," but I doubt that the US would be very keen on the name. We are talking about a nation who was so pissed off that the natives sided with the Confederacy, they divided their territory and called the new half "Oklahoma" (which roughly translates as the "Nation of the Red Man" in Choctaw). Like I said, I doubt the US would go for it. Sorry, just had to say it XD --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 19:42, March 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * I saw the irony of "Oklahoma" as well. And you are right about the US probably not honoring the native population with a state named in their honor.  I picture a mass relocation - if not extermination - of any native tribes that resist the US government's plans for expansion.  The natives will be fleeing (as I said above) and being treated more honorably in Candada and the CS.  All in all, I think "Lincoln" is a good name for the old "New Mexico" territory. SouthWriter 20:48, March 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * I saw the irony of "Oklahoma" as well. And you are right about the US probably not honoring the native population with a state named in their honor.  I picture a mass relocation - if not extermination - of any native tribes that resist the US government's plans for expansion.  The natives will be fleeing (as I said above) and being treated more honorably in Candada and the CS.  All in all, I think "Lincoln" is a good name for the old "New Mexico" territory. SouthWriter 20:48, March 10, 2011 (UTC)

Possible solution to the DC question
I think I have an interesting idea on how to solve the "DC Question" that I have been having for a while now. Since West Virginia, and  are pretty much agreed will go to the Union, maybe more of Virginia would go to the Union. They would be:


 * (city)
 * (city)
 * (city)
 * (city)

These parts of Virginia would be admitted into West Virginia (just as Jefferson County was in 1863), or these counties would go to Maryland (similar to Accomack and Northampton). This would make a Union-controlled zone between DC and the Confederacy. Similar to how the CS would give up on its missing counties in western Virginia, Virginia may agree to give up these counties in order for Union recognition of the CSA and its claims in the Indian Territory and Arizona. This I think would be a good idea because the Pentagon is located here, as well as other key Union settlements (at least today). The other reason I think it would be a good idea to have these counties moved to the union is that I read that the northern half of Virginia is considered politically different from the rest. This is just an idea, so don't be too hard on me. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 00:08, March 22, 2011 (UTC)


 * Good suggestion, but I am going to respectively disagree. The loss of West Virginia was an act of treachery on those Virginians' part. The Union forced the war on the Confederacy by an attempted invasion and destruction of innocent property. The Confederates merely sought to preserve a way of life that circumstances put in their way. A small portion of the population owned slaves, but the whole nation was held guilty by association. The concession with the occupied counties to Maryland was unavoidable, but the retention of the rest of Virginia is a must. The territory out west was won fairly in the war in TTL. The Union had deceitfully changed the boundary during the war. The Indian territory became just that, relieving many native Americans from what would have been a series of broken treaties and unjust treatment in the mad dash west.
 * I'm sorry, I didn't mean to me hard on you, I just put all the reasons why I disagree up front to start with. Actually, the Confederates in OTL had not only tried to take "New Mexico" but also the state of California. But in this time line, the Confederate strategy was almost totally defensive after Kentucky and Missouri were convinced to side with the CSA. Unfortunately, it looks like the District will have to shift all its holdings over to the Maryland side of the Potomac, Arlington and Alexandria are Virginian to stay. Perhaps further development of DC could be in one of the counties the Union already has from Virginia.
 * Of course, the international DMZ would have temporarily taken some of this land anyway, but I think that over time that would have been ceded back to the Confederacy when it became obvious that the Confederacy had no intention of attacking Washington, DC, anyway. It is the Union that is the aggressor nation here. History shows that with the aggression against the native population on the North American continent and in the Pacific. Let the treaty of London stand as is, and perhaps the DMZ will go away before WW2. If not, at least the honor of Virginia will be upheld. SouthWriter 02:58, March 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course, the international DMZ would have temporarily taken some of this land anyway, but I think that over time that would have been ceded back to the Confederacy when it became obvious that the Confederacy had no intention of attacking Washington, DC, anyway. It is the Union that is the aggressor nation here. History shows that with the aggression against the native population on the North American continent and in the Pacific. Let the treaty of London stand as is, and perhaps the DMZ will go away before WW2. If not, at least the honor of Virginia will be upheld. SouthWriter 02:58, March 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course, the international DMZ would have temporarily taken some of this land anyway, but I think that over time that would have been ceded back to the Confederacy when it became obvious that the Confederacy had no intention of attacking Washington, DC, anyway. It is the Union that is the aggressor nation here. History shows that with the aggression against the native population on the North American continent and in the Pacific. Let the treaty of London stand as is, and perhaps the DMZ will go away before WW2. If not, at least the honor of Virginia will be upheld. SouthWriter 02:58, March 22, 2011 (UTC)


 * No need to worry about it. I would never be upset with your input, that's the whole reason I brought it up. I also thought we got rid of the DMZ because you didn't like the idea. Well, if that still stands, I see nothing wrong with that. I also believe that the DMZ would have been lifted prior to the 20th century (maybe after the Lee Act becomes law). But either way, thank you for your input.


 * I have another interesting idea that I want to bring up, but it is not set in stone. Did you know West Virginia was not the only set of counties to try and leave the Confederacy to get back with the Union. North Alabama and East Tennessee showed some support for the Union, and even attempted to form their own pro-Union state called . Obviously (with Kentucky being in the CSA), Nickajack would stand as little chance as in OTL, but maybe another region would be more successful. Missouri and Kentucky were divided between two governments (one pro-Union, and one pro-Confederate). While I think Kentucky meets all the criteria for a Confederate state, maybe Missouri would be split between North and South. There was no proposed state out of North Missouri, but I wanted to bring this up. I think it could go completely Confederate or be split like Virginia. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 16:33, March 22, 2011 (UTC)


 * Splitting Missouri is an idea I've long had, but feared bringing it up due to what we had already written. Amazing how our minds are working alike, huh? Missouri is effectively split by the Missouri River and could very easily be divided as a compromise -- Another Missouri Compromise! St. Louis and Jefferson City (captial) are on the south banks with Columbia and St. Joseph are in the north and either one could be the capital of that state. Kansas City is a problem, being a twin city with Kansas City Kansas. Perhaps, to avoid confusion, the KC subburb of Independence could replace it on the map, with KC taking on the name of Independence (a stretch, maybe, but somehow appropriate). SouthWriter 18:19, March 22, 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, that is very strange! The main reason I thought of it now was that I feel that Missouri is too far north (being the northernmost region of the CSA). Spitting it would make it smaller, and make more room for the US to "move" east to west (I said the same thing with West Virginia, which also would have made the CS too far north had it remained). I need to do some more reading, but I do agree that the capital of Jefferson and "Kansas City" should go to the Union. Not too sure if the Missouri river should be the border line (since a river does not divide West and "East" Virginia). Maybe instead of northern Missouri seceding back to the Union, maybe it would be the southern counties of Missouri (led by Jackson's rump government in Neosho would secede from the Union to belong to the confederacy. But glad you like the idea ^_^ --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 19:01, March 22, 2011 (UTC)


 * A line across from Kentucky to Oklahoma would also work, but I think that giving up that much of the state is implausible. Missouri attempted to remain neutral and was invaded by the Union. That lead the state to join the confederacy. That there were Union sympathizers in the state is certain, but to give practically the whole state away is too much. The history of the boundary of Virginia is tied to rivers, however, along with the Mason and Dixon team of surveyors that marked out the famous "line between the north and south" - Maryland, and the capital of the nation, were "south" while Pennsylvania was "north." Rivers make natural borders, counties are sometimes made by surveyors working for the states. The counties of Virginia acted illegally and should not be taken as the norm. I disagree with you on Jefferson and Kansas city. They are "south" as I said, and should remain so. The "new state" in the north is the compromise and must take on its own capital, in my opinion.
 * Sorry to be hard-headed, but the giving up of land is not a happy notion. If we must, we can rewrite the war and the peace treaty to have the "boot" be the only portion of Missouri to go with the south. If so, though, I think "New Mexico" should be the one territory that the Confederacy actually does invade and keep. The present arrangement in TTL puts the Union too far south in comparison with Texas any way. In keeping New Mexico, the Native Americans win in the west, leaving the United States fewer natives to abuse in their "manifest destiny." (Oops, is my attitude showing?) --SouthWriter 20:03, March 22, 2011 (UTC)

Well when you put it that way, I guess the Missouri river isn't a bad idea. I guess it's better for the Union to have a little piece than no piece at all. The only dilemma is what to call this new state, or if it should be a state at all. I am putting my foot down on naming it "North Missouri" or anything that plays off of Missouri. My personal favorite for a state name would be "Pekitanoui" (the native name of the Missouri River). Can't be any worse than calling a state "Oklahoma." The Confederacy will not gain New Mexico, I am putting my foot down on that. If the US have to deal with keeping their capital on the border with the CSA, I think Texas can handle having a Union neighbor. I can be strait forward too XD --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 00:50, March 23, 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, it's not like the Union didn't use native terms to name states -- Massachusetts, Ohio, Minnesota, and the Dakotas come readily to mind. Perhaps the name would be anglicized to something like "Pekitano" (just a suggestion).  As for New Mexico (Lincoln?), that was a suggestion only if most of Missouri had to be sacrificed to the Union.  My working theory for the Confederacy is that it did not actually want to invade the Union and pulled back after the disaster at Gettysburg.  It prolonged the war, but probably saved thousands of lives.


 * And please watch where you put that foot down. I'm not wearing my steal toed shoes.  :-)


 * SouthWriter 01:42, March 23, 2011 (UTC)


 * You can't tell me who I can and can't step on! Lolz.


 * Anyway, I like the idea of anglanizing the name a little, but that is only one name. I want to read a little bit more before I make a decision. But looking at it, should "North Missouri" even be a state? Maybe it could be merged into Iowa or something, but I think that would be a pretty bad idea that the people would reject.


 * I have a few more announcements before I forget to mention them. I am going to be bringing back the Stars and Bars as the Confederate flag (I am working on a 21 star version). The main reason for this is because from what I have been reading, the Stainless Banner and Blood Stained Banner were adopted during a time when the CSA was on the loosing streak. But in TTL, they would be on the winning streak, so I think the Stars and Bars would remain. But since the Southern Cross is a major flag for the CSA, I am thinking that there would be a dual-flag system in the CSA. So both the Stars and Bars and the Southern Cross would be used (similar to how Japan is known for the Sun Flag and the Sun Flag with Rays). I will work on the flag article to better explain what I have in mind. I also have an idea (more of an irony) for the timeline involving Brazil and Argentina. Both Argentina and Brazil had a period of time when parts of the nation left to form their own nation (ironically calling themselves Confederations). Argentina was divided between the capital of Buenos Aires and the, while the northern half of Brazil attempted to leave as the . Maybe these two states would continue to exist. I know very little about them, I just wanted to bring them up as an irony for the timeline. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 17:48, March 23, 2011 (UTC)

North Missouri/South Iowa
Your mention of Iowa naturally sent me to the Wikipedia article on the state. The section about the civil war period states that though no battles were fought there, the state contributed greatly to the war effort (75,000 troops, 12,000 lives; plus a lot of produce!). Without that support, Missouri would have been lost completely. Even if the state is not allowed to annex "North Missouri," perhaps the retained land could be renamed "South Iowa." Just a thought. SouthWriter 18:32, March 23, 2011 (UTC)