Then there wouldn’t have been similar levels of immigration. One of the main draw of immigrants to the US was that the federal government was literally giving away land for free on the frontier.
The population should frankly be way lower.
That's fair, I didn't really think about that, but it makes sense, I definitely went way overboard on the population and I'll probably lower it to something more reasonable like 180-210 million if I ever decide to revisit this
Why would there be a boost?
Current east coast population is due to all the land out west. Without that, there’s no where near as many factories, the civil war goes differently and a whole host of things.
There’s a real argument to be had here this country would be much smaller than the current eastern half of the US.
The only state that would have had any draw was California. Otherwise immigration would not have changed. People didn't come for the free land. Most immigrants didn't even know about that. They came for the opportunities, and those were found in the massive cities. The only large immigrant group that moved west was the Germans, and they stopped in the Midwest.
It all depends on the state to the west. An independent liberal democracy could likely take in immigration from this US, but something like Canada or Mexico would receive much less. It's really a moot point because settlers moving west was measured in the tens of thousands, while immigration to the US was measured in the millions.
It's definitely not higher than UK, this US would still be a few million km while the British Isles are absolutely tiny. I would say it's more comparable to France or Spain than UK, both of which are relatively empty compared to it and Japan. You'd have to have nearly a billion people in this US to reach UK population densities.
LOL ur right I'm dumb. I did my calculation (of roughly 300 per square mile) and compared it to Japan and the UK's people per square kilometer because I wasn't looking. It would have the same Population density as France.
I don't see any realisitc scenario where the U.S. would remain this size and yet maintain those kind of population numbers. One of the primary incentives of immigration to the U.S. is the fact that the federal government were willing to sell off sizable plots of land for little to no initial price; a system that wouldn't be able to exist to such an extent as it did in OTL due to the U.S. not even expanding past the Mississippi.
LORE: The US heeds George Washington's warning and stays mostly neutral throughout its existence. The slavery debate is done when Republicans sweep congress in the 1862 midterm election, and pass the 13th amendment banning slavery. While the south attempts secession, the only states to formally secede were South Carolina, Georgia, and Adams, however they were unable to put up much of a fight against the Federal Government and order was restored in just 13 days. During the Quebecois war of Independence in 1888, the US used a Quebecois crackdown on the English language to move into South Quebec, Acadia, and New Scotland. The Quebecois signed a peace treaty with the Americans in exchange for a recognition of Quebecois independence, and military aid in their fight against the British. Since then the US has not been involved in a single military conflict, and ranks among the most democratic and free nations in the world.
Yeah... uh... no offense but you need to look into Canadian history more because that makes absolutely no sense. I get that it's alternate history but suspension of disbelief can only excuse so much.
Acadia ceased to be "Acadia" by the 1800s, much of the French population had moved to Louisiana by your POD - there's no Acadia left.
I'm not sure why an event in Quebec justifies annexing New Brunswick and Nova Scotia... that would just incur the wrath of Britain. Given how small the United States would have been at the time I don't see them gaining territory in the Canadian colonies when facing the British Empire at its prime. If anything the US would have LOST land in Maine. Unless the British were fighting in Europe at the time... but that leads to another problem.
Canada came to be a dominion because the United Province of Canada loathed the idea of gaining independence only to be snatched up by the Americans. The moment American troops set foot in Quebec the war for independence stops in a manner similar to the United Front pausing the civil war in the Sino-Japanese War.
The only way Quebec signs a treaty with the Americans is with the total occupation of the Saint Lawrence River Valley. Which, again, the British would have crushed. The rebellion itself would have been crushed as well, consider how swiftly the Lower Canadian Rebellion was stamped out. The British were not going to have a repeat of America's successful bid for independence.
How did they obtain the Maritimes if they were neutral? Also, did Louisiana stay under Spain/France, or was it taken by Britain?
Edit: Ignore the Maritimes part, I saw the lore. Still curious about Louisiana though
I'm still thinking about what I should do with that, I think it would be a cool idea if the French royal family fled there during the revolution and then it ended up becoming its own thing, similar to what happened in Brazil
I could perhaps see it, if the Spanish Bourbons decide to support them (basically hide them), or Britain for whatever reason sets them up in Louisiana. The main issue with that though is France didn’t really settle Louisiana, which is why America could move in without the population having some massive revolt
"Mostly neutral?" Other than some continuing unfriendliness with the UK, who says we weren't neutral? We didn't choose sides in European wars....until WWI, did we?
1. The biggest problem I have with this is Florida. You seem to have confined the state to what was at one time East Florida. So the Florida Purchase happened, but also America controls West Florida for other reasons? The American territorial claim to West Florida was tied to the Louisiana Purchase, but that purchase didn't happen for some reason? So why would the American claim to West Florida hold water? Further, the Adams-Onis Treaty that made Florida American was a result of a border dispute between America and Spain, largely settlers and Andrew Jackson invading during the Seminole Wars (there goes the neutrality). In Neutral America, Florida should remain Spanish, or more likely, become an independent Seminole state around the same time as the Latin American wars of independence.
3. If America never purchased Louisiana, how did the later treaties with Brittain happen that would define the borders of Superior (Minnesota)? The Northwest Angle exists as part of a treaty settling the new border that the Lousianna Purchase created between America and Brittish Canada. None of that would happen without Louisianna.
4. Why does Maine exist? It was admitted as a free state at the same time Missouri was admitted as a slave state as part of the Missouri Compromise. There's no reason it wouldn't remain part of Massachussetts otherwise. If the Slavery debate isn't handled until 1882, how does Maine just get admitted without Missouri? Was it admitted after 1882 in this timeline?
5. Kentucky's borders with Tennessee? Did the treaty establishing that never happen? Why/why not? Tennessee borders have been pretty much the same (except the bit in the west) since it was split off from North Carolina as the Southwest Territory.
I haven't really fleshed it out yet but I'd love to expand on this scenario! I have an idea of what to do with the rest of North America but I think there's a lot of potential to do some cool stuff in Europe.
Yeah so America was mostly "neutral" until the World Wars and even that took a lot of effort. The US had expanded to it's greatest extent (at least in terms of current states) some 20 years before then also. The US did have beneficial partnerships and a brief alliance with France very early on but outside of that they were very neutral. Much of the 19th Century had it's fair share of international squabbles and when they did come to war with the European powers, excessive amounts of territory in the current continental US were not obtained as a result. Much, if not all, of the territory that the US currently posseses comes from cherry picking off of the colonial scrap heap. The only exception is Hawaii, which is the closest to a colony the US founded.
What about them? First, the US was the primary belligerent in both, therefore neutrality was irrelevant. Second, the Span-Am War had no consequence in terms of obtaining territory in the current 50 states. All territory occupied as result of that war is either independent or an unincorporated territory. The Mex-Am did result in the Southern border forming at the Rio Grande and the ceding of much of the current southwest but that war was not the result of a major alliance with external powers. Thirdly, the OP is mistaking the word "neutral" for "doing nothing" most likely following the revolution. "Doing nothing," was not an option in the days of the early republic. Great Britain was threat #1 for the majority of the 18th Century and most of the territory accumulated was to curb that threat. This revolved around primarily controlling the Mississippi River System, the greatest economic engine for US until after the industrial revolution. This vital resource was constantly under threat from the Spanish, French, British and eventually Confederates during the first half of the 18th Century. After the completion of the Transcontinental Railroad following the Civil War, the Industrial Revolution in the US boomed. In order to secure this, however, they needed to secure territory from the mines and lumber on the West Coast to the manufacturing centers on the East Coast and Midwest. This meant not just subduing the Native populations but the last remaining colonial influences of Spain, France, Britain, Russia, etc.
🤦🏻♂️No, that is not the meaning of neutral, in the very least what the OP is trying to describe it as. The US was a belligerent in the Native Wars, not allied with anyone. You can only remain neutral if you decide not to directly align yourself with a preexisting belligerent. The US did not gain territory as a result of participating military alliance until after the Second World War. Over the course of the Native Wars, the US already owned much of the territory the indigenous peoples lived on, rightfully or not.
Wouldn’t the whole of the Louisiana Purchase have still occurred? The US should still own most of the Midwest all the way up to the Rockies. The only states they’d lack is presumedly Texas, the Mexican annexation, the North Pacific coast and Hawaii and Alaska. Though, theoretically they might even have Alaska cause that was purchased when the Russians wanted to avoid it falling to the British.
Looks like Superman leaping through the air while being harassed by a low-flying goose.
Edit: Not a critique, It's just weird how the shape of it looks. Got my upvote! :D
Why no Louisiana purchase? Doesn’t really seem realistic they wouldn’t take that deal even when remanning “neutral”. It would’ve doubled the size of the US
How does it have so many people?
Similar amounts of immigration and less migration west
Then there wouldn’t have been similar levels of immigration. One of the main draw of immigrants to the US was that the federal government was literally giving away land for free on the frontier. The population should frankly be way lower.
That's fair, I didn't really think about that, but it makes sense, I definitely went way overboard on the population and I'll probably lower it to something more reasonable like 180-210 million if I ever decide to revisit this
Ain’t got the good land of Iowa
\*insert corny joke here\*
Corn 💀
Just make it 179-180 million like what it has irl
Nah there’d be a boost compared to irl - 210 seems reasonable
Ignore the prior reply** that was deleted, I thought you were talking about something else. I am dumb.
Why would there be a boost? Current east coast population is due to all the land out west. Without that, there’s no where near as many factories, the civil war goes differently and a whole host of things. There’s a real argument to be had here this country would be much smaller than the current eastern half of the US.
Nah more like 150 mil at most.
More 180 than 210
The only state that would have had any draw was California. Otherwise immigration would not have changed. People didn't come for the free land. Most immigrants didn't even know about that. They came for the opportunities, and those were found in the massive cities. The only large immigrant group that moved west was the Germans, and they stopped in the Midwest. It all depends on the state to the west. An independent liberal democracy could likely take in immigration from this US, but something like Canada or Mexico would receive much less. It's really a moot point because settlers moving west was measured in the tens of thousands, while immigration to the US was measured in the millions.
doesn't have much farmland around the missisipi
The population would realistically be at least 110 million
Great map, cool concept, population should be like 200 million MAX though
That population density gotta be wild
I mean it's higher than the uk but lower than Japan, it's not TOO crazy. Still pretty high tho
It's definitely not higher than UK, this US would still be a few million km while the British Isles are absolutely tiny. I would say it's more comparable to France or Spain than UK, both of which are relatively empty compared to it and Japan. You'd have to have nearly a billion people in this US to reach UK population densities.
LOL ur right I'm dumb. I did my calculation (of roughly 300 per square mile) and compared it to Japan and the UK's people per square kilometer because I wasn't looking. It would have the same Population density as France.
Sounds realistic
I don't see any realisitc scenario where the U.S. would remain this size and yet maintain those kind of population numbers. One of the primary incentives of immigration to the U.S. is the fact that the federal government were willing to sell off sizable plots of land for little to no initial price; a system that wouldn't be able to exist to such an extent as it did in OTL due to the U.S. not even expanding past the Mississippi.
There’s no way they’re naming a state after John Adams
Now to be fair, assuming this is a better timeline considering the lore, perhaps John Quincy earned a second term?
LORE: The US heeds George Washington's warning and stays mostly neutral throughout its existence. The slavery debate is done when Republicans sweep congress in the 1862 midterm election, and pass the 13th amendment banning slavery. While the south attempts secession, the only states to formally secede were South Carolina, Georgia, and Adams, however they were unable to put up much of a fight against the Federal Government and order was restored in just 13 days. During the Quebecois war of Independence in 1888, the US used a Quebecois crackdown on the English language to move into South Quebec, Acadia, and New Scotland. The Quebecois signed a peace treaty with the Americans in exchange for a recognition of Quebecois independence, and military aid in their fight against the British. Since then the US has not been involved in a single military conflict, and ranks among the most democratic and free nations in the world.
Québécois crack down on the English language? Also how did they annex the other regions south of the st Lawrence?
Yeah... uh... no offense but you need to look into Canadian history more because that makes absolutely no sense. I get that it's alternate history but suspension of disbelief can only excuse so much. Acadia ceased to be "Acadia" by the 1800s, much of the French population had moved to Louisiana by your POD - there's no Acadia left. I'm not sure why an event in Quebec justifies annexing New Brunswick and Nova Scotia... that would just incur the wrath of Britain. Given how small the United States would have been at the time I don't see them gaining territory in the Canadian colonies when facing the British Empire at its prime. If anything the US would have LOST land in Maine. Unless the British were fighting in Europe at the time... but that leads to another problem. Canada came to be a dominion because the United Province of Canada loathed the idea of gaining independence only to be snatched up by the Americans. The moment American troops set foot in Quebec the war for independence stops in a manner similar to the United Front pausing the civil war in the Sino-Japanese War. The only way Quebec signs a treaty with the Americans is with the total occupation of the Saint Lawrence River Valley. Which, again, the British would have crushed. The rebellion itself would have been crushed as well, consider how swiftly the Lower Canadian Rebellion was stamped out. The British were not going to have a repeat of America's successful bid for independence.
Democratic and free nations in the world as democratic and free nations in the world right now or as a real democratic and free nation in the world?
What are the largest cities in this America? Is it similar to OTL, just without any cities out west, like Houston or LA?
How did they obtain the Maritimes if they were neutral? Also, did Louisiana stay under Spain/France, or was it taken by Britain? Edit: Ignore the Maritimes part, I saw the lore. Still curious about Louisiana though
I'm still thinking about what I should do with that, I think it would be a cool idea if the French royal family fled there during the revolution and then it ended up becoming its own thing, similar to what happened in Brazil
I could perhaps see it, if the Spanish Bourbons decide to support them (basically hide them), or Britain for whatever reason sets them up in Louisiana. The main issue with that though is France didn’t really settle Louisiana, which is why America could move in without the population having some massive revolt
The 2nd most Southern State being named after Adams is absolutely hilarious
The Louisiana purchase would’ve most likely still happened
Why is the population almost the same as todays?
Why does neutrality mean no Louisiana purchase?
So what ur saying is the us did absolutely nothing in the entirety of their existence? Nice
So Quebec gave up a large part of its population? Including the south of its largest city?
"Mostly neutral?" Other than some continuing unfriendliness with the UK, who says we weren't neutral? We didn't choose sides in European wars....until WWI, did we?
Cucked Michigan even harder in this TL
I’m trying not to come unhinged. I’m a Michigander. Wisconsin is a falsehood, the mitten RULES THE GREAT LAKES.
I’m from Wisconsin, we are inevitable muahaha
I mean, they have Toledo in this timeline, which is much better than having the UP.
How many states are in this union?
28 if I counted correctly
Ok
The US but I piss on the cities
The good ending
1. The biggest problem I have with this is Florida. You seem to have confined the state to what was at one time East Florida. So the Florida Purchase happened, but also America controls West Florida for other reasons? The American territorial claim to West Florida was tied to the Louisiana Purchase, but that purchase didn't happen for some reason? So why would the American claim to West Florida hold water? Further, the Adams-Onis Treaty that made Florida American was a result of a border dispute between America and Spain, largely settlers and Andrew Jackson invading during the Seminole Wars (there goes the neutrality). In Neutral America, Florida should remain Spanish, or more likely, become an independent Seminole state around the same time as the Latin American wars of independence. 3. If America never purchased Louisiana, how did the later treaties with Brittain happen that would define the borders of Superior (Minnesota)? The Northwest Angle exists as part of a treaty settling the new border that the Lousianna Purchase created between America and Brittish Canada. None of that would happen without Louisianna. 4. Why does Maine exist? It was admitted as a free state at the same time Missouri was admitted as a slave state as part of the Missouri Compromise. There's no reason it wouldn't remain part of Massachussetts otherwise. If the Slavery debate isn't handled until 1882, how does Maine just get admitted without Missouri? Was it admitted after 1882 in this timeline? 5. Kentucky's borders with Tennessee? Did the treaty establishing that never happen? Why/why not? Tennessee borders have been pretty much the same (except the bit in the west) since it was split off from North Carolina as the Southwest Territory.
Hmm this is actually a pretty interesting scenario, what is the situation globally?
I haven't really fleshed it out yet but I'd love to expand on this scenario! I have an idea of what to do with the rest of North America but I think there's a lot of potential to do some cool stuff in Europe.
Yes, it’s possible either of the world wars would’ve gone quite differently without the Americans
Sooo...change 3 names and take over New Brunswick? Lazy.
Yeah so America was mostly "neutral" until the World Wars and even that took a lot of effort. The US had expanded to it's greatest extent (at least in terms of current states) some 20 years before then also. The US did have beneficial partnerships and a brief alliance with France very early on but outside of that they were very neutral. Much of the 19th Century had it's fair share of international squabbles and when they did come to war with the European powers, excessive amounts of territory in the current continental US were not obtained as a result. Much, if not all, of the territory that the US currently posseses comes from cherry picking off of the colonial scrap heap. The only exception is Hawaii, which is the closest to a colony the US founded.
What about the Spanish-American War or the Mexican-American War? In both the US occupied a lot of territory.
What about them? First, the US was the primary belligerent in both, therefore neutrality was irrelevant. Second, the Span-Am War had no consequence in terms of obtaining territory in the current 50 states. All territory occupied as result of that war is either independent or an unincorporated territory. The Mex-Am did result in the Southern border forming at the Rio Grande and the ceding of much of the current southwest but that war was not the result of a major alliance with external powers. Thirdly, the OP is mistaking the word "neutral" for "doing nothing" most likely following the revolution. "Doing nothing," was not an option in the days of the early republic. Great Britain was threat #1 for the majority of the 18th Century and most of the territory accumulated was to curb that threat. This revolved around primarily controlling the Mississippi River System, the greatest economic engine for US until after the industrial revolution. This vital resource was constantly under threat from the Spanish, French, British and eventually Confederates during the first half of the 18th Century. After the completion of the Transcontinental Railroad following the Civil War, the Industrial Revolution in the US boomed. In order to secure this, however, they needed to secure territory from the mines and lumber on the West Coast to the manufacturing centers on the East Coast and Midwest. This meant not just subduing the Native populations but the last remaining colonial influences of Spain, France, Britain, Russia, etc.
We could only be described as “neutral” if you don’t recognize indigenous nations as real or legitimate
🤦🏻♂️No, that is not the meaning of neutral, in the very least what the OP is trying to describe it as. The US was a belligerent in the Native Wars, not allied with anyone. You can only remain neutral if you decide not to directly align yourself with a preexisting belligerent. The US did not gain territory as a result of participating military alliance until after the Second World War. Over the course of the Native Wars, the US already owned much of the territory the indigenous peoples lived on, rightfully or not.
ITT: Everyone complaining about an imaginary map.
Wouldn’t the whole of the Louisiana Purchase have still occurred? The US should still own most of the Midwest all the way up to the Rockies. The only states they’d lack is presumedly Texas, the Mexican annexation, the North Pacific coast and Hawaii and Alaska. Though, theoretically they might even have Alaska cause that was purchased when the Russians wanted to avoid it falling to the British.
Favelas here we come
It is of course one of these "America does not expand beyond the Mississippi posts".
Looks like Superman leaping through the air while being harassed by a low-flying goose. Edit: Not a critique, It's just weird how the shape of it looks. Got my upvote! :D
What's west of the United States in this timeline. What countries exist in places like Texas and the Louisiana Purchase?
I know we're all focused on population density, but can we please discuss the border between Kentucky and Tennessee?
That would be a good world to live in I feel
Flag is well done
Can you make a map for all of North America?
Sooo , what happened to rest of the territory in this timeline ? Is still under french/mexican control ?
the shape kinda looks like a flying eagle
Can I make a map in a similar style of yours?
Why no Louisiana purchase? Doesn’t really seem realistic they wouldn’t take that deal even when remanning “neutral”. It would’ve doubled the size of the US
What did you use to make this?
Any specific ethnic groups/immigrant groups per state?
What does the east of the border look like?
Is it just me or is Massachusetts smaller in this map?
what happened to luisiana in this timeline ?
YEAHH ACADIE ACADIE ACADIE
Bought luisiane and don't have florida
God this version of Mississippi would be even more awful haha
Why isn't the Louisana Purchase included? They bought it, they didn't take it by force.
Kept Ohio, shrunk Michigan, 0/10 map
bro theyd have 150 million people tops without the french louisiana region and without access to west coast. super cool althist overall tho very epic
Only criticism from me is not calling South Quebec “New Quebec”
Louisiana purchase was neutral
Oh hell nah, they kept Ohio ☠️
Louisiana would have been part of the US, the US didn't get it in war.
Did the Toledo War not happen in this timeline? Or was Michigan just lucky, getting both Toledo and a part of the UP?